Loading...
Agenda 03/27/2014 SCITYOF's POIMlle Valle Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. March 27, 2014 - 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 13, 2014 Minutes VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Planning Commission Findings - 2014 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments. B. Study Session— Shoreline Master Plan Draft Regulations, Administrative Provisions X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, March 13,2014 Chair Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson John Hohman,Community Development Director Christina Carlsen Cary Driskell,City Attorney Bob McCaslin Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Steve Neill Marty Palaniuk, Planner Mike Phillips Sean Messner, Sr. Traffic Chris Sneider Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Joe Stoy Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the March 13, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed seven to zero. Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the February 27, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed seven to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Continued Public Hearing—Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Chair Stoy opened the commission business stating this is a continued public hearing regarding the City's 2014 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Vice-Chair Carlsen read the rules for the public hearing. Chair Stoy stated the Commission would continue to take testimony after an update from staff. Planning Manager Scott Kuhta gave an update on the public hearing. Testimony had been heard for CPA-01, 02 and 03-14 but not for CPA-04 through 10-14. Written comments had been received and distributed right up until this meeting. Mr. Kuhta explained the role of the Planning Commission as a recommending body and volunteers, of staff and of City Council. He discussed the rules of procedure in regard to organization of speaking times. Chair Stoy said the Commission had received considerable testimony and comments regarding CPA-03-14 and the issues heard so far were: • Traffic, possible increase in crime, increase in population, impact to schools, impacts to emergency services,noise. The Chair asked people to try and only bring forward new issues regarding this amendment. Chair Stoy said the Commission would be allowing the applicant time at the end of CPA-03- 14 to respond to all comments and questions which had arisen during testimony. Chair Stoy asked for testimony for CPA-01-14: a City initiated map amendment located near Mirabeau Park. Request to change from Parks and Open Space to Mixed Use Center. None was offered. 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 20 Chair Stoy asked for testimony for CPA-02-14: a privately initiated map amendment located near Trent and Bradley Road. A request to change from Low Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. Mark Shollenberger, 2205 N Bradley: Mr. Shollenberger asked if a traffic study had been done for the SCRAPS project. He said the previous Wednesday three 85-foot semi-trucks came and parked on Bradley Road while forklifts unloaded them for SCRAPS. He said this activity is illegal,he has filed complaints with the police department,but they cannot respond in time. He had a suggestion to eliminate the access from Bradley Road so the traffic cannot come through the neighborhood. There was no one else who wished to testify for CPA-02-14. Chair Stoy asked for testimony for CPA-03-14: a privately initiated map amendment located at the corner of Sprague Avenue and Barker Road. The request is to change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. Miranda Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway: Ms. Colombo stated she was an opponent. Ms. Colombo read a poem she had written "They say home is where the heart is, I would have to agree. But I think your heart feels so much more than just your home. It also feels your neighborhood. My family's heart started here in this place. Mine is very deep here. In ways the mind does not fully comprehend or understand. Taking it away would rip a hole in the heart, would rip a hole in me. One that won't repair itself. And if this building does go up, my family will surely leave. My heart displaced, longing for the place I belong. The place the building destroyed. So I beg of you, I beg. Leave this land, let it be. Save my heart and save me. The audience applauded, Chair Stoy asked the audience to hold their applause. Dallas Williams, 18903 E. Sprague Avenue: Mr. Williams said that page 6 of the staff report states: HP-1.6: Encourage the development of housing for seniors and other special populations along transit corridors and within walking distance of shopping and medical facilities. Mr. Williams wanted to know what 80 year old would walk to what medical facility close to the neighborhood. The closest is on the other side of Sullivan or Liberty Lake. He said this was flawed in itself. . Several people who signed the sign-in sheet declined to speak, but spoke from the audience stating they were against the proposal but did not want to come to the podium. Sean Barnes, 17710 E Broadway Avenue: Mr. Barnes stated he and his wife were the previous owners of the proposed parcel. The plans for the property are unacceptable to them. He felt there should already be a traffic light at the intersection. Mr. Barnes was concerned how the hay trucks would be able to get up and down the road. The response time for the fire dept. would be impacted with the increase in traffic and population. The crime would increase with low income apartments. Krista Larsen, 18905 E 2°' Avenue: Ms. Larsen stated she wanted to give the School District's perspective on the proposal. She is a high school teacher at the Central Valley High School(CVHS). She said she has taught there for 15 years and is a product of the District as well. She said the City and the School District have prided themselves on their school system, education and public safety. She believed the proposal was going against those aspects. Children in the area have a hard time attending their home schools. Greenacres Middle School is bussing children to other schools and already has portables for extra rooms. She currently is teaching on a cart, not a room and there are four portables currently at CVHS. She said there would be an increase in crime. She had felt it when development near 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 20 her home had opened up a street between 2nd Avenue and Sprague. She feels the proposal does not fit the area. She begs for her children for the Commission to reconsider the proposal. City Attorney Cary Driskell asked Ms. Larsen for clarification, if she was speaking on behalf of the School District. She said no,but from an insider viewpoint. She said she has so many students she does not know their names. Without the proper facilities to educate students it is difficult to provide an education. When you can't get a bond issue passed in order to be able to build and provide the proper tools it makes it more difficult. Then to add a renter population to the neighborhood, who does not have the motive to vote for what is necessary for the community. Ms. Larsen stated she has turned in her letter for the Commission. It was noted she wrote the letter on CVHS letterhead, but the lamer is not from the Central Valley High School or the Central Valley School District. There was an outburst of a noise and Chair Stoy reminded the audience about demonstrations and outbursts. Kathryn Cote, 7 S Barker: Ms. Cote said she was opposed to apartments because of traffic and crime. She said she spoke to a traffic engineer who told her when they need to do a traffic revision at the intersection, the City would require a sliver of her property. She said currently it feels like attempting suicide to cross Barker just to get her mail. She would not like to have any of her property taken, for any reason. It used to feel like living in the country and now it was starting to feel like Portland where she moved from. She is totally against apartments. She does not want a roundabout on the corner either. Cathy Scott, 19004 E Nixon: Ms. Scott thanked the Commissioners for their service; she did not know they were volunteers. Ms. Scott said Ms. Barlow had commented previously that the School District had been contacted about the proposal. Ms. Scott said she called the School District and they told her they were unaware of the proposal. She said the School District told her they could quote them as saying "this was a really bad idea." The schools are overflowing already. Greenacres Middle School is bussing kids to other schools. This is not the only development Viking Homes has in the area. There is another which would add approximately 70 homes to the area. Greenacres Elementary is one of the best in the state. ': Ms. Scott said her area is a snow plow priority 4 in the City. In the last two years they have not seen a snow plow in their area once. Where would everyone in the apartment building park with the extra cars they would have. There would be no place for the children to play. She felt the Commission had a responsibly to the citizens, to the developer and to the City, she understood that. But the children were the most important things and it was the Commission's responsibility to protect the children first. Planning Manager Kuhta asked to respond regarding the School District notice. The School District was notified at the time of the SEPA Checklist distribution. However, staff would research who specifically they needed to contact in regard to these notices to make sure they were more aware of what the notices were and what they meant. Myra McElwain. 16 N Arties Court: Ms. McElwain said she is against this proposal. She said she does not think enough notice was given, she did not become aware until Sean Barnes told her about it. She said she heard it was in the paper but she doesn't get it so she doesn't feel that is enough. She feels there will be no place for the people in the apartments to park. It is an older, retired, farming neighborhood. She wanted the Commission to consider what would happen if 300 to 400 low income people were added to the area. She asked where the snow would go. She had heard there would be a roundabout put in at the intersection and it would not work there. She did know that low income people needed a place to live, but that 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 20 many in one place, she was opposed to it. She did not want that many people and kids in that small of an area. She would be fine with ten houses. Deb Farnsworth, 18808 E Sprague Avenue: Ms. Farnsworth said she and her husband decided to retire at this address in a rural area with few houses. With development coming across the street, they are considering moving to Idaho. Since they have moved in seven years ago, many homes have been built in the area. She works with single parents who are low income families and the average is three children per household, which is a greater number than people are talking about now. They currently have people using their yard as a turnaround with a circular driveway, but that many people in the apartment complex will have no place to park and will use the streets for overflow. Ms.Farnsworth said she spoke to the property buyer and she said he lied to her when she asked what would be going in. Her understanding is it would be single family homes,not low income housing or apartments. Zita Smith, 16 N Harmony Road: Ms. Smith said it has always been a peaceful quiet neighborhood. It has been a rural community since they moved in. She said the staff report talks about arterial street system and public transit system. She said Barker is a narrow two- lane road with no curbs, sidewalks or cross walks and it is not an arterial meant for heavy traffic. Barker is the only access road to the freeway between Sullivan and Harvard Roads. It is going to create a lot of traffic problems especially at peak times. She mentioned all of the apartments going in at Sullivan, Conklin, on Broadway across from Kohl's, new housing going in at 8th, at Hodges, at Henry Road. Barker is the only way all these people can get to the freeway. She said medical facilities are too far away. There would be no merit or complement for our single family residential area to have a three-story apartment to look at every day. We voted for members of the City Council to represent the people, not the big business or developers. We do not want apartments there. Clyde Smith, 16 N Harmony Road: Mr. Smith said he was appalled by "this"report. (Mr. Smith held up a report which had Whipple Engineering Consultants letterhead on it.) He said he thought the report should have been non-partisan and all for the developer. The report did not address any of the concerns mentioned. He said page 3, item II should have merit and value for the community as a whole, the only thing this will have value for will be the builder and the developer. Mr. Smith made a reference that the proposal was possible because it was next to another parcel which was already high density, and implied the parcel already designated could be developed with apartments because apartments would be on the proposed parcel, ending up with 200 apartments. Mr. Smith said the report referred to parcel number 55173.1018 would become an island of low density, he said of course it would, because that is the type of development which is in the area. He said the island would really be the apartments. The report says the map amendment should not affect the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Smith felt the change most certainly would affect it. Mr. Smith asked if a 7-11 qualified as a shopping center. The audience laughed and Chair Stoy asked for order from the audience. Mr. Smith said he went to the Sherriff s office to ask about the crime which would come with an apartment complex. He said the response given to him was if you build it they will come,it is the nature of the beast. Diana Smith, 810 S. Joel Road: Ms. Smith said she had emailed the Commission and she was against the proposal. She said she knows there are many other places which have open vacancies, Barker on the other side of the freeway, Sullivan and 4th Avenue, Conklin and Broadway across from Kohl's, all which always have vacancy signs. She said she agreed with everyone about the traffic. She said it has increased since the opening of Chapman Road from the Morningside development. She mentioned she has friends who live in the development who have commented to her about how much faster it is for them to go up Barker than Sullivan to get to the freeway. She said the School District owns property south 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 20 of Twin Bridges where they have plans for a high school, and Barker would be the access route for that school; this would just make the traffic for the school worse. George Kovacs, 19122 E Valleyway: Mr. Kovacs said he understood the mobile home park was next to the high density residential parcel, and designated medium density residential. He wondered what would keep someone from coming in and taking the mobile home park out and putting in higher density residential because it is `already there.' Mr. Kovacs wondered if the City was going to pay for the improvements which would be required, commenting that the streets are not plowed now. Mr. Kovacs said Greenacres Elementary is in the top 5% in the state and some of the neighborhood kids can't go there. He said the traffic gets off the freeway at Barker so they can avoid the exit at Liberty Lake. He is concerned the crime will increase and the police will not be able to respond in time. He said he takes his children to school because he will not allow them to walk, it isn't safe for them. He asked the Commission to come out and look at the traffic at peak hours. Dale Poffenroth, 19905 E 8th Avenue: Mr. Poffenroth said both Pines and Sullivan are five lanes north-south. Barker is two lanes north-south. He wasn't sure it can be changed now without taking peoples' property. He named six developments which have gone in recently and the road has not changed. Sunday morning if you are not going the same direction as the traffic from the church on the corner, you can't get anywhere else. He wanted to know how to make the developer pay for the road changes, and could it be done without neighbors having to give up their yards. He said a comprehensive traffic planning study needed to be done so fire,police and the people who live there now can get into the neighborhood. Deb Johnson, 110 N Harmony Road: Ms. Johnson said she is a special needs bus driver for the Central Valley School District (CVSD). She said she is raising her grandchildren at her address and they attend CVSD schools in the area. She said she was not speaking for the District, but as a driver and a parent raising children. Ms. Johnson said she travels through the intersection at Sprague and Barker in her personal vehicle four times a day and in her school bus eight times a day. She said Barker is a two-lane, unimproved road, incapable of handling any more traffic, not to mention the Barker Bridge. The area is meant for single family homes not apartments. She mentioned the kindergartens of Greenacres and Liberty Lake Elementary schools both bus their kindergarteners to the Barker Center. The Barker High School was moved to Broadway to accommodate them. Overloading at Greenacres Middle School requires that many children are bused to other middle schools because there is no room. She also believes the crime will increase. Jackie Williams, 18903 E Sprague Avenue: Ms. Williams referred to the island property and likened it to Mary's House at Sacred Heart Hospital. Ms. Williams thanked her neighbors for showing their commitment to their community and asked the Commission to reject the proposal and show their commitment to the residents. Chris Harvey, 19205 E Nixon: Mr. Harvey said by listening to everyone,he could only see the developer would be the only one who would benefit. Mr. Harvey said he looked up 52 related studies of the impact of low income multifamily housing on residential surroundings. He shared that approximately 12% of the studies showed little impact, 3% showed positive impact, 85% showed a decreased in property values and an increase in crime. Mr. Harvey stated he was opposed to the proposal. Scott Jutte, 18722 E Sprague Avenue: Mr. Jutte stated when he lived in Snohomish, Washington, a proposed development for low income families was proposed. Two years after it had been built it was in disrepair. Mr. Jutte said he knows this development will lower his property values. He wanted to know why it was fair for Viking homes to profit and 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 20 his property value to decrease. Mr. Jutte asked who would be paying him back his decrease in property value. Some people left the meeting and a very young man yelled as he left, `please don't do this, I don't want to move." Bruce Gunn, 318 N Hodges Road: Mr. Gunn said he appreciated that the Commissioners are volunteers. Mr. Gunn asked the Commission to be accountable and for them to ask the Council to be accountable. He found the fact that the property surrounding the neighborhood to the north and west to be of a higher density and could be developed similar to what is being proposed,to be abhorred. Mr. Gunn said this would not only change the neighborhood but the entire valley. It is wrong to be able to take a 30-foot easement to add more apartments. Mr. Gunn said no one in the room wanted this proposal and that young man leaving the room was begging. Mr. Gunn turned to address the audience and Chair Stoy asked Mr. Gunn to only address the Commission. Mr. Gunn said if you asked the group of people the same thing it would be a chorus singing no. Jim Johnson, 1315 S Barker Road: Mr. Johnson said he served on a Planning Commission for six years in Arizona. He said one of your jobs is to take the heat for the City Council. The Planning Department also answers to the City Council. Mr. Johnson said for an appeal, there would need to a violation of the process, which he felt the audience should know. Mr. Johnson said after the Planning Commission, he served on a school board. He shared that often the cities and school districts do not talk. He feels this is a big change to the area, and should require more than just a letter in the mail, but to have a meeting with the right person. School capacity is a big issue. He appreciates the work the Commission is doing. Rosemarie Adamson, 18507 E 5th Avenue: Ms. Adamson said when she moved into the area five years ago, there was concern regarding bussing her children because of overcrowding at that time. She said when she went to pick up her children from the elementary school in the past two days, the police had been there asking people to move while parked waiting to pick up a child. There is no place to park while trying to pick up a child from the elementary school. She also said she has a granddaughter who is bussing to the kindergarten center. She agrees with other things voiced regarding the traffic. She feels 4 it would be unfair for her neighbors to have to give up their property in order to have to put in the traffic device at the corner in order to accommodate the project. She is opposed to the proposal. Elizabeth Fisher, 19222 E 6th Avenue: Ms.Fisher stated she was opposed to the proposal. Travis Pierce, 18611 E Turtle Creek Lane: Mr. Pierce said the traffic is self-evident how bad it is. Mr. Pierce said previously he lived on the other side of the freeway and noted the difference in traffic is drastic. Mr. Pierce said it isn't that the proposal is going to dump however many more cars into traffic, it is going to dump the cars right into the worst, most congested part of the road. Mr. Pierce said he has spoken to several people who do not think this is a good idea and he believes there are ten people per person who did not bother to show up who feel the same way. Jayme Pesnell, 18613 E 11th Avenue: Ms. Pesnell said she is opposed to the proposal, mainly because of the schools. Her daughter currently attends Greenacres Middle School. She shared that Mr. McCaslin had been her daughter's kindergarten teacher. She is opposed for the traffic as well. Timothy Lutt, 18816 E 11th Avenue: Mr. Lutt wanted asked two rhetorical questions: How many of the Commissioners lived near Barker and Sprague and how many had lived in low income housing. He felt if the Commissioners lived near Barker and Sprague,they would not 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 20 be considering this proposal. Mr. Lutt said he has lived in low income housing and it breeds low income. There is no incentive to increase skills, no incentive to get a better job, no respect for property, no respect for neighbors. The property will breed a mentality which homeowners do not have. Mr. Lutt said he completely opposes this proposal. He shared that he feels money talks in Spokane Valley. Based on that,he feels the proposal will pass, and his property value will decrease. He would like to know who will pay him for his decreased property value. He said only two entities will benefit from this proposal, it would not be the neighbors,it would be Viking Homes and the Spokane Valley City Council. William Debenna, 19116 E Riverside: Mr. Debenna wanted to comment regarding roundabouts. He feels they are very dangerous. He feels people do not understand how they are supposed to be used and they try and drive through them too fast. He said he had spoken to a friend who builds roundabouts and they need 10-feet of property from homeowners. His feeling is only a traffic light would work there, with sidewalks for the kids, and four lanes. He disputed the description of the roads as main roads instead describing them as `back country roads' which people are still driving on. Mr. Debenna said a traffic device also belongs where Barker turns toward Liberty Lake. He feels it is inappropriate to put apartments on the proposed parcel. To change it for money is a ridiculous reason. Jackie Stalinga, 19025 E Riverside: Ms. Stalinga said she wanted to discuss the children who would be living in the apartment complex. She was concerned over the lack of places to play,green spaces, and par f children are idle, they will get into mischief, which will lead to crime. Skylar Belfry, 18807 E 2°' Avenue: Mr. Belfry has lived 24 years at his address, and in the last ten to twelve years the changes in the neighborhood have restricted the ability to be able to roam the neighborhood as freely as before. The children cannot be left alone to play in the front yards any longer. Mr. Belfry is a bike rider, it is a hassle to ride your bike on the road without being honked at, yelled at, or pushed off the road. Mr. Belfry is a teacher at CVHS and echoed Ms. Larson's comments regarding the portables and crowding at the high school. Sherman Belfry, 18807 E. 2°a Avenue: Mr. Belfry said he is the younger brother to the earlier Mr. Belfry and he had attended Greenacres Middle School. When he was middle school age, he was unable to attend Greenacres middle school and was bussed to Evergreen Middle School. His route would take him from Evergreen Middle School to Adams Elementary to pick up and deliver those kids, then to Greenacres Middle School to pick up, then he would wait for his drop off. He would arrive home approximately one and a half hours after school had gotten out. He has also seen an increase in crime having had property stolen from his home. Lena Fuller, 19116 E Riverside Avenue: Ms. Fuller said when she bought her home she was very proud to be a homeowner, and she can't believe the idea is being entertained to put low income housing in this area. She believes the property values will decrease. Marian Moseman, 630 S Michigan: Ms. Moseman said no one has addressed the construction company. Ms. Moseman stated she purchased a Viking home eight years ago and is currently in discussions with the City because of issues in and around her and her neighbors' homes. She stated the sidewalks are deteriorating, the houses are sinking, the yards are having compaction issues. Her concern is allowing the same company to construct 100 low income apartments. She said the company will not back their guarantees. When she has requested that Viking come and fix a problem,they waited until after the warranty period passed and then responded by saying they can no longer help. Ms Moseman said she had contacted the City about the planning, the construction, the inspections and sign-offs. She said the City told her after sign-offs no one is responsible. Ms. Moseman said the neighbors 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 20 have an investment in their property. She said she moved to the area for her and for her nine great-grandchildren, and she is concerned they will not be able to attend the neighborhood schools. She said there has not been snow plowed in the area in two years. The year the City received 36 inches of snow, there was a two fire trucks and an ambulance stuck in the streets for five and a half hours. When the fire department needed more fire trucks, she wondered why, if a truck could sit in the street for that long. Police had a stand-off up the street for eight hours, it turned out to be drugs, they towed all the cars away and excused the woman off because they could not be taken to court. These are the kinds of things we would be facing. The City does not have enough money to enforce what you are responsible for now, how will you pay for more. She feels it will be pushed off onto the taxpayers and they pay for more than their share now for what they receive in return. She said she is opposed and hopes the Commission will listen to the people and give them what they want. There was an outburst of applause and Chair Stoy asked for order. Stephanie Colombo, 18912 E Valleyway Avenue: Ms. Colombo stated she was a low income homeowner, and does not have anything against low income people. When she was "there" one day, she asked "how do you make it." She said the response from the person at the Welfare Department was "if you had another kid that would help you." Ms. Colombo stated she felt if Welfare was telling her to do it,then they would be telling other people to do it to receive housing benefits to live there. So she believes the schools are just going to be more crowded. Paul Bonner, 19224 E 2°d Avenue: Mr. Bonner said he went to enroll his daughter in school a couple of months ago. He was told his daughter will be bused to another school. He said there is no place for the kids in the schools, there is no infrastructure; it isn't time yet. Donna Leestma, 710 S Beige Lane: Ms. Leestma said the new apartments on Conklin are barely finished and she doubts they are full. Near Flora along the river,the apartments there are not completed yet and are not full. There are many in the area which are being built or have space. She said there are adequate homes for people to live in at this time. She feels the schools are too full. Barker is not wide enough. The neighborhood was told Barker would be widened when the sewer went in and it wasn't, there wasn't enough money. There is no 4 place for the kids to ride. There used to be a path the kids could ride on which went to Liberty Lake, now it has signs which say keep off. There is no more room for growth at this time. Until schools can handle more and the roads are improved,how can you put more people into our little tiny area. Sean Kim, 18321 E 9th Avenue: Mr. Kim said he was opposed to the proposal. Mr. Kim said he moved into their home five months ago, and they live close enough for their kids to walk to school, but they have to be bused to another school. The traffic is horrible. Sundays if the church is getting out,you cannot enter Barker. This proposal is not fulfilling the needs of the community. There are plenty of apartments in the area with vacancies. This is not fulfilling the needs of the community; it is only fulfilling the greed of the developer. The Commission took a break at 7:41 p.m., and returned at 7:51 p.m. Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers: Mr. Whipple handed out a memo for the Commission. Mr. Whipple said he would like to address the low income innuendo about the apartments. He said these are not low income apartments, they are market rate apartments. He said in the application there was mention about young families, so if all young families are low income he apologized for the innuendo on his company's behalf. These were never proposed to be low income apartments,but market rate apartments, $800 to $1200 per month. 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 20 Mr. Whipple just wanted to make sure it was understood, if we get to the project stage, since this is just a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Whipple said he would like to address the roundabout. He said the roundabout is not of his company's proposal. It is a City design idea. Since the mid-1990's there have been Morningside, Turtle Creek, Turtle Creek South, and Twin Bridges; all of the projects which have been built in the area have continued to analyze the intersections. He understands living in the area that the traffic is a horrible thing, he is aware the City counted it recently. The level of service is between C and D, which is not considered failing by City standards. He understands the perception, and how it has changed. Chair Stoy interrupted Mr. Whipple to ask a gentleman in the audience to sit down. The gentleman wanted to dispute something Mr. Whipple said and Chair Stoy called for order and asked the man to stop speaking, explained that the man could not speak from the audience nor argue with Mr. Whipple. Something someone from the audience said was unclear. Mr. Whipple responded to something the gentleman said "if that's in the staff report, then that's a typo and should never have been." Then the audience erupted with disagreement and the Chair called for order, more than once. Mr. Whipple said they looked at their application, the Commission can look in the City's files, and there is nothing in the applicant's specific application which denotes low income. If it made it into the staff report, he does not know how that happened but it was not part of the application. He wanted to make sure this was clear to the Commission. The audience outburst again, and Vice-Chair Carlsen warned anyone speaking from the floor again would be removed. Mr. Whipple said the property to the north, which he felt Ms. Barlow had cleared up at the February 27, 2014 meeting, is not owned by Viking. He said Ms. Barlow has spoken to that property owner. The property is zoned MF-2 and the manufactured home park is zoned MF- 1, and these were requests made by that property owner, and done when the manufactured home park was created and it is something which is there on purpose. It is one of the deciding factors as it relates to this proposal as to the continuation of the MF-2 for your deliberations. It was not done on a whim, it was done purposefully. If people happen to live next to it and they are not aware of the zoning, he said he does feel for them but it is there. Just because what you see currently is not what the property is zoned, it is what it is. Mr. Whipple said the concept of Growth Management sometimes falls by the wayside. The Comp Plan the City of Spokane Valley has is an extension of the Growth Management Act as required by the State of Washington under which the City opted into. Annually the City is allowed to do updates such as this. There are a series of standards included in the Comp Plan which an applicant must meet in order to apply for an update. Growth Management is an extension of the built environment within a confined boundary. Mr. Whipple said when he has done public meetings, and he has done many, he has tried to inform people that Growth Management is, in his opinion, the vertical integration of the built environment over time because of the limits of the boundary. The City has to figure out how many people are going to live here, and they have to fit within the boundary. Mr.Whipple said the land analysis Ms. Barlow did for the Commission regarding the land available for multifamily housing was one of the best done by a public servant, short of a normal in-depth GMA (Growth Management Act) land quantity analysis. Mr. Whipple said his company is routinely doing a land quantity analysis trying to figure out how many properties are available, available for sale, and can any be combined. In order to bring a proposal forward there are a series of checks they must 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 20 have before it can come before the Commission; it must be adjacent to either commercial or high density residential, has to be on an arterial road, it has to be close to services generally. It does not have to be next door to a hospital, but close to an urban service. He understands the characterization of the area is rural but it is inside the Urban Growth Boundary or Area (UGA) but it is right up against the City of Liberty Lake's border. If you look at Liberty Lake's zoning, they have Mixed Use zoning right up to the border, which is higher density allowances, along with commercial. This portion of Greenacres is going to be in flux for quite a while while it catches up with Growth Management. Regardless of the decision of the Commission or the City Council there is going to be continued pressure to allow for the increase of residents who want to live in the City of Spokane Valley. Those people have the right to have the option other than being able to afford to live in a single family house to live in a decent neighborhood. He said this is why we bring these things forward. Mr. Whipple said there is a term called environmental justice: : "not here, put it someplace else, because that is really where it belongs." He said it isn't fair to the people who would live in an apartment house, or would live in a different kind of housing community (cottage houses, small lots, big lots). Mr. Whipple did not even feel large lots would be allowed at one acre or one and a half acres in the City any longer. He said he had Mr. Kuhta put up a zoning map to remind everyone of what the zoning is currently on the surrounding properties, before his request. He said Barker is a minor arterial, based on City standards, Sprague is a collector. (there was some grumbling in the background) Mr. Whipple said the Commission and the neighbors need to understand that even if they see cows or manufactured housing, the zoning is what is underlying and the property owner could come in tomorrow and get a building permit to build without a public meeting and build within twenty feet of the property line. He just wanted to remind the Planning Commission, and he knows they have heard a lot;, there have been a lot of emotions, he does not blame them, he does understand it,but the fact is the zoning is already in the area and that won't change. He said it would affect the people across the street,but he does not have a project today. He said this Comp Plan change meets all the criteria of the rules of the City and with Growth Management. Mr. Whipple said of all the projects he has done, the only other project he has done in 4_ Spokane which has had this many people come talk against it was when he sited U-Hi. (and a voice from the audience said, `and does it make sense') He said he sited University High School at Pines and 32nd and we filled a gymnasium. (The man in the background kept speaking and Chair Stoy asked the man to be quiet.) Mr. Whipple, said he understood how that could be a big deal. He had met with Ben Small about the property the School District owns on Henry Road. He said Henry Road is intended to be the access road to the new CV site. He said he met with Mr. Small because of the Twin Bridges site next door, because it is an opportunity for the district to loop their water system and to be able to hook up to sewer without a pump station. So he does know a little bit about that property. He said he asked Mr. Small, when are you going to build the school, and his response was if we get a bond; if we don't get a bond, then we can't build it. So that is the issue with schools and school crowding. Mr. Whipple said he would like to respond to the traffic issue. He said he knows the City went out and counted the traffic. He said he has seen traffic studies which have been done for additional Morningside projects. Barker is currently functioning at an acceptable level of service. It isn't great, especially if you have lived here a long time, but it is an acceptable level of service. Mr. Whipple said if the Commission read the last memo he had turned in, it would have been noted that if the property were to be developed, in any form, access would 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 20 be either north of Barker or east of Barker. He said people would enter and exit above the Barker intersection or east of the intersection but not at the intersection. (there was a comment from the audience `then how would they get to the freeway') Commissioner McCaslin asked people not to interrupt Mr. Whipple and someone from the audience said they would leave. Mr. McCaslin said he was not asking anyone to leave. He said however, Mr. Whipple never interrupted anyone one else while they were speaking, he is simply asking the audience to give Mr. Whipple a chance to finish. However, during Mr. McCaslin's attempt to make this request many people argued with him as well and disrupted the room. Mr. McCaslin asked the audience to please allow Mr. Whipple the chance to finish. There was a muted complaint from someone in the audience about three minutes, and Mr. McCaslin tried to explain. Chair Stoy said Mr. Whipple is the applicant and he has burden of proof Someone from the audience said "he is bringing these things up and we have no response to that"and complained that Mr. Whipple called them Greenacres. There were many people speaking from the audience arguing with the Chair. Chair Stoy used his gavel and again and said please calm down, and Vice-Chair Carlsen said there will be no more demonstrations from the floor. Chair Stoy asked for calm, Vice-Chair Carlsen said "we will ask you to leave now sir." A man in the audience said "fine, I am out of here,"and he yelled from the floor that the dark part is owned by the planning commissioner right here, he was on the planning commission." Mr. Kuhta also asked people to please calm down. City Attorney Driskell said, "We are trying to have a respectful hearing where everyone has an equal opportunity to talk, we have respect for the opinion of each other, and we would appreciate the opportunity to do that." Someone from the floor wanted to know if they could ask a question and City Attorney Driskell deferred to Chair Stoy. Chair Stoy responded that someone else was testifying at this time. A voice from the hallway yelled "eight units is not 100 units, 12 units is not 100 units, you can go a long ways." Chair Stoy asked the man to stop, Vice-Chair Carlsen said he was not furthering his cause by being combative towards the Commission. The man yelled "ya know what, these people need to know these things, he needs to know these things. As far as I am concerned this man is worse than a lawyer, and I am sorry about lawyers if any of you are, but you have to compromise your morals to do what this man is doing right now." Mr. Kuhta told the man that was enough. A different voice asked again if they could ask a question, again they were told they could not ask a question at this time. Chair Stoy apologized to Mr. Whipple and invited him to continue. Mr. Whipple said he did not fault the man for being upset. Mr. Whipple said he is pretty sure that there is no one who has testified, and he has written down 65 so far, who had any idea they were adjacent next to MF-1 or MF-2 zoning. He said most people buy a house, look at the surrounding neighborhoods and think it will stay the same or if it changes it will be a similar type of development. He said he understands that. He said there are people here tonight who live in the Turtle Creek subdivision. If the people across the street on 8th Avenue would have had anything to do with it, there wouldn't have been a Turtle Creek subdivision. Apparently it is an ok place to live now, but now those same people think there is a traffic problem on Barker. He said his office did a traffic study for Turtle Creek. Mr. Whipple said there were comments on crime. He does not have any crime statistics, and said the Sherriff did not comment. He said this is not a low income project. He said there have been comments about it being rural, but it is really not rural, it in low density residential. It is within the City's urban growth boundary. In low density residential 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 20 it is allowed to build up to six units per acres, MF-1 up to 12 and MF-2 up to 22 units per acre. He said he is sure the Commission has seen at another time, the School District's standard response which is they have capacity,it may not be at the neighborhood school but it has capacity in the district,but they did not respond to this proposal. Mr. Whipple said he spoke at the end of the last meeting about the trip generation letter to try and clear up any misunderstanding about the numbers it contained. He said when they created the trip generation letter it was written with the assumption that fifteen units would be built on the property. The greatest increase in traffic would be if there were a higher second number and a lower first number, that way the increase would be 85 units, which would generate the most trips, so the trip generation letter is conservative. Mr. Whipple said he wanted to make sure again, that although it might have been in the staff report, low income was not on their application. What was in the application was younger families starting out or elderly on a fixed income. Mr. Whipple said he felt staff did a good job. We have tried to make a good case for this to be HDR (High Density Residential). With the lack of available HDR and the lack of availability for additional apartment units,Mr. Whipple felt this proposal should be approved. Yes there are apartments out there,but they don't build them if there isn't a need. A woman from the audience said she had a question. Dallas Williams: Mr. Williams asked if Mr.Mark Krigbaum was in attendance this evening. Mr. Williams read from the minutes of the February 27, 2014 meeting: "The City's Comp Plan only has 4% of the City designated for high density residential use (your words). Adding this site will allow for the City to provide more housing for younger low income households, as well as senior households on limited income." Mr. Williams then turned toward Mr. Whipple and said `that is your employee that is low income; you stated it,fact of merit.' Vice-Chair Carlsen told Mr. Williams he cannot address Mr. Whipple and he must speak to the Commission. Mr. Williams continued to state that seniors would not be able to 4 pay $800 to $1200 per month to live in a unit. Mr. Williams said this is and has been a low income plan, from day one which his employee right here stated in the minutes from the last meeting. p Scott Jutte: Mr. Jutte argued the pe should have known they were adjacent to high density. Mr. Jutte wanted to know if Mr.Whipple could point out where the high density was next to his property. (from the audience Mr. Whipple was heard to say that he qualified that as people who live on Harmony and Valleyway.) Another person from the audience wanted to know if they could ask a question. They were told they must come to the microphone. Deb Johnson: She said Mr. Whipple has said the entrance to the `project' would be to the east of Barker Road. She said this would go right through her neighborhood, right past her house. She said the traffic in the neighborhood is already scary. She thought there would be an entrance off Nixon. She said this would not be ok. Commissioner Carlsen said the property to the north which the end of Nixon is adjacent to is not the property which is being discussed. Ms. Johnson argued it was. Commissioner Carlsen stated she would not argue with Ms. Johnson but it was not the subject of the meeting tonight. Mr. Whipple stepped to the podium and said, the parcel Ms. Johnson is talking about is the property which the existing zoning is HDR and which allowed Mr. Whipple's proposal to come forward. Mr. Whipple said he would like to clarify his earlier statement the access 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 20 from this proposal would be east of Barker onto Sprague Avenue or north of the intersection at Sprague and Barker onto Barker. He apologized for that confusion. George Kovacs: Mr.Kovacs said does it matter what we put there if we don't want it. Does it matter if it is low density, high density, one million apartments, does it matter what it is if we the people who live around there don't want this, then does it matter what we put there. We don't want it,that is the end of it, and that is what the City Council is for. They work for us, this is what we want. Does it matter what we put there, no. So give us another alternative. No one wants this but the money maker. Deb Farnsworth: Ms. Farnsworth stated that Mr. Whipple said that people who can't afford to live in their own homes should have the option to live in apartments. Do we not have enough options in Spokane Valley as it is. Seriously, do we not have options. I don't think anybody here would say would say, yea, we need some more. So, Mr. Whipple you are wrong. People from the audience (hallway) said something about property levels going down, and Chair Stoy asked Mr. Palaniuk to close the door to the hallway. Vice-Chair Carlsen said the Commission has heard considerable testimony on this subject and unless someone has something new to add,- and Chair Stoy added the Commission has other business to conduct. Kathryn Scott, 19004 E Nixon: Ms. Scott said she was going to ask a question and she was told she could not ask. She said she was a little upset. She said Mr. Whipple said the proposal was near services. She wondered what services in the area. She said there are two gas stations and a post office. What services are there to offer to a low income apartment building. She said it is rural,which is why they don't have services. She said Greenacres is a money maker for Spokane Valley, no one puts any money into the area, they just take it away. Ms. Scott attempted to step behind the dais in order to try and point to the map on the screen. Ms. Horton explained no one is allowed behind the dais and that she needs to speak into the microphone for the record, and Mr. Palaniuk assisted her with a pointer. She said the parcel in discussion is 55173.1005. She said she tried to count parcels and determine where homes where in order to figure out where the access points to the property would be. Vice-Chair Carlsen explained this discussion was for zoning only; there was no project before the Commission so they would be unable to tell her where exactly the access points would be. Ms. Scott wondered if these were not things they needed to think about. Ms. Carlsen said, they are things to think about,but when they closed the public hearing,the public would then hear what the Commission had to say. Ms. Scott said she did not know the process, so it was good to know the Commission had an opinion. Chair Stoy explained the Commission takes an application and make sure it meets the criteria for land use issues only, which benefits are there like zoning in the area, otherwise they would not be able to do it. In this case we do have that. Ms. Scott said that Mr. Whipple already addressed that and we already do have that, but that doesn't mean we need more. Ms. Carlsen said that is why we are here for you, we make a recommendation to Council whether or not we think that should change. This is part of the process. Chair Stoy added that but all we do is make a recommendation, City Council makes the change. Ms. Scott said she understood that part of it. Ms. Scott said Mr. Whipple commented North Pines was available but what about the elementary and high school kids, where would they be bussed. They wouldn't be able to go to North Pines. You can't put little kids in with that group,it has to be balanced. 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 20 Mr. Kuhta interrupted and suggested the Commission discuss if they feel they have heard enough on both sides of this issue or if they feel they need more. Chair Stoy said he felt they had heard enough,everyone was repeating the same things—schools,traffic, services. A man stepped up and said he had something different. Chair Stoy said he would be the last speaker on CPA-03-14. Clyde Smith: Mr. Smith said Mr. Whipple blew off the crime statistics. Mr. Smith said he looked up the crimes at different apartment buildings before he left to attend this meeting and there are more crimes where there are more people. Another woman from the audience requested to speak, saying she had not spoken before and has something new to offer. Chair Stoy asked her if she had something new to add and she responded yes, she felt so. The chair assented and allowed the testimony. Lena Holcomb, 18920 E Nixon: Ms. Holcomb said she is concerned about traffic in her neighborhood. She said she wondered who would be benefitting from the project. Her opinion is the public is not benefitting, the City, Viking construction are. She offered that Whipple was creating a monopoly in the area and someone should look into it. She wanted to know how Whipple had a say over the area just because he had a big construction company, and she said monopolies are not good. She wanted to know why a demographic study wasn't done. She said she had contacted Ms. Barlow and had been told it wasn't necessary. Ms. Holcomb said if the Commission wanted to be thorough this should have been done. She also said she did not receive a notice about the hearing. She said she has also heard other people closest to the property did not get a notice, so she feels things have not been followed to the letter. Vice-Chair Carlsen tried to make Ms. Holcomb understand which parcel was the subject of the discussion. She said she understood that, but that she did not feel making the road go through at Nixon was safe. Ms. Carlsen explained again, it was not the same property, not the same land owner. Ms. Holcomb thanked her for clearing that up, but the entrances were just mentioned and said you need to know the entrances Mr. Whipple is planning in order to make a full evaluation. Ms. Carlsen reminded everyone again, there is no proposed project. The Commission is discussing land use at this time, not a proposed building. Ms. Holcomb wanted to argue that the Commission needed to examine a project to make a decision. Chair Stoy asked for a consensus if the rest of the Commissioners felt they have heard enough testimony on CPA-03-14. Commissioner Anderson had stepped out of the room at 8:15 to attend to a medical problem. There was consensus from the Commissioners to move forward and stop testimony on this amendment. Chair Stoy asked for testimony on the remaining text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; CPA-04 to 10-14. Seeing no one who wished to testify on these amendments, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Vice-Chair Carlsen stated that before the audience leaves this would be the time they would be able to hear what the Commissioners have to say about the amendments. Mr. Kuhta also reminded everyone the public testimony is closed at this time; that there would be no questions from the audience although the Commission is allowed to ask staff clarifying questions but that is all. Chair Stoy began with CPA-01-14. Vice-Chair Carlsen moved to forward CPA-01-14 to the City Council. Commissioner Carlsen stated for those who might not be aware, this is a parcel located near Mirabeau Park. Commissioner Carlsen read a statement which said, although she agreed mixed use developments were a positive form of development for the City. In this location she did not agree with the zoning change from Parks and Open Space to 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 20 Mixed Use Center. The land use designation on this parcel is opening it up to development directly next to the Centennial Trail. The site has been identified in the City's priority habitat map as urban natural open space and the Comprehensive Plan states urban landscaping,parks and open space supplement natural areas in providing habitats for a wide variety of wildlife. The eastern half of the parcel lies within the Shoreline Master Plan jurisdiction and is designated as pastoral. Ms. Carlsen said according to City documents this site has significant benefit to the environment in its current state as open space. She said the site next to the Centennial Trail and future sidewalk development will present challenges for development because of setback and access. According to the City's analysis the sidewalk will likely require a border easement. In its current configuration the property is approximately 1.1 acres. She felt the required buffers would leave a developable area of 32,000 square feet. Buffer and screening would be necessary due to its proximity to the Trail. This would negatively impact the Trail users' visual enjoyment of the Trail. Land is available for development to the east. State Parks commented they would prefer to have this parcel remain as open space. Zoning would currently allow for a building 60 feet in height to be built on the site. She does not feel this meets the requirement of bearing a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,welfare and environment and she intends to vote no on the proposal. Mr. Kuhta asked to clarify the motion which Commissioner Carlsen had made. Commissioner Carlsen clarified the motion to say approve CPA-01-14 to City Council, which was again clarified to say, recommend approval to the City Council. It was discussed that the maker of a motion should not argue against their own motion. At 8:36 p.m. Planning Manager Kuhta also informed the Commission that Commissioner Anderson had a medical emergency which required him to leave the building. Commissioner Carlsen moved to excuse Commissioner Anderson, this motion was passed unanimous. Commissioner Neill said he agreed with all of the comments given by Commissioner Carlsen regarding this amendment. Commissioner Sneider wanted to know if City Parks had commented on CPA-01-14. Planner Marty Palaniuk said no comments were received from City Parks,but from State Parks, requesting it remain as it is currently zoned. Commissioner Sneider asked if the Friends of the Centennial Trial had commented, Mr. Palaniuk replied 4 they had not. Mr. Palaniuk said the City is required by state law to provide notice regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. The City does it in three different ways; it is published in the City's paper of record the Valley News Herald, a notice was posted at the Valley Library, in the City Hall reception area and at the Permit Center Reception area and that notices are mailed to addresses within a 400-foot radius of the property boundaries. The City requires the applicant to submit a list from a title company which shows all parcels within the 400- foot boundary to which notices are to be mailed. Mr. Palaniuk said the City is very meticulous about these requirements. Mr. Palaniuk continued saying all required parties regarding CPA-01-14 were notified. He did not know if the Friends of the Trail were notified, staff did not receive any comments from them. Commissioner Stoy clarified that the notices in the 400-foot radius are mailed to the property owner. If a person was renting property, the notice would go to either the property owner or to the tax payer. Mr. Palaniuk said if the owner and tax payer are separate, both parties are notified. Commissioner Stoy commented he was agreeing with Commissioners Neill and Carlsen on this amendment. He likes to use the Trail,he uses the parking lot located next to this parcel and he does not feel he can support the change. Commissioner Stoy asked for a vote of all in favor of recommending approval by a show of hands, one in favor (Phillips), and five against (Sneider, Neill, Stoy, Carlsen, McCaslin), so the motion failed. 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 of 20 Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend denying approval of CPA-01-14 to the City Council. By a show of hands, the vote on the motion was five in favor (Sneider,Neill, Stoy. Carlsen,McCaslin),one against(Phillips),motion passed. Chair Stoy stated the CPA-02-14 was the amendment to change the property owned by SCRAPS from low density to commercial mixed use. Vice-Chair Carlsen moved to recommend denial of CPA-02-14 to the City Council. Commissioner Carlsen read her statement saying she felt the change was an unnecessary encroachment of high density development into an existing single family neighborhood. While there is a strip of Corridor Mixed Use to the south, and Light Industrial to the west,the character of the neighborhood is still low density single family residences. The vacant property serves as an appropriate buffer to the single family houses. The change would allow a large commercial building to be built and she did not feel it was appropriate. Commissioner Neill said he understood the home owners' view who are opposed to the change. He felt their properties were already so impacted with the brick makers, the train tracks, Trent Avenue. and the airport, he did not feel the dogs walking on this property would not make much of a difference. Commissioner Neill said with so many homeless animals, they deserved every opportunity to be able to be adopted. The facility needed to be somewhere, and the animals deserved a chance. He felt worse uses could be there. Commissioner Carlsen argued that right now walking dogs and a meet and greet is great, but if the property is changed to Corridor Mixed Use it could mean large buildings and commercial development later. Just because they say it will be a dog park, does not mean they can't sell it and have a building built next year. She said the land use is the issue, a dog park is great,but the change will open it up to a lot more development. Commissioner Phillips stated he agreed with Commissioner Carlsen. He commented when SCRAPS came in and wanted to put the animal shelter in that location, they should have addressed the property at that time instead of waiting to come in and change it. He also believes the home owners deserve a buffer. There is no guarantee SCRAPS will not get into a financial straight and sell it to some other commercial venture. He did not feel the commercial needed to go that far to the north. Commissioner Stoy said he agreed with Commissioner Neill, the property was part of the original purchase by SCRAPS. They testified at the February 27 meeting they were in a hurry to get the building opened up. This i`�:is just an oversight that the property wasn't zoned appropriately. There is a required minimum six-foot foot high sight obscuring fence and a minimum of a five-foot very heavily landscaped buffer into the property already. There are 20-foot setbacks which are required. A large commercial building can't happen there, there is not enough property to do it. He agrees the homeless animals need the opportunity to be adopted, and he will support this proposal. Chair Stoy asked for show of hands of those recommending denial and three (Carlsen, Phillips, McCaslin) were against and three (Stoy, Neill, Sneider) were for, resulting in a tie, therefore the motion failed. Commissioner McCaslin suggested waiting on this vote for Commissioner Anderson. After conferring with City Attorney Driskell, Mr. Kuhta discussed the options with the Commission. The options would be making another motion hoping more discussion might persuade someone or the amendment would move forward as a tie, with no recommendation. After the Commission conferred,the consensus was to forward CPA-02-14 to the City Council with no recommendation. Commissioner Carlsen moved to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Carlsen said she felt the Commission needed more time to get their business finished. This motion was passed unanimously. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend denial of CPA-03-14 to the City Council. Commissioner McCaslin said he felt there were seven issues, the first being property rights 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 20 and home values. Another is public officials,whether appointed or elected are accountable to the public,they need to listen to the public's concerns. There is the good possibility of crime increasing. He has lived in both and seen it happen first hand. There will be traffic issues, whether we want them or not. The fact that it is currently zoned for single family, it is incumbent on the developer to be sure you can change the zoning if you invest there. Mr. McCaslin said he does work near the proposal, and he does not speak for the CVSD, he wanted it to be clear,but the schools are overcrowded. They would not be able to handle that many kids. Commissioner McCaslin stated he was for denial. Commissioner Carlsen said she appreciated the community involvement in the process. She thanked the public for attending. She has heard the concerns. She appreciates those who have conducted themselves in a polite manner. She stated it helps the Commissioners to help the public if they come in respecting the Commissioners' positions. The concerns she has heard have included traffic, noise, increase in crime, the impact of overcrowding on public schools, decrease in property values, increase in emergency response times, and lack of public services. Her first major concern with the proposal is that the potential approval of this requested change would strand parcel 556173.1018 the `island' property. She is concerned it would leave this lone piece of land low density in this area. This individual landowner has participated in our public hearings as well by sending a letter and he is very much opposed to this change. According to staff, this would be an undesirable zoning situation and would require a change to this parcel as well. She believes this is an unfair result to this particular homeowner, to require a change in their current zoning to fit the needs of someone who is not a resident of the neighborhood and looking to their economic gain and not the living conditions of the current residents. According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, she continued, the demand for single family housing is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Also, the City expects that development will occur as infill development of vacant or underdeveloped lots throughout existing neighborhoods and subdivisions. She claimed that is what this is. Changing zoning of these vacant and underdeveloped lots within established neighborhoods to a land use of multifamily directly opposes the City's own plan to use these areas for development of additional low density residential. With a current allowable density of six dwellings per acre, this is an opportunity for 30 units on this particular parcel. In the City's land use goal LUG 1 and Policy 1.1 the City states that existing lots sizes and community character will be strongly considered when developing the City zoning. In this case the existing lot sizes and community character are not high density or even low density R-4. The development of the parcel to its current potential is already higher density than some of the surrounding areas. An apartment complex of any size would not fit the character of this community. The City also has a policy for minimizing land needed for multifamily zoning,to accommodate the City's population growth projections, by allowing for a reduction in overall lots sizes to enable the City to maintain its existing single family character. The City also states it will adopt strict criteria to evaluate zone changes to ensure future development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. She went on to say our own Comprehensive Plan states that we will try to ensure that future development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Our City land use policy LUP 1.7 directs us to changes within the low density residential category only when specific criteria are met. In her opinion, this request does not meet the criteria. Additionally, on HDR designations, according to our Comprehensive Plan consideration should be taken for them to be located in areas near high density development and in close proximity to businesses and commercial centers. She does not feel that this is the case with this location. The Planning Commission has received testimony from many concerned citizens at the February 27 meeting as well as this evening, countless letters and two petitions opposing the zoning change. This indicates this close knit neighborhood would like to retain their current low density environment. She 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 20 wanted to acknowledge the concerns the public has addressed, and say she shared the concerns. Overcrowding of the schools is a very real concern. She is also concerned with the impact on property values on single family residences. With these concerns in mind, she asked the other Commissioners to also vote to recommend denial on the amendment. Commissioner Neill stated the public outcry against the amendment has been extremely well organized and successful. He said the public had done a great job in engaging the Commission in their jobs, also thanking them for participating in the process. Commissioner Neill wanted to address the `view'. He used an analogy of his own backyard and no longer being able to plant roses and a garden because the maple trees from his neighbor's yard shades his too much now. He can't cut down the neighbor's trees. He said the neighbors have a right to their property values. Mr. Neill stated he went to the neighborhood on a Saturday afternoon,the traffic was very busy. Adding a 100 unit apartment complex it would be even busier. He said he felt if the City had the money to build the infrastructure to support the proposal it would help,however they do not. The City does not have the money to get the Sullivan Bridge done. If they cannot afford that project, they can't afford the traffic project at Barker and Sprague. He said the neighbors have a right to be able to get to their homes. It can't be done when traffic is backed up to the freeway. Mr.Neill said he was firmly against the proposal. Commissioner Sneider said the proposal is not adjacent to any public transit lines, it might be near them, and it is not next to commercial areas either. The proposal hinges on if there is high density zoning on the property just to the north. He looked at the zoning in the area,and it looks out of place. So much emphasis has been placed on it being adjacent to high density zoning, but it just doesn't seem right that there is low density residential zoning to the south and to the east. Based on the other items mentioned by Commissioners Carlsen and Neill,he is against this proposal. Commissioner Phillips said this proposal caused him some trouble. He felt it was probably a good place for high density. However, Greenacres itself is fairly rural and based on that he has a hard time supporting it to be a high density piece of property. He understands the neighborhood and he has listened to the many neighbors who get upset about change. However change is inevitable. In this case you can't help what is happening on Barker, you can't help they opened up Chapman Road. He is going to support denial because of the efforts of the community more than anything else. He said according to the text books, it is probably the logical place to put apartments; it is on a couple of arterials. In this case, at this time,he does not feel it is appropriate. Commissioner Stoy said the Commission has read all of the correspondence they have received; we have listened to the testimony. We understand the lot to the north, which was rezoned high density in 1996, allows this proposal to be brought forward. Commissioner Stoy said he does not feel this is the right spot for an apartment complex either. He is against this proposal. He said he thought the neighbors did a great job organizing and bringing the concerns forward. This is what the Commission is here for,to listen to what the people have to say be it proponent or opponent. Chair Stoy said the motion is to recommend denial of CPA-03-14 to the City Council. By a show of hands the vote is six in favor,zero against. Motion passed,the recommendation is to deny CPA-03-14. Chair Stoy asked the audience to keep order. Commissioner McCaslin wanted to remind the public to attend the City Council meetings. Planning Manager Kuhta informed the audience 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 of 20 that notices do not go out regarding Council meetings; and said the public hearing is before the Planning Commission. They will accept comment on the reading of the ordinances. He suggested staying in touch with Ms. Barlow, himself or checking the City's website (www.spokanevalley.org)for the posting of the Council agendas. He said it would likely be mid-April before these items are on the Council agenda. He said there would be no more questions this evening; the Commission had more business to attend to. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-04-14 to the City Council. Commissioner Sneider wanted to ask a question about LUG-3. Encourage the development of underutilized residential areas to improve connectivity. He wondered if there were unintended consequences in this goal. He said we are looking for creative ways to infill but we want to make sure we infill in ways that meet the character of the neighborhood. He wanted to make sure someone cannot come in and change the character of the neighborhood. Would there be any consequences from this. Commissioner Stoy said this would be addressed at the project stage. Mr. Sneider said he understood that,but he said people can interpret things differently. It might say we want mixed housing types, apartments, houses. Mr. Kuhta said the way this would work out, is if the proposal moved forward, Staff would come back with regulations which would implement the goals and policies. As staff had shown before, the most likely result would be a deviation in the width of the road. We encourage public roads to be built, they might be a little bit narrower but still be a public road. In exchange we might offer a little bit more density. Staff is only talking about single family development; there is no talk about allowing this in multifamily development. It would allow the developer a little more flexibility to be able to use the land a little more efficiently. He told the Commissioners they still needed to be ok with the policy, and that it would be implemented in a fashion similar to what staff has described. It would still be up to the property owner to make the decision. It just allows another option for development. Commissioner Carlsen said she felt the policy itself was a good idea. The regulations will come later on and the character of the neighborhood can be addressed at that time. In general she felt the goal was a good one. The vote to recommend approval was six in favor, to zero against,motion passed. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-05-14 to the City Council. Commissioner Stoy said this was an annual update to the transportation chapter of the Comp Plan. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against,motion passed. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-06-14 to the City Council. Chair Stoy explained this was an annual update to the capital facilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against,motion passed. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-07-14 to the City Council. Chair Stoy explained this is an annual update to the utilities chapter of the Comp Plan. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against,motion passed. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-08-14 to the City Council. Chair Stoy said this is an annual update to the economic development chapter of the Comp Plan. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against,motion passed. CPA-09-14 was withdrawn by the City. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-10-14 to the City Council. Chair Stoy said this is an update to the maps which are associated with the bikeway network system which was developed last year. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against, motion passed. 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 of 20 GOOD OF THE ORDER: Chair Stoy said that this evening had been an interesting public hearing. The comments for and against the amendments this evening had been well thought out and well taken. He felt this was a good session for this year's Comp Plan amendments. Vice-Chair Carlsen thanked the neighbors who attended and participated. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Deanna Horton, secretary Date signed 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 of 20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 27, 2014 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ®unfinished business ['new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CPA-01-14 through CPA-10-14 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approve findings and recommendations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A;WAC 365-196; SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The Community Development Department received two privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. In addition, the City is initiating one site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to six Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 - Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 6—Private and Public Utilities, Chapter 7—Economic Development, and Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian. The amendments may also entail minor changes to other elements referencing the proposed amendments. PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on each of the Comprehensive Plan amendments on February 27, 2014. The public hearing was continued to the March 13, 2014 meeting. After receiving public testimony,the Planning Commission deliberated and voted to forward to City Council CPA-01-14 and CPA-03-14 with a recommendation for denial, and CPA-04-14, CPA-05-14, CPA-06-14, CPA-07- 14, CPA-08-14, and CPA-10-14 with a recommendation for approval. The Planning Commission vote on CPA-02-14 resulted in a tie and therefore the amendment will be forwarded to the City Council with no recommendation. OPTIONS: The Planning Commission may recommend approval, approval with modifications, or denial of each amendment proposal. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations to City Council. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations Diana Smith Email Dated March 18, 2014 Note: Please return the Yellow Binder to Department Staff. 1of1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2014 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 01-14 THROUGH 10-14 March 27,2014 A. Background: 1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from November 2nd to November 1st of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November 1St in late winter/early spring of the following year,with a decision by City Council in late spring/early summer. 2. For the 2014 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle, the Community Development Department initiated one site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment designated as CPA-01-14 and received two privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments, designated as CPA-02-14 and CPA-03-14. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. The City initiated Comprehensive Plan text amendments to six Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 - Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 6 —private and Public Utilities, Chapter 7 — Economic Development, and Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian. The Comprehensive Plan text amendments are designated as CPA-04-14 through CPA-10-14. B. Findings: 1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. 2. On February 7, 2014, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and each site subject to a site-specific amendment was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing"sign,with a description of the proposal. 3. Individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposals were mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each affected site. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in RCW 43.21C (SEPA), environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment. 5. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Optional Determinations of Non-Significance (DNS) were issued for each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on February 7,2014. 6. The DNS's were published in the City's official newspaper on February 7, 2014, consistent with SVMC Title 21,Environmental Controls. 7. On March 20, 2014, the Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 8. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 9. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and RCW 36.70A(Growth Management Act). Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 2 10. On February 27, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. The public hearing was continued to the March 13, 2014 meeting. After receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted to forward to City Council CPA-01-14 and CPA-03-14 with a recommendation for denial; CPA-02-14 with no recommendation; and CPA-04-14, CPA-05-14, CPA-06-14, CPA-07-14, CPA-08-14, and CPA-10-14 with a recommendation for approval. 11. The Planning Commission hereby adopts and incorporates findings for CPA-01-14 (Attachment 1), CPA-02-14 (Attachment 2), CPA-03-14 (Attachment 3) and CPA-04-014 through CPA-10-014 (Attachment 4). 12. The Planning Commission finds the proposed text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with Growth Management Act and do not result in internal inconsistencies within the Plan itself. 13. The Planning Commission finds the site-specific map amendments are not suitable properties for the requested land use designations consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-04-14 through CPA-10-14. These proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. The Planning Commission does not find compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-01-14 and CPA-03-14. These proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan amendments are not compatible with adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods and will not benefit the neighborhood or City. The Planning Commission vote on CPA-02-14 resulted in a tie and therefore the amendment is forwarded to the City Council with no recommendation. Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan text amendments CPA-04-14 through CPA-10-14, and recommends the City Council deny CPA-01-14 and CPA-03-14. CPA-02-14 is forwarded without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Approved this 27th day of March, 2014 Joe Stoy, Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 2 Attachment 1 -Planning Commission Findin2s and Factors for CPA-01-14—SVMC 17.80.140(H): Findin2s a. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are not served by the proposed amendment. The area is located adjacent to the Centennial Trail,is identified as Urban Natural Open Space in the City's Priority Habitat Map, and a portion lies within the Shoreline area. State Parks and Recreation has stated its preference that the parcel remain Parks/Open Space. Development impacts on this open space area would not serve the public. b. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is not consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) Chapter 36.70A. Specifically, GMA Planning Goal 9 seeks to retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. c. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. Commercial/office development has occurred on the parcel adjacent to the north. d. However, substantial open space has been preserved in the area and development of community and recreation facilities has occurred west and south of the area with the construction of Mirabeau Meadows Parks,the Centennial Trail and the Center Place complex. e. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. f. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Factors: a. Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the City as the lead agency has determined that the proposed amendment does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. However, the area has been identified in the City Priority Habitat Species Map as Urban Natural Open Space. The Comprehensive Plan states urban landscaping, parks, and open spaces supplement natural areas in providing habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. Future development in the MUC zone would permit a building height of 60 feet, which would have visual and aesthetic impacts to and from Mirabeau Meadows Park,Centennial Trail and the Spokane River. b. A portion of the site lies within the shoreline area and is subject to the Shoreline Master Plan. The amendment area also lies within 200 feet of the Spokane River and riparian habitat. Buffers and development standards would minimize the impacts, but visual impacts on the Spokane River would be inevitable. c. Development requirements would mitigate impacts, but the park and trail would experience increased traffic,visual, aesthetic, and noise impacts from new development. Commercial development would not be generally consistent with the surrounding parks, open space and natural area uses. The nearest neighborhood is nearly a mile west of the sight. The proposal would have minimal affect on neighborhoods. The property north of the site is a compatible office building that would not be affected. d. Future development of the site may impact traffic in the area. e. The loss of open space, wildlife habitat, and the impact on surrounding uses would be an overall detriment to the community. f. The proposed amendment would not increase population densities and does not require population analysis. g. The proposed amendment is not consistent with, and may negatively affect, the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 8 - Natural Environment, Chapter 9 — Parks, Recreation and Arts, and Chapter 11 —Bike and Pedestrian Element. Planning Commission Findings and Factors CPA-01-14 -Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 2 -Planning Commission Findin2s and Factors for CPA-02-14—SVMC 17.80.140(H): Findin2s: a. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment may be served by the proposed amendment. The applicant, Spokane Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) is a necessary community facility and is located on the property adjacent to and south of the proposed amendment property. Expansion of the SCRAPS facility would serve the greater community. Negative impacts may occur to the residential properties located north and east of the site. With a zone change to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), a building up to a maximum height of 50 feet could be built on the site. SCRAPS has not stated any intention of placing a building on the site, however future property owners would be permitted that use if CPA-02-14 were approved. A building of that height would impact the single-family residential uses adjacent to the site. Impacts to the residential uses already occur from the light industrial and commercial uses located west and south of the residences. Twenty-foot setbacks and Type 1 screening would be required for any development on the amendment site. b. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) Chapter 36.70A. Specifically the following planning goals: i. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. SCRAPS is a regional facility that may enhance the local economy by drawing people to the area who may patronize local businesses ii. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. SCRAPS is the property owner of the proposed amendment site and a denial will inhibit the use of the site as they intend. iii. Each city that is required or chooses to plan under GMA shall perform its activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with its comprehensive plan. The City has a contract with SCRAPS to provide animal control, and the SCRAPS facility should be viewed as a regional capital facility. iv. Cities required to plan under GMA shall ensure amendments to their comprehensive plans provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions. This shall include the accommodation of medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to growth. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The current SCRAPS facility located on Flora Road is outdated, unable to provide the required levels of service, and burdened by cost-prohibitive obstacles to expansion. Relocation of the facility was deemed the most appropriate option. The new location on Trent Avenue allows the SCRAPS facility to expand and enhance service without facing the difficult challenges of costly fire safety, transportation, development, and infrastructure improvements. Expansion of the CMU designation would allow full use of the property purchased by SCRAPS. d. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Factors: a. The amendment and zone change would potentially allow the construction of multi-family or commercial buildings to a height of 50 feet. This type of development may have a negative impact on the adjacent residential uses. The proposal would also allow SCRAPS to expand their facility into the area. SCRAPS stated an intention to exercise animals in the area and allow prospective new pet owners to walk and play with dogs in the area. Development requirements would mitigate the impacts to some extent. SVMC Planning Commission Findings and Factors CPA-02-14—Attachment 2 Page 1 of 2 19.60.080(B)(6) prohibits animal shelters in the CMU zone from having outside runs, requires human supervision of all outdoor activities, must be located along an arterial street, and must meet the noise standards for commercial noise. In addition, the requirements contained in SVMC Title 22 must be met. Those requirements would include Type 1 screening and 20 foot setbacks for any building on the site. Type 1 screening consists of a six-foot sight obscuring fence with a five-foot wide landscaped area vegetated with sight obscuring bushes to create a dense sight-obscuring barrier of two-to-three feet in height, selected to reach six feet in height at maturity. b. The amendment and zone change has the potential to reduce open space if developed with buildings. The vacant lot is currently devoid of structures and covered with native vegetation. Some unwanted dumping has occurred on the site. No effect on streams,lakes,or rivers is anticipated. c. The amendment would be compatible with commercial and light industrial uses located south and west of the site. The SCRAPS facility is located south of the site. A manufacturing use with associated outside storage is located west of the site. A single-family residence lies directly adjacent to the site along the northern boundary. Several single-family residences lie across Bradley Road from the site. Development requirements would mitigate impacts to the single family uses but the single family uses may experience increased traffic,visual,aesthetic, and noise impacts from new development. d. The amendment would allow the expansion of the SCRAPS facility, which would provide space for dog walking and interaction with prospective adopters. This would benefit the SCRAPS operation. Trent Avenue is the primary four lane arterial road serving the site. If the site is developed as intended by SCRAPS,impact on public facilities such as transportation,water,and sewer would be minimal. e. The amendment would benefit pet owners, prospective pet owners, and animal welfare advocates throughout the region. The surrounding single family property owners may or may not benefit depending on the type of development that is undertaken on the site. f. The proposed amendment would not increase population densities and does not require population analysis. g. The proposed amendment is generally inconsistent with and may negatively affect the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 10—Neighborhoods. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with and may positively affect the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services; Chapter 7—Economic Development. Planning Commission Findings and Factors CPA-02-14—Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2 Attachment 3 -Planning Commission Findin2s and Factors for CPA-03-14—SVMC 17.80.140(H): Findin2s: a. The proposed amendment is detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment since it would increase density within an area of the Central Valley School District that has reached overcapacity of the neighborhood schools and does not support the neighborhood resident's desired quality of life by significantly changing residential character. b. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). c. The proposed amendment would allow construction of a multi-family development immediately adjacent to the intersection of two minor arterial streets and a collector which has experienced an increase of traffic as a result of significant growth in the area. However, the increase in traffic does not warrant the need for a transitional use to be constructed between the street and the existing single family development to act as a buffer. d. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. e. The proposed amendment does address the identified deficiency of vacant HDR-designated large lots. However, expanding the HDR designation would allow for multi-story apartments in an area currently developed with one and two family residences,many of which are on large lots. Factors: a. Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the City as the lead agency has determined that the proposed amendment would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The proposed amendment is a non-project amendment and would not affect open space, streams,rivers, and lakes. c. The proposed amendment is contiguous to single family development on all four sides with the exception of a church located on the southwest corner of the intersection. If granted, the amendment would create an island of LDR land. Development of two and three-story buildings would be inconsistent with the single family character of the area. d. Future development of the site may impact traffic in the area beyond that which would be generated by the current land uses allowed. The intersection currently experiences delays and is designated to be improved by 2019. Neighborhood schools are over maximum capacity and students are bussed out of the neighborhood; commercial services and public transportation services are approximately 1,000 feet to the north,which may be beyond the desired walking distance to reach services. e. The proposed amendment would increase the amount of available HDR lands within the City, but the location is not conducive to multifamily development since the nearest commercial services and public transit stop is approximately one quarter mile away. f. The proposal is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the impacts of multifamily development cannot be mitigated by the bulk standards in the SVMC. g. The proposed amendment would increase population densities in the area and would increase the density from six dwelling units per acre up to 22 dwelling units per acre. A population analysis was not done to determine area impacts. h. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the intent of the HDR land use designation,which is to act as a buffer between residential uses and higher intensity land uses such as commercial or office uses. The higher volume roadway does not warrant a buffer between the existing residential uses. Planning Commission Findings and Factors CPA-03-14—Attachment 3 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Findings and Factors for CPAs-04-14 through 10-14 - SVMC 17.80.140(H): Findings: a. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment is furthered by ensuring that the Comprehensive Plan reflects the changing conditions and preferences of the community, as well as ensuring consistency with regional policy and is current with other plans. b. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). c. The proposed text amendments are not privately initiated site-specific requests and therefore do not address specific issues beyond a property owner's control. d. The proposed text amendments would not correct mapping errors or result in changes to specific properties. e. The proposed text and map amendments do not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan, but the residential infill policy language would provide direction for the development of regulations to address the challenges of redevelopment of underutilized lots and removing references to the City Center is consistent with community preferences. Factors: a. Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the City as the lead agency has determined that the proposed amendments would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The proposed amendments are primarily policy oriented and non-project amendments. c. The proposed amendment to remove the City Center Land Use Plan concept supports the current land use pattern along the Sprague and Appleway corridor — no impacts to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods are anticipated by maintaining current patterns. d. The City addresses adequacy of community facilities on a City-wide basis through capital facilities planning; annual updates to the Comprehensive Plan ensure that the City is adequately providing for the anticipated growth. e. The public benefit is furthered by ensuring the Comprehensive Plan is reflective of regional policy and current with other internal plans. Removal of the City Center scenario has no bearing on regional policy. f. The proposed amendments are primarily policy oriented and do not address the quantity and location of land planned for land uses other than to update the land quantity analysis information with the latest population estimates and recent land development. g. The proposed amendments do not require population analysis. h. Removing the City Center concept and supporting references would result in a Plan that maintains the current land use patterns. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have minimal impact on other aspects of the Plan. Planning Commission Findings and Factors CPA-04-14 through CPA 10-14(Text Amendments)—Attachment 4 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: March 27, 2014 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑unfinished business ❑new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shoreline Master Program Update - Study Session — Draft Development Regulations BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update team has completed the Draft Shoreline Development Regulations. This document completes phase seven of the City's Update process and introduces the regulations that will implement the SMP. The Drafts will be reviewed in the following three sections: Administrative Provisions, General Provisions, and Critical Areas. A description of each section and the tentative dates of discussion are provided below: March 27 - Administrative Provisions (Sections 21.50.010 — 21.50.170): Administrative provisions are the policies and regulations that cover how the SMP will be administered and enforced. The provisions identify the permits and processes required, and the criteria for review. These provisions are specific to the SMP, while general permit administration, compliance, and enforcement provisions are included in other parts of the SVMC. April 24—General Provisions (Sections 21.50.180—21.50.450): The general provisions contain regulations that apply to shoreline uses and modifications, and identify the environment designations where these uses and modifications are permitted. Uses are the functional result of development, while the modifications are construction elements that change the physical character of the shoreline in preparation for a use. For example a boat launch is a use, while dredging is a modification to allow for a boat launch. Use regulations set physical development and management standards for each use, May 8 - Critical Areas Regulations (Sections 21.50.460 — 21.50.560): The Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations apply to critical areas and their buffers that are completely within shoreline jurisdiction. Regulated critical areas include wetlands, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, geologically hazardous areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, and frequently flooded areas. The section applies to all uses, activities and structures that may impact or alter a critical area or its buffer. Attorney Tadas Kisielius has participated in the review of the draft and his input incorporated. Mr. Kisielius will not attend this Planning Commission meeting, but will be present at subsequent meetings. A public hearing will be conducted following Planning Commission review of the entire document. The date will be determined as the review progresses. The draft is attached for review. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act(SMA) under RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Numerous discussions regarding SMP Update. APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 define the process for approval of an SMP and require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None required STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Shoreline Master Program Regulations and Definitions 1 of 1 APPENDIX A-1 DRAFT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DEFINITIONS A. General Provisions. The definitions provided herein are supplemental to the definitions provided in Appendix A and only apply for use with the City's SMP,including chapter 21.50 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Solely for purposes of the City's SMP,if a conflict exists between these definitions and definitions in Appendix A,the definitions in Appendix A-1 shall govern. The definition of any word or phrase not listed in Appendix A-1 which is ambiguous when administering the SMP shall be defined by the City's Community Development Director,or his/her designee, from the following sources in the order listed: 1. Any City of Spokane Valley resolution,ordinance,code,or regulation; 2. Any statute or regulation of the State of Washington; 3. Legal definitions from the Hearings Board,from Washington common law or the most recently adopted Black's Law Dictionary; or 4. The most recently adopted Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. B. Defmitions. Accessory or appurtenant structures: A structure that is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence,including garages, sheds,decks,driveways,utilities,fences, swimming pools,hot tubs,saunas,tennis courts, and grading which does not exceed 250 cubic yards and is located landward of the OHWM and the perimeter of a wetland. Agricultural activities: Relating to the science or art of cultivating soil or producing crops to be used or consumed directly or indirectly by man or livestock,or raising of livestock. The term has the full meaning as set forth in WAC 173-26-020(3)(a)as adopted or amended. Amendment: A revision,update,addition,deletion,and/or reenactment to an existing SMP. Applicant: A person who files an application for permit under the SMP and may be the owner of the land on which the proposed activity would be located,a contract purchaser,or the authorized agent of such a person. Aquaculture: The culture or farming of fish, shellfish,or other aquatic plants and animals. Associated wetlands: Those wetlands(see "Wetlands"definition)that are in proximity to and either influence,or are influenced by, a lake or stream subject to the SMA. Average grade level: The average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the lot,parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building or structure;provided that in case of structures to be built over water, average grade level shall be the elevation of OHWM. Calculation of the average grade level shall be made by averaging the elevations at the center of all exterior walls of the proposed building or structure. Best Management Practices (BMPS): Site-specific design strategies,techniques,technologies, conservation and maintenance practices,or systems of practices and management measures that minimize adverse impacts from the development or use of a site. Bioengineering: Project designs or construction methods which use living plant material or a combination of living plant material and natural or synthetic materials to establish a complex root grid within the bank which is resistant to erosion,provides bank stability, and promotes a healthy riparian environment. Bioengineering approaches may include use of wood structures or clean angular rock to provide stability. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 1 Boating facilities: Boating facilities include boat launches,ramps,public docks,commercial docks, and private docks serving more than four residences,together with accessory uses such as Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant access routes,boat and equipment storage,user amenities such as benches and picnic tables, and restroom facilities. Buffer or Shoreline buffer: The horizontal distance from the OHWM or critical area which is established to preserve shoreline or critical area functions by limiting or restricting development. See Appendix A-2, Shoreline Buffers Map. Permitted development and activities within buffers depend on the type of critical area or resource land the buffer is protecting. Clearing: The destruction or removal of ground cover, shrubs, and trees including,but not limited to, root material removal and/or topsoil removal. Commercial uses: Those uses that are involved in wholesale,retail, service, and business trade. Examples of commercial uses include restaurants,offices, and retail shops. Conditional use: A use,project,or substantial development which is classified as a conditional use or is not classified within the SMP. Degrade: To impair with respect to some physical or environmental property or to reduce in structure or function. Development: A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging;drilling; filling;removal of any sand,gravel,or minerals;bulkheading; driving of piling;placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the SMA at any stage of water level. Development regulations: The controls placed on development or land uses by the City,including,but not limited to,zoning ordinances,building codes,critical areas ordinances, all portions of the SMP other than goals and policies approved or adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW,planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. Dock: A floating platform over water used for moorage of recreational or commercial watercraft. Dredging: The removal of sediment,earth,or gravel from the bottom of a body of water,for the deepening of navigational channels,to mine the sediment materials,to restore water bodies, for flood control,or for cleanup of polluted sediments. Ecological functions or Shoreline functions: The work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. Ecology: Washington State Department of Ecology. Ecosystem-wide process: The suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of erosion, transport, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological functions. Enhancement: Alteration of an existing resource to improve its ecological function without degrading other existing functions. Exemption or Exempt development: Exempt developments are those set forth in WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3)(e),RCW 90.58.140(9),RCW 90.58.147, RCW 90.58.355, and RCW 90.58.515. See also"Shoreline exemption,letter of'. Feasible: An action, such as a project,mitigation measure, or preservation requirement,which meets all of the following conditions: City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 2 1. The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in similar circumstances,or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; 2. The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; 3. The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's intended legal use; and 4. In cases where the SMP requires certain actions unless they are infeasible,the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action's infeasibility,the City may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits,considered in the short- and long-term time frames. Fill: The addition of soil, sand,rock,gravel, sediment,earth retaining structure,or other material to an area waterward of the OHWM,in wetlands,or on shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land. Depositing topsoil in a dry upland area for landscaping purposes is not considered a fill. Flood hazard reduction: Measures taken to reduce flood damage or hazards. Flood hazard reduction measures may consist of nonstructural measures,such as setbacks,land use controls,wetland restoration, dike removal,use relocation,biotechnical measures, and stormwater management programs, and of structural measures, such as dikes,levees,revetments, floodwalls,channel realignment, and elevation of structures consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program. Footprint: That area defined by the outside face of the exterior walls of a structure. Forest practices: Any activity relating to growing,harvesting,or processing timber,including,but not limited to,uses defined in RCW 76.09.020. Grading: The movement or redistribution of the soil, sand,rock,gravel, sediment,or other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land. Habitat: The place or type of site where a plant or animal lives and grows. Habitat enhancement: Actions performed within an existing shoreline,critical area,or buffer to intentionally increase or augment one or more ecological functions or values, such as increasing aquatic and riparian plant diversity or cover,increasing structural complexity,installing environmentally compatible erosion controls,or removing non-indigenous plant or animal species. Hearings Board: The Shoreline Hearings Board established by the SMA. Height: Height is measured from average grade level to the highest point of a structure;provided that television antennas,chimneys,and similar appurtenances shall not be used in calculating height;provided further that temporary construction equipment is excluded from this calculation. In-stream structure: A structure placed by humans within a stream or river waterward of the OHWM that either causes or has the potential to cause water impoundment or cause the diversion,obstruction,or modification of water flow. In-stream structures may include those for hydroelectric generation, irrigation,water supply,flood control,transportation,utility service transmission, fish habitat enhancement,recreation,or other purpose. Industrial uses: Facilities for processing,manufacturing,fabrication,assembly, and storage of finished or semi-fmished products. Landward: To,or towards,the land in a direction away from a water body. May: The action is acceptable,provided it conforms to the provisions of this SMP. Mining: The removal of sand,gravel, soil,minerals, and other earth materials for commercial and other uses. Mitigation or Mitigation sequencing: To avoid,minimize,or compensate for adverse impacts. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 _ No net loss: The standard for protection of shoreline ecological functions established in RCW 36.70A.480 as adopted or amended, and as that standard is interpreted on an on-going basis by courts,the Growth Management Hearings Board,or the Hearings Board. The concept of"no net loss" as used herein,recognizes that any use or development has potential or actual, short-term or long-term impacts which may diminish ecological function and that through application of appropriate development standards and employment of mitigation measures in accordance with mitigation sequencing,those impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the end result will not cumulatively diminish the shoreline resources and values as they currently exist. Where uses or development that impact ecological functions are necessary to achieve other objectives of RCW 90.58.020,the no net loss standard protects to the greatest extent feasible existing ecological functions and favors avoidance of new impacts to habitat and ecological functions before implementing other measures designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. Nonconforming structure: A structure within the shoreline which was lawfully constructed or established within the application process prior to the effective date of the SMA or the SMP,or amendments thereto,but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the SMP. Nonconforming use: A shoreline use which was lawfully established or established within the application process prior to the effective date of the SMA or the SMP,or amendments thereto,but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the SMP. Non water-oriented uses: Any uses that are not water-dependent,water-related,or water-enjoyment as defined by the SMP. Off-site mitigation: To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental resources away from the site on which a resource has been impacted by an activity. Ordinary high water mark(OHWM): The mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years,as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland,in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971,as it may naturally change thereafter,or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by the City,provided that in any area where the OHWM cannot be found,the OHWM adjoining freshwater shall be the line of mean high water. Pier: A fixed platform over water used for moorage of recreational or commercial watercraft. Priority habitats and species: Habitats and species designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as requiring protective measures for their survival due to population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational,commercial,or tribal importance. Priority species include State Endangered,Threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate species; animal aggregations(such as bat colonies) considered vulnerable; and species of recreational,commercial,or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains maps of known locations of priority habitats and species in Washington State. Provisions: Policies,regulations, standards,guideline criteria or environment designations. Public access: The ability of the general public to reach,touch, and enjoy the water's edge,to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Public facilities: Facilities and structures,operated for public purpose and benefit,including,but not limited to, solid waste handling and disposal,water transmission lines, sewage treatment facilities and mains,power generating and transfer facilities,gas distribution lines and storage facilities, stormwater mains,and wastewater treatment facilities. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 4 Qualified professional: A person who,in the opinion of the Director,has appropriate education,training and experience in the applicable field to generate a report or study required in this SMP. 1. For reports related to wetlands,this means a certified professional wetland scientist or a non-certified professional wetland scientist with a minimum of five years' experience in the field of wetland science and with experience preparing wetland reports. 2. For reports related to critical aquifer recharge areas,this means a hydrogeologist, geologist,or engineer,who is licensed in the State of Washington and has experience preparing hydrogeologic assessments. 3. For reports related to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas this means a biologist with experience preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat. 4. For reports related to geologically hazardous areas this means a geotechnical engineer or geologist,licensed in the State of Washington,with experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems. 5. For reports related to frequently flooded areas this means a hydrologist or engineer, licensed in the State of Washington with experience in preparing flood hazard assessments. 6. For reports related to cultural and archaeological resources and historic preservation,this means a professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional. RCW: Revised Code of Washington. Recreational use: Commercial and public facilities designed and used to provide recreational opportunities to the public. Residential use: Uses for residential purpose. Restore, restoration, or ecological restoration: The reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including,but not limited to,revegetation,removal of intrusive shoreline structures, and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre- European settlement conditions. Riparian area: The interface area between land and a river or stream. The area includes plant and wildlife habitats and communities along the river margins and banks. Setback or shoreline setback: The minimum required distance between a structure and the shoreline buffer that is to remain free of structures. Shall: An action that is mandatory and not discretionary. Shorelands or shoreland areas: Those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the OHWM; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands associated with the streams and lakes which are subject to the provisions of the SMA and the SMP; all of which will be designated as to location by Ecology. Shoreline exemption,letter of: Documentation provided by the City that proposed development qualifies as an Exempt Development(as that term is defined herein)and that the proposed development is consistent with chapter 21.50 SVMC and other local and state requirements,including the State Environmental Policy Act as adopted or amended when applicable. Shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline areas: All"shorelines of the state"and"shorelands". Shoreline Management Act(SMA): The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW as adopted or amended. Shoreline Master Program (SMP): The comprehensive use plan applicable to the shorelines of the state within the City,including the use regulations,together with maps,goals and policies, and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 5 Shoreline modifications: Those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area,usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike,breakwater,pier, weir,dredged basin,fill,bulkhead,or other shoreline structure. They can include other actions, such as clearing,grading,or application of chemicals. Shoreline permit(s): Means any substantial development,variance,conditional use permit,or revision authorized under chapter 21.50 SVMC and chapter 90.58 RCW. Shoreline stabilization: Actions taken to prevent or mitigate erosion impacts to property or structures caused by shoreline processes such as currents, floods,or wind action. Shoreline stabilization includes, but is not limited to, structural armoring approaches such as bulkheads,bulkhead alternatives, and nonstructural approaches such as bioengineering. Shoreline substantial development permit: A permit required by the SMP for substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction. Shorelines: All of the water areas of the state,including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them,except(a) shorelines of statewide significance; (b) shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and(c) shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. Shorelines of statewide significance: Has the meaning as set forth in RCW 90.58.030(2)(f) as adopted or amended. Shorelines of the state: The total of all"shorelines" and"shorelines of statewide significance"within the state. Should: An action which is required unless there is a demonstrated,compelling reason based on policy of the SMA and the SMP, against taking the action. Substantial development: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $6,416, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The current thresholds will be adjusted for inflation by the State Office of Financial Management every five years,beginning from July 1,2007. Temporary impact: Impacts to a critical area that are less than one year and expected to be restored following construction. Transportation facilities: Facilities consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the movement of passengers or goods. Upland: Generally described as the dry land area above and landward of the OHWM. Utilities: Services and facilities that produce,convey, store or process power,gas, sewage,water, stormwater,communications,oil, and waste. Variance: A process to grant relief from the specific bulk,dimensional,or performance standards through submission of a shoreline variance. A variance is not a means to change the allowed use of a shoreline. Viewing platform: A platform located landward of the OHWM used for viewing pleasure. WAC: Washington Administrative Code. Water-dependent use: A use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the water and which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Water-enjoyment use: A recreational use or other use that facilitates public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the use and which through City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 6 location,design, and operation ensures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use,the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Water-oriented use: A use that is water-dependent,water-related,or water-enjoyment,or a combination of such uses. Water quality: The physical characteristics of water within the shoreline jurisdiction,including water quantity,hydrological,physical,chemical, aesthetic,recreation-related, and biological characteristics. Water quantity: The flow rate and/or flow volume of stormwater or surface water. Where used in the SMP,the term "water quantity"refers to uses and/or structures regulated under the SMP affecting water quantity, such as impermeable surfaces and stormwater handling practices. Water quantity, for purposes of the SMP,does not mean the withdrawal of groundwater or diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340. Water-related use: A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because: 1. The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or 2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent uses and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites,including,but not limited to,irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales,canals,detention facilities,wastewater treatment facilities,farm ponds, and landscape amenities,or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990,that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street,or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 Chapter 21.50 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION PROGRAM Sections: 21.50.010 Applicability, shoreline permits and exemptions. 21.50.020 Applicability. 21.50.030 Administrative authority and responsibility. 21.50.040 Types of shoreline permits. 21.50.050 Development authorization review procedure. 21.50.060 Authorization decisions - Basis for action. 21.50.070 Conditions of approval. 21.50.080 Prohibited uses. 21.50.090 Minor activities allowed without a permit or letter of exemption. 21.50.100 Shoreline substantial development permit. 21.50.110 Exemptions from a shoreline substantial development permit. 21.50.120 Letters of exemption. 21.50.130 Shoreline conditional use permit. 21.50.140 Shoreline variance. 21.50.150 Nonconforming development. 21.50.160 Minor revisions to approved uses or developments. 21.50.170 Enforcement responsibilities generally. 21.50.180 General provisions. 21.50.190 Shoreline uses table. 21.50.200 Shoreline modification activities table. 21.50.210 No net loss and mitigation sequencing. 21.50.220 Height limit standards. 21.50.230 Shoreline buffers and building setbacks. 21.50.240 Flood hazard reduction. 21.50.250 Public access. 21.50.260 Shoreline vegetation conservation. 21.50.270 Water quality, stormwater, and non-point pollution. 21.50.280 Archaeological and historic resources 21.50.290 Gravel pits 21.50.300 Specific shoreline use regulations. 21.50.310 Boating facilities. 21.50.320 Commercial use. 21.50.330 Industrial use. 21.50.340 In-stream structures. 21.50.350 Parking facilities. 21.50.360 Recreational development and use. 21.50.370 Residential development and use. 21.50.380 Signs and outdoor lighting. 21.50.390 Transportation facilities. 21.50.400 Public facilities and utilities. 21.50.410 General regulations for specific shoreline modifications. 21.50.420 Shoreline/slope stabilization. 21.50.430 Piers and docks. 21.50.440 Dredging and fill. 21.50.450 Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects. 21.50.460 General - Shoreline critical areas regulations - Applicability. 21.50.470 Maps and inventories. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 21.50.480 Exemptions from critical area review and reporting requirements. 21.50.490 Critical area review. 21.50.500 Critical area report requirements for all critical areas. 21.50.510 Mitigation. 21.50.520 Wetlands - Shoreline critical area regulation. 21.50.530 Critical aquifer recharge areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. 21.50.540 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. 21.50.550 Geologically hazardous areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. 21.50.560 Frequently flooded areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. Appendix A-1 Shoreline Master Program Definitions Appendix A-2 Shoreline Buffers Map City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft CHAPTER 21.50 SHORELINE REGULATIONS 21.50.010 Applicability, shoreline permits and exemptions. To be authorized, all uses and development activities in shorelines shall comply with the City of Spokane Valley's (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(1). All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted. 21.50.020 Applicability. A. The SMP shall apply to all shorelands, shorelines, and waters within the City that fall under the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW. The Shoreline Designations Map is shown in Appendix A. These include: 1. Lands extending 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of waters that fall under the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW, in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane; 2. Floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; 3. Critical areas within the shoreline and their associated buffer areas; and 4. Lakes that are subject to the provisions of the SMP, as may be amended. B. Maps depicting the extent of shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline designations are for guidance only. They are to be used in conjunction with best available science, field investigations and on-site surveys to accurately establish the location and extent of the shoreline jurisdiction when a project is proposed. All areas meeting the definition of a shoreline or a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, whether mapped or not, are subject to the provisions of the SMP. Within the City, Shelley Lake is considered a Shoreline of the State and is subject to the provisions of the SMP. The Spokane River is further identified as a shoreline of statewide significance. C. The SMP shall apply to every person, individual, firm, partnership, association, organization, corporation, local or state governmental agency, public or municipal corporation, or other non-federal entity that develops, owns, leases, or administers lands, critical areas, or waters that fall under the jurisdiction of the SMA. D. Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW are exempt from all procedural requirements of the SMP. E. Development may require a shoreline permit in addition to other approvals required from the City, state, and federal agencies. F. The SMP shall apply whether the proposed development or activity is exempt from a Shoreline Permit or not. G. Definitions relevant to the SMP are set forth in Appendix A-1. If any conflict occurs between the definitions found in Appendix A-1, and Appendix A, the definition provided in Appendix A-1 shall govern. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft H. When the provisions set forth in SVMC 21.50 conflict with other provisions of the SMP or with federal or state regulations, those which provide more substantive protection to the shoreline shall apply. 21.50.030 Administrative authority and responsibility. A. The City Manager has designated the Community Development Director (Director) as the City's shoreline administrator, who shall carry out the provisions of the SMP and who shall have the authority to act upon the following matters: 1. Interpretation, enforcement, and administration of the SMP; 2. Modifications or revisions to approved Shoreline Permits as provided in the SMP; and 3. Requests for Letters of Exemption. B. The Director shall ensure compliance with the provisions of the SMP for all shoreline permits and approvals processed by the City pursuant to SVMC 21.50.100, 21.50.110, 21.50.130, and 21.50.140. C. The Director shall document all project review actions in the shoreline jurisdiction in order to periodically evaluate the cumulative effects of authorized development on shoreline conditions, pursuant to WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(D). D. The Director may consult with Ecology, at his discretion, to ensure that any formal written interpretations are consistent with the purpose and intent of chapter 90.58 RCW and the applicable guidelines of chapter 173-26 and 173-27 WAC. 21.50.040 Types of shoreline permits. Developments and uses within the shoreline jurisdiction may be authorized through one or more of the following: A. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.100, for substantial development. B. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.130, for projects identified in SVMC 21.50.190 or uses not specified in the SMP. C. Letters of Exemption, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.120, for projects or activities meeting the criteria of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) and WAC 173-27-040(2). D. Shoreline Variance, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140. 21.50.050 Development authorization review procedure. A. Complete development applications and appeals shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and with any specific process requirements provided in SVMC 21.50 including: 1. Submittals; 2. Completeness review; 3. Notices; 4. Hearings; 5. Decisions; and 6. Appeals. B. The following procedures shall also apply to development authorizations within the shoreline jurisdiction: 1. The public comment period for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be 30 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-110. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 2. The public comment period for limited utility extensions and shoreline stabilization measures for bulkheads to protect a single family residence and its appurtenant structures shall be 20 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-120. 3. For limited utility extensions and bulkheads for a single family residence, a decision shall be issued within 21 days from the last day of the comment period, pursuant to WAC 173-27-120. 4. The effective date of a Shoreline Permit shall conform to WAC 173-27-090 and shall be the latter of the permit date, or the date of final action on subsequent appeals of the Shoreline Permit, if any, unless the Applicant notifies the shoreline administrator of delays in other necessary construction permits. 5. The expiration dates for a shoreline permit pertaining to the start and completion of construction, and the extension of deadlines for those dates shall conform to WAC 173-27-090 and are: a. Construction shall be started within two years of the effective date of the shoreline permit; b. Construction shall be completed within five years of the effective date of the shoreline permit; c. A single one-year extension of the deadlines may be granted at the discretion of the Director; and d. The Director may set alternative permit expiration dates as a condition of the shoreline permit if just cause exists. 6 The decision and the application materials shall be sent to Ecology after the local decision and any local appeal procedures have been completed, pursuant to WAC 173-27-130; 7. For Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Ecology shall file the permit without additional action pursuant to WAC 173-27-130; 8. For Shoreline Conditional Use permits and Variance decisions, Ecology shall issue a decision within 30 days of the date of filing, pursuant to WAC 173-27-130 and WAC 173-27-200; 9. The appeal period to the Shorelines Hearings Board of an Ecology action shall be 21 days from the date of filing for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, or the issue date of a Shoreline Conditional Use permit or Variance decision, pursuant to WAC 173-27-190; 10. The Shorelines Hearings Board will follow the rules governing that body, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. C. Development applications shall be reviewed for conformance with SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.560. 21.50.060 Authorization decisions - Basis for action. A. Approval or denial of any development or use within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be based upon the following: 1. Danger to life and property that would likely occur as a result of the project; 2. Compatibility of the project with the critical area features on, adjacent to, or near the property, shoreline values and ecological functions, and public access and navigation; 3. Conformance with the applicable development standards in SVMC 21.50; 4. Requirements of other applicable local, state or federal permits or authorizations; 5. Adequacy of the information provided by the Applicant or available to the Director; and 6. Ability of the project to satisfy the purpose and intent of the SMP. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft B. Based upon the project evaluation, the Director shall take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the development or use; 2. Approve the development or use with conditions, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.070; or 3. Deny the development or use. C. The decision by the Director on the development or use shall include written findings and conclusions stating the reasons upon which the decision is based. 21.50.070 Conditions of approval. When approving any development or use, the Director may impose conditions to: A. Accomplish the purpose and intent of the SMP; B. Eliminate or mitigate any negative impacts of the project on critical areas, and on shoreline functions; C. Restore important resource features that have been degraded or lost on the project site; D. Protect designated critical areas and shoreline jurisdiction from damaging and incompatible development; or E. Ensure compliance with specific development standards in SVMC 21.50. 21.50.080 Prohibited activities and uses. The following activities and uses are prohibited in all shoreline designations and are not eligible for a Shoreline permit, including a Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance. See Table 21.50-1 and Table 21.50-2. A. Uses not allowed in the underlying zoning district; B. Discharge of solid wastes, liquid wastes, untreated effluents, or other potentially harmful materials; C. Solid waste or hazardous waste landfills; D. Speculative fill; E. Dredging or dredge material disposal in wetlands; F. Dredging or dredge material disposal to construct land canals or small basins for boat moorage or launching, water ski landings, swimming holes or other recreational activities; G. Commercial timber harvest or other forest practices; H. Agriculture and aquaculture; Non water-oriented Industrial Uses and Mining; and J. The construction of breakwaters, jetties, groins, or weirs. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 21.50.090 Minor activities allowed without a Shoreline permit or letter of exemption. The SMP applies to the following activities, however, they are allowed without a Shoreline permit or Letter of Exemption: A. Maintenance of existing landscaping (including paths and trails) or gardens within the shoreline, including a regulated critical area or its buffer. Examples include mowing lawns, weeding, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning, and planting of non- invasive ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the general condition and extent of such areas. Removing trees and shrubs within a buffer is not considered a maintenance activity. See SVMC 21.50.260 for regulations regarding vegetation removal. Excavation, filling, and construction of new landscaping features is not considered a maintenance activity and may require a shoreline permit or letter of exemption. B. Minor maintenance and/or repair of lawfully established structures that do not involve additional construction, earthwork, or clearing. Examples include painting, trim or facing replacement, re-roofing, etc. Construction or replacement of structural elements is not covered in this provision, but may be covered under an exemption in SVMC 21.50.110(B). C. Cleaning canals, ditches, drains, wasteways, etc. without expanding their original configuration is not considered additional earthwork, as long as the cleared materials are placed outside the shoreline jurisdiction, wetlands and buffers; D. Creation of unimproved private trails that do not cross streams or wetlands and which are less than two feet wide and do not involve placement of fill or grubbing of vegetation; E. Planting of native vegetation; F. Noxious weed control outside of buffers pursuant to SVMC 21.50.110(M) except for area wide vegetation removal/grubbing; G. Noxious weed control within vegetative buffers, if the criteria listed below are met. Control methods not meeting these criteria may still apply for a restoration exemption, or other authorization as applicable: 1. Hand removal/spraying of individual plants only; and 2. No area-wide vegetation removal/grubbing. H. Pruning, thinning, or dead or hazardous tree removal pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(C). 21.50.100 Shoreline substantial development permit required. A. Classification Criteria - A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for any substantial development unless the use or development is specifically exempt pursuant to SVMC 21.50.090 or 21.50.110. B. Process - Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be processed as a Type II review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, subject to the exceptions set forth in SVMC 21.50.050. C. Decision Criteria - A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may be issued when all applicable requirements of the SMA, WAC 173-27, and the SMP have been met. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 21.50.110 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit. The activities listed below are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit pursuant to WAC 173-27-040. These activities still require a letter of exemption and may require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, or other development permits from the City or other agencies. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for a Letter of Exemption, then a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for the entire proposed development project. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemptions from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. A. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed $6,416 or as adjusted by the State Office of Financial Management, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or Shorelines of the State. For purposes of determining whether or not a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed, or found labor, equipment, or materials. B. Normal maintenance or repair of existing legally-established structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire, or elements. 1. Normal maintenance includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. 2. Normal repair means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location, and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment. 3. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is: a. The common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location, and external appearance; and b. The replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment. C. Construction of a normal protective bulkhead common to residential lots: 1. A normal protective bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the OHWM for the sole purpose of protecting an existing residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. 2. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. 3. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an OHWM has been established by the City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual OHWM. 4. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). D. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment that requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with Chapter 21.50. 1. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the Director to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit that would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, WAC 173-27, or the SMP, shall be obtained. 2. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies and requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW and the SMP. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency. E. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. F. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence or appurtenance for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above average grade level, and which meets all requirements of the City, other than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. Construction authorized under this subsection shall be located landward of the OHWM. G. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private non-commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single- family or multiple-family residence. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities, or other appurtenances. This exception applies when the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $10,000, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding $2,500 occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development. H. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands. The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft J. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system. K. Any project with a State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council certification from the governor pursuant to RCW 80.50. L. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if: 1. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of surface waters; 2. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; 3. The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; and 4. The Applicant first posts a performance surety acceptable to the City to ensure that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions. M. Removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control published by the Department of Agriculture or Ecology jointly with other state agencies under RCW 43.21 C. N. Watershed restoration projects as defined in WAC 173.27.040(2)(o). The Director shall determine if the project is substantially consistent with the SMP and notify the Applicant of such determination by letter. O. A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage as reviewed by WDFW and all of the following apply: 1. The project has been approved in writing by the WDFW; 2. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the WDFW pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and 3. The Director has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the SMP and shall notify the Applicant of such determination by letter. 21.50.120 Letter of exemption. A. The proponent of an activity exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall apply for a Letter of Exemption. All activities exempt from the requirement for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall use reasonable methods to avoid impacts to critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. Being exempt from the requirements for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit does not give authority to degrade a critical area, or shoreline, or ignore risk from natural hazards. B. The Director shall review the Letter of Exemption request to verify compliance with the SMP and shall approve or deny such Letter of Exemption. C. If a Letter of Exemption is issued, it shall be sent to Ecology, the Applicant, and a copy retained by the City. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft D. A Letter of Exemption may contain conditions and/or mitigating conditions of approval to achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of the SMP and the SMA. E. A denial of a Letter of Exemption shall be in writing and shall list the reason(s) for the denial. 21.50.130 Shoreline conditional use permit. A. Classification Criteria - Shoreline conditional uses are those uses within the shoreline jurisdiction identified in Table 21.50-1 Shoreline Use Table, which require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. B. Unclassified uses not specifically identified in Table 21.50-1 may be authorized through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, provided the Applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of SVMC 21.50. C. Process - A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be processed as a Type II review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. The Director shall be the final authority for the City, whose recommendation is then forwarded to Ecology. Ecology shall have final approval authority pursuant to WAC 173-27-200. D. Decision Criteria - The Director's decision on a conditional use shall be based upon the criteria set forth in SVMC 19.150.030 and 21.50.060 Conditions and Requirements, together with the criteria established below. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the development meets all of the following criteria: 1. The use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020; 2. The use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; 3. The use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other permitted uses in the area; 4. The use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment designation in which it is located; and 5. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. E. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist for similar uses and impacts, the total cumulative effect of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. F. The burden of proving that the project is consistent with the applicable criteria shall be upon the Applicant. 21.50.140 Shoreline variance. A. The purpose of a Shoreline Variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional requirements set forth in SVMC 21.50 where extraordinary or unique circumstances exist relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the standards would impose unnecessary hardships on the Applicant, or thwart the policies set forth in the SMA and the SMP. B. When a development or use is proposed that does not meet requirements of the bulk, dimensional, and/or performance standards of the SMP, such development may only be City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft authorized by approval of a Shoreline Variance, even if the development or use does not require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. C. Process - A Shoreline Variance shall be processed as a Type II review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. Each request for a Shoreline Variance shall be considered separately and prior to any decision on a development application. Any decision to approve or conditionally approve the development will include and specifically cite only those variances approved for inclusion with the project. D. When a Shoreline Variance is requested, the Director shall be the final authority for the City. The Director's determination shall be provided to Ecology for review. Ecology shall have final approval authority of Shoreline Variances pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(10). E. Decision Criteria - To qualify for a Shoreline Variance, the following shall be required: 1. Demonstrate compliance with the criteria established in SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action; 2. A Shoreline Variance request for a development or use located landward of the OHWM, or landward of any wetland shall cite the specific standard or condition from which relief is requested and be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates the variance is consistent with all of the items below: a. That the strict application of a standard precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; b. That the hardship described in subsection a is specifically related to the property, and is a result of unique natural or physical conditions, such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features which do not allow compliance with the standard. The site constraint shall not be the result of a deed restriction, a lack of knowledge of requirements involved when the property was acquired, or other actions resulting from the proponent's own actions; c. The project is generally compatible with other permitted or authorized uses in the project area, with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP, and will not cause adverse impacts to the area; d. The requested variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area, and the variance is the minimum necessary to afford the requested relief; and e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; 3. A Shoreline Variance request for a development or use located waterward of the OHWM, or within any wetland shall cite the specific standard or condition from which relief is requested and be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates the variance is consistent with all of the items below: a. That the strict application of a standard would preclude all reasonable use of the property; b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (e) of this section; and c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. 4. In the granting of any Shoreline Variance, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like variances in the area. For example, if Shoreline Variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances shall also City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft remain consistent with the policies of the SMA and SMP and shall not cause substantial adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. F. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets the criteria of the SMP and WAC 173-27-170 shall be on the Applicant. Absence of such proof shall be a basis for denial of the application. 21.50.150 Nonconforming development. A. Classification Criteria—A use, structure, or lot is nonconforming if it was legally established but is inconsistent with a subsequently adopted regulation or regulations. Lawful uses, structures, and lots that are deemed nonconforming are subject to the provision of this section. B. Process and Decision Criteria 1. Decisions on projects that require review under this section shall be made pursuant to SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action and the following criteria. 2. Legal nonconforming uses and structures shall be allowed to continue with no additional requirements except as otherwise addressed in this section. 3. Nonconforming Uses. a. Additional development of any property on which a nonconforming use exists shall require that all new uses conform to the SMP. b. Intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses that will not result in an increase of nonconformity shall be allowed and will be processed under these nonconforming provisions as a Type II review, pursuant to SVMC Title 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. c. Change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a nonconforming use shall not affect its nonconforming status provided that the use does not change or intensify. d. If a nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use, a nonconforming use may not be resumed. e. Conversion from one nonconforming use to another may only be approved through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit pursuant to SVMC 21.50.130(E) if the following additional criteria are met: The property is located within a residential or conservancy shoreline environment; ii. The replacement use is either of a similar intensity to the previous nonconforming use, or is more conforming with the intent of the applicable Shoreline Environment Policies; and iii. The impacts to the shoreline ecological functions from the existing use are reduced by changing the use. f. When the operation of a nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months, the nonconforming use rights shall expire and the future use of such property shall meet all current applicable regulations of the SMP. g. If a conforming building housing a nonconforming use is damaged, the use may be resumed at the time the building is repaired, provided a permit application for the restoration is received by the City within 12 months following said damage. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft h. Normal maintenance and repair of a structure housing a nonconforming use may be permitted provided all work is consistent with the provisions of the SMP. Legally established residences are considered conforming uses. 4. Nonconforming Structures. a. A nonconforming structure may be maintained or repaired, provided such improvements do not increase the nonconformity of such structure and are consistent with the remaining provisions of the SMP. b. Alterations to legal nonconforming structures that: Will result in an increase of nonconformity to the structures, including expanding within the buffer, may be allowed under a Shoreline Variance pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140; or ii Do not increase the existing nonconformity and will otherwise conform to all other provisions of SVMC 21.50 are allowed without additional review. c. A nonconforming structure that is moved any distance within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be brought into conformance with the SMP. d. A damaged nonconforming structure may be reconstructed or replaced, regardless of the amount of damage if: The rebuilt structure or portion of structure does not expand or modify the original footprint or height of the damaged structure unless: (1). The expansion or modification does not increase the degree of nonconformity with the current regulations; and (2). The reconstructed or restored structure will not cause additional adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. ii. It is not relocated except to increase conformity or to increase ecological function, in which case the structure shall be located in the least environmentally damaging location possible; iii. The permit application to restore the development is made within 12 months of the date the damage occurred; and iv. Any residential structures, including multi-family structures, may be reconstructed up to the size, placement, and density that existed prior to the damage, so long as other provisions of the SMP are met. 5. Nonconforming Lots. Legally established nonconforming, undeveloped lots located landward of the OHWM are buildable, provided that all new structures or additions to structures on any nonconforming lot must meet all setback, height and other construction requirements of the SMP and the SMA. 21.50.160 Minor revisions to approved uses or developments. A. Classification Criteria - Minor revisions to a project that have been approved under a shoreline permit are allowed in certain circumstances. 1. Changes that are not substantive are not required to obtain a revision and may be allowed as part of the original shoreline permit. Examples include, but are not limited to, minor changes in facility orientation or location, minor changes in structural design that do not change the height or increase ground floor area, and minor accessory structures such as equipment covers or small sheds near the main structure. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 2. Substantive changes are those that materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance with the shoreline permit and SMP requirements. Such changes may be approved as a minor revision if: a. The Director determines that the proposed revision and all previous revisions are within the scope and intent of the original shoreline permit; b. The use authorized with the original shoreline permit does not change; c. The project revision does not cause additional significant adverse environmental impacts; d. No new structures are proposed; and e. The criteria in SVMC 21.50.160(A)(3) are met. 3. Substantive changes shall comply with the following to be approved as a minor revision: a. No additional over-water construction shall be involved, except that pier, dock, or swimming float construction may be increased by 10 percent from the provisions of the original shoreline permit; b. Lot coverage and height approved with the original shoreline permit may be increased a maximum of 10 percent if the proposed revisions do not exceed the requirements for height or lot coverage pursuant to SVMC 21.50.220 Dimensional Standards and SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations; and c. Landscaping may be added to a project without necessitating an application for a new shoreline permit if the landscaping is consistent with permit conditions (if any) and SVMC 21.50. 4. Substantive changes which cannot meet these requirements shall require a new shoreline permit. Any additional shoreline permit shall be processed under the applicable terms of this chapter. B. Process - Requests for minor revisions to existing shoreline permits shall be processed as a Type I review, pursuant to SVMC Title 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. Parties of record to the original shoreline permit shall be notified of the request for revision, although a comment period is not required. A minor revision for a project within shoreline jurisdiction shall follow state filing, appeal, and approval standards pursuant to WAC 173-27-100 Revisions to Permits. C. Decision Criteria - Decisions on minor revisions shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions — Basis for Action. 21.50.170 Enforcement. A. Enforcement of the SMP, including the provisions of SVMC 21.50, shall be pursuant to SVMC 17.100. Nothing herein or within SVMC 17.100 shall be construed to require enforcement of the SMP and SVMC 21.50 in a particular manner or to restrict the discretion of the Director in determining how and when to enforce the SMP and SVMC 21.50; provided all enforcement shall be consistent with the policies of the SMP and SVMC 21.50. B. Upon a determination that a violation of the SMP, including SVMC 21.50, has occurred, no further development may be authorized unless and until compliance with any applicable shoreline and development permit or process conditions and requirements of SVMC 21.50 have been achieved to the satisfaction of the Director. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft C. For violations affecting a critical area, the party(s) responsible for the violation and the owner shall meet the following minimum performance standards to achieve the restoration requirements, as applicable: 1. A restoration plan shall be prepared and address the following: a. Restoration of historical structural and functional values, including water quality and habitat functions; b. Ensure that replacement soils will be viable for planting and will not create a less fertile growing conditions; c. Replacement of native vegetation within the critical area, and buffers with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities; d. Replication of the historic functions and values at the location of the alteration; e. Annual performance monitoring reports demonstrating compliance with mitigation plan requirements shall be submitted for a minimum two-year period; and f. As-built drawings and other information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of the SMP shall be submitted. 2. The following additional performance standards shall be met for restoration of frequently flooded areas and geological hazards and be included in the restoration plan: a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the pre- development hazard; b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard. 3. The Director may, at the violator's expense, consult with a Qualified Professional to determine if the plan meets the requirements of the SMP. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the violator for revision and resubmittal. 21.50.180 General provisions. A. General Regulations. 1. Regulations in SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.290 are in addition to the specific use regulations in SVMC 21.50.300 through 21.50.450 and other adopted rules, including but not limited to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Spokane Valley Street Standards, and the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, as adopted or amended. 2. All permitted and exempt projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall ensure that the no net loss of ecological functions standard is met. SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing and SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation contain appropriate methods to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological function. The City may also condition project dimensions, location of project components on the site, intensity of use, screening, parking requirements, and setbacks, as deemed appropriate. 3. All shoreline uses and modifications shall obtain all necessary permits from the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and shall operate in compliance with all permit requirements. 4. Deviations from regulations may be granted through a Shoreline Variance, which requires approval by both the City and Ecology. Shoreline modifications listed in City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft Table 21.50-2 as "prohibited" are not eligible for consideration as a Shoreline Variance. 5. New projects, including the subdivision of land and related construction of single family residences, are prohibited when the use or development requires structural flood hazard reduction or other structural stabilization measures within the shoreline to support the proposed or future development. 6. When a proposal contains two or more use activities, including accessory uses, the most restrictive use category shall apply to the entire proposal. 7. Structures, uses, and activities shall be designed and managed to minimize blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access to the water and the shorelines from public lands. 8. Structures and sites shall be designed with landscaping, vegetated buffers, exterior materials, and lighting that are aesthetically compatible with the shoreline environment. 9. When a study is required to comply with SVMC 21.50, it shall be performed by Qualified Professional registered in the State of Washington. 10. All clearing and grading activities shall comply with SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities. Adherence to the following is required during project construction: a. Materials adequate to immediately correct emergency erosion situations shall be maintained on site; b. All debris, overburden, and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a manner so as to prevent their entry into a water body. Such materials from construction shall not be stored or disposed of on or adjacent to Shorelines of the State; c. The shoreline buffer shall be clearly marked on the ground prior to and during construction activities to avoid impacts to the buffer; and d. Infrastructure used in, on, or over the water shall be constructed using materials that do not contaminate the water or interfere with navigation. B. The City may consult with agencies with expertise or jurisdiction over the resources during the review of any permit or process to assist with analysis and identification of appropriate performance measures that adequately safeguard shoreline and critical areas. C. The Director may consult with a Qualified Professional to review a critical areas report when City staff lack the resources or expertise to review these materials. The City may require the Applicant to pay for or reimburse the City for the consultant fees. 21.50.190 Shoreline uses table. A. Uses and activities are categorized within each shoreline environment as allowed, permitted, conditional use, or prohibited, as defined in this section. This priority system determines the applicable permit or process, administrative requirements, and allows activities that are compatible with each shoreline designation. Procedures and criteria for obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Letter of Exemption, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance are set forth in SVMC 21.50.040. These uses shall also meet the requirements of SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations. B. The following terms shall be used in conjunction with Shoreline Use and Modification Tables provided in SVMC 21.50.190 and SVMC 21.50.200. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft Allowed Use: These are uses that are exempt from the shoreline permit review process and do not require submittal of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Letter of Exemption application. Projects or uses shall be reviewed to ensure that all requirements contained in SVMC 21.50 are met. Building permit applications, or site plans, are the general method of review. Permitted Use: These are uses which are preferable and meet the policies of the particular shoreline environment designation. They require submittal of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or a Letter of Exemption application. An exemption is subject to an administrative approval process; a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit requires public notice, comment periods, and filing with Ecology. Conditional Use: A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is intended to allow for flexibility and the exercise of judgment in the application of regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of the SMA and the SMP. Prohibited: These are uses which are viewed as inconsistent with the definition, policies, or intent of the shoreline environmental designation. For the purposes of the SMP, these uses are considered inappropriate and are not authorized under any permit or process. Table 21.50-1 - Shoreline Uses, below, shall be used to determine the permit or process required for specific shoreline uses and activities within the shoreline jurisdiction. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft Table 21.50-1: Shoreline Uses i i m m i a, a, m m G G L L a, a, a, a, N a, 0 0 o m - - u U 3 v co c Or ++ co 0 11 E R i co co 3 co t 0- t - pp a SHORELINE USES '^ M '^ M M = a Agricultural Activities Aquaculture Boating Facilities (Including launches, ramps, public/commercial docks, and private docks serving more than four residences) N/A P C 1 Commercial Use Water-dependent P2 P2 C Water-related and water-enjoyment P2 P2 P2 C Non water-oriented P2'3 Forest Practices Industrial Use Water-dependent P C Water-related and water-enjoyment P Non water-oriented P3 In-stream Structures As part of a fish habitat enhancement project N/A P P P P Other N/A P P P Mining Parking Facilities As a primary use As an accessory/secondary use P P P C Recreational Use Water-dependent P P P P P Water-related and water-enjoyment P P P P P Non water-oriented P P P C4 C Trails and walkways P P P C5 P Residential Use Single-family A A A A Single-family residential accessory uses and structures A A A A Multi-family P P P Private docks serving one to four single- family residences N/A P P P City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft i i i To To a a >cc > a, a, a, ill cc cc C C C N a, 0 0 o m - u U 3 v .Q1 E ., c c Or ++ 0 R i co R = 3 co t 0- 0 R —tv 0- SHORELINE USES '^ m '^ m m = a Accessory Dwelling Units P P P P Transportation Facilities New circulation routes related to permitted shoreline activities P P C C Expansion of existing circulation systems P P P P New, reconstructed, or maintenance of bridges, trail, or rail crossings P P P P P Public Facilities and Utilities Public facilities C C C C Utilities and utility crossings C C C C C Routine maintenance of existing utility corridor and infrastructure A6 A6 A6 P6 A6 KEY: A=Allowed P= Permitted C=Conditional Use Blank= Prohibited N/A= Not Applicable Notes: For Boating Facilities within the aquatic environment, the adjacent upland environment as set forth on the City Environment Designation Map shall govern (i.e., if the aquatic environment is adjacent to Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designated shorelines, the use would be permitted). 2 Commercial uses are allowed in the Shoreline Residential - Upland, Shoreline Residential - Waterfront and Urban Conservancy Environments only if the underlying zoning of the property is Mixed Use Center. 3 Permitted only if the applicable criteria in SVMC 21.50.320(B)(1) or 21.50.330(B)(1) are met. 4 Non water-oriented recreation uses are prohibited in Urban Conservation - High Quality Shorelines except limited public uses that have minimal or low impact on shoreline ecological functions, such as the Centennial Trail and appropriately-scaled day use areas which may be allowed through a Conditional Use Permit. 5 Modifications, improvements, or additions to the Centennial Trail are permitted in the Urban Conservancy - High Quality Environment. 6 May be allowed by Letter of Exemption if the maintenance activity involves any ground disturbing activity or is located within the Urban Conservancy - High Quality Environment. 21.50.200 Shoreline modification activities table. Table 21.50-2, Shoreline Modification Activities, below, shall be used to determine whether a specific shoreline modification is allowed in a shoreline environment. Shoreline modifications may be permitted, approved as a conditional use, or prohibited, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.190. Shoreline modifications shall also meet the requirements of SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft Table 21.50-2: Shoreline Modification Activities 1 i i To To a a > > a, a, a, CU cc cc C C C N a, 0 0 o m - u U 3 v .Q1 E .2 c c Or r. 0 R i R R , 3 mi t 0. 0 R —tv a SHORELINE MODIFICATION ACTIVITY '^ M '^ m m = a Shoreline/Slope Stabilization Structural, such as bulkheads N/A C C Nonstructural, such as soil bioengineering N/A P P C 1 Piers and Docks Piers N/A P C Viewing Platforms P P P Docks N/A P C 1 Dredging and Fill Dredging C C C C Fill C C C C Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects P P P P P Groins and Weirs C KEY: P= Permitted C=Conditional Use Blank= Prohibited N/A= Not Applicable 1 For these uses within the aquatic environment, the adjacent upland environment as set forth on the Environment Designation Map shall govern (i.e., if the aquatic environment is adjacent to Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designated shorelines, "hard" shoreline stabilization measures would be allowed by Shoreline Substantial Development Permit). 21.50.210 No net loss and mitigation sequencing. A. Applicability. This section applies to all shoreline activities, uses, development, and modifications, including those that are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. B. Standards. 1. All projects shall result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The requirement for no net loss may be met through project design, construction, and operations. Additionally, this standard may be achieved by following the mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210(B)(4) and SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. The City may condition project dimensions, location of project components on the site, intensity of use, screening, parking requirements, and setbacks, as deemed appropriate to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological function. 2. Required mitigation shall not exceed the level necessary to ensure that the proposed use or development will ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 3. Mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210(B)(4) is required when specified in these regulations or for projects that: City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft a. Involve shoreline modifications; b. Request a buffer or setback reduction pursuant to SVMC 21.50.230 Shoreline Buffers and Building Setbacks; c. Are located within a wetland or its buffer; or d. Will have significant probable adverse environmental impacts that must be avoided or mitigated. 4. Mitigation measures shall be applied in the following order: a. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology; c. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; e. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and f. Monitor the impact and the compensation projects and take appropriate corrective measures, as needed. 21.50.220 Height limit standards. A. Applicability. This section applies to all new or redeveloped primary and residential accessory structures. B. Standards. 1. The maximum height limit for all new or redeveloped primary structures shall be 35 feet. 2. The maximum height limit for single-family residential accessory or appurtenant structures shall be 15 feet. 3. These height limit standards may be altered through a Shoreline Variance pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140. 21.50.230 Shoreline buffers and building setbacks. A. Applicability. This section applies to all new construction, new and expanded uses, and modifications. Shoreline buffers are shown on the City Shoreline Buffer Map in Appendix A-2 Shoreline Buffers. B. Standards. 1. Unless otherwise specified in SVMC 21.50, buffers shall be maintained in predominantly natural, undisturbed, undeveloped, and vegetated condition. 2. The shoreline buffer shall be clearly marked on the ground prior to and during construction activities to avoid impacts to the buffer. 3. Shoreline buffers for new and expanded uses may be reduced up to 25 percent through a Shoreline Variance if the buffer widths have not been reduced or modified by any other prior action and one or more of the following conditions apply: a. Adherence of the buffer width would not allow reasonable use; b. The buffer contains variations in sensitivity to ecological impacts due to existing physical characteristics; i.e. the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation. This shall be supported by a Habitat Management Plan developed in conformance with SVMC 21.50.540(E)(2); or City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft c. Where shoreline restoration is proposed consistent with the City's Restoration Plan. 4. Building Setback from the shoreline buffer shall be as shown in Table 21.50-3: Table 21.50-3 Buffer Building Setbacks Environment Urban Urban Shoreline Shoreline Conservancy Conservancy— Residential - Residential - High Quality Upland Waterfront Setback 10 foot 15 foot 0 foot 1 0 foot 1 1A 15-foot building setback from the shoreline buffer shall be required for any subdivision, binding site plan,or planned residential development in the Shoreline Residential—Upland and Shoreline Residential—Waterfront designations. 5. Front, rear, and side setbacks and lot coverage shall conform to the SVMC Title 19, Zoning Regulations. 21.50.240 Flood hazard reduction. A. Applicability. This section applies to development proposals: 1. Intended to reduce flood damage or hazard; 2. To construct temporary or permanent shoreline modifications or structures within the regulated floodplains or floodways; or 3. That may increase flood hazards. B. Standards. 1. All proposals shall conform to SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulation, SVMC 21.50.340, In-stream Structures and SVMC 21.50.410 Shoreline Modifications. 2. The following uses and activities may be allowed within the floodplain or floodway: a. Actions or projects that protect or restore the ecosystem-wide processes and/or ecological functions; b. New bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation structures, with appropriate mitigation, where no other feasible alternative exists; c. Repair and maintenance of an existing legal structure, utility corridor, or transportation structure, provided that such actions do not increase flood hazards to other uses; d. Modifications, expansions, or additions to an existing legal use; and e. Measures to reduce shoreline erosion. 3. Natural in-stream features such as snags, uprooted trees, or stumps shall be left in place unless an engineered assessment demonstrates that they are causing bank erosion or higher flood stages. 21.50.250 Public access. A. Applicability. This section applies to all new projects by public and private entities. B. Standards. 1. Public access shall be consistent with the City's SMP Public Access Plan. 2. Public access may only be required as a condition of approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit to the extent allowed City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft by law and in a manner consistent with the City's Public Access Plan, and only in the following circumstances: a. The use or development is a public project; or b. The project is a private use or development and one of the following conditions exists: The project impacts, interferes with, blocks, discourages, or eliminates existing access; ii. The project increases or creates demand for public access that is not met by existing opportunities or facilities; or iii. The project impacts or interferes with public use of waters subject to the Public Trust Doctrine. 3. Public access shall not be required for activities qualifying for a letter of exemption or new single family residential development of four or fewer units. 4. All developments, including shoreline permits or letter of exemption applications, which require or propose public access shall include a narrative that identifies: a. Impacts to existing access, including encroachment, increased traffic, and added populations; b. The access needs of the development consistent with those described for similar projects in the Public Access Plan, Section Four; and c. The proposed location, type, and size of the public access. 5. When public access is required pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b), the City shall impose permit conditions requiring public access that are roughly proportional to the impacts caused or the demand created by the proposed use or development. 6. Prior to requiring public access as a condition of approval of any shoreline permit or letter of exemption pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b), the Director shall determine and make written findings of fact stating that the use or development satisfies any of the conditions in SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b) and that any public access required is roughly proportional to the impacts caused or the demand created by the proposed use or development. 7. When public access is required or proposed, the following shall apply: a. Mitigation sequencing shall be required to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from the public access. b. Visual access to the shoreline may be established if any vegetation removal is pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. c. Public access sites shall be connected to the nearest public street or other public access point. d. Future trails on private property, including trail extensions and new access points, shall incorporate enhancement and restoration measures and be contained within a recorded easement. e. Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy or use of the project or activity. f. Public and private entities may establish user regulations, including hours of operation, usage by animals or motorized vehicles, and prohibited activities, such as camping, open fires, or skateboarding. Such restrictions may be approved by the Director as part of the permit review process. g. Public access improvements shall include provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons where reasonably feasible. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft h. Signage associated with public access shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.380 Signs and Outdoor Lighting, and SVMC 22.110 Sign Regulations. 21.50.260 Shoreline vegetation conservation. A. Applicability. Vegetation conservation measures are required for all projects that propose vegetation removal. B. Standards. 1. A vegetation management plan shall be submitted for projects that propose to remove either of the following within the shoreline jurisdiction: a. One or more mature native trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at chest height; or b. More than 10 square feet of native shrubs and/or native ground cover at any one time by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or other activities. 2. When required, a vegetation management plan shall contain the following: a. A site plan showing: The distribution of existing plant communities in the area proposed for clearing and/or grading; ii. Areas to be preserved; iii. Areas to be cleared; and iv. Trees to be removed. b. A description of the vegetative condition of the site that addresses the following: Plant species; ii. Plant density; iii. Any natural or man-made disturbances; iv. Overhanging vegetation; v. The functions served by the existing plant community (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat values, slope stabilization); and vi. The presence and distribution of noxious weeds. c. A landscape plan showing: Proposed landscaping, including the species, distribution, and density of plants; the plan should be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(B)(3)(b), if applicable; and ii. Any pathways or non-vegetated portions, and the materials proposed. 3. Projects that propose to remove native vegetation within a shoreline buffer shall meet the following standards: a. The Applicant must demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction that the proposed vegetation removal is consistent with SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing, and that avoidance is not feasible; b. Vegetation shall be replaced per the following: 1:1 area ratio for herbaceous vegetation; ii. 2:1 stem ratio for shrubs and saplings; and iii. 3:1 ratio for trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height or 2:1 ratio if tree stock is five years old or greater. For native trees greater than 16 inches diameter at breast height, replacement tree stock shall be at least five years old; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft c. All removed native plants shall be replaced with native vegetation; removed ornamental plants may be replaced with similar species; and d. Applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan consistent with SVMC 21.50.260(6)(2) that demonstrates compliance with the standards of SVMC 21.50.260(6)(3). 4. A performance surety may be required as a condition of Shoreline Permit approval to ensure compliance with the SMP. The performance surety shall be substantially in the same form and for the same coverage as provided for in the City's Street Standards as adopted or amended. 5. Projects that require a critical areas report pursuant to SVMC 21.50.490 shall incorporate any specific vegetation conservation measures identified in the critical areas reports for the identified critical areas. Any application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals proposed in conjunction with the vegetation removal or management activities shall be addressed by the report. C. Minor vegetation conservation activities allowed without a shoreline permit or letter of exemption. 1. Pruning and thinning of trees or vegetation on public or private land for maintenance, safety, forest health, and view protection if the criteria listed below are met: a. No native vegetation is removed, including thinning; b. Pruning of native vegetation shall not exceed 30 percent of a tree's limbs. Tree topping shall not occur; c. Native shrubs shall not be pruned to a height less than six feet; d. Pruning any vegetation waterward of the OHWM is prohibited; and e. Pruning of any vegetation and thinning activities associated with non- native plants shall ensure the continued survival of vegetation. Whenever possible, pruning and thinning activities conducted to maintain or create views shall be limited to areas dominated with non-native vegetation and invasive species. Pruning and thinning on public land to establish a view for adjacent properties shall be prohibited unless written approval from the Washington State Parks Riverside Area Manager is given. 2. Pruning and thinning within a utility corridor by the utility service provider of both native and non-native trees and vegetation shall be allowed when the following criteria are met: a. Reasonable measures to reduce the adverse effects of the activity are implemented; and b. No net loss of buffer functions and values occur. 3. Dead or hazardous trees within the shoreline buffer that pose a threat to public safety or a risk of damage to private or public property may be removed if a letter from a certified arborist or Qualified Professional is submitted that confirms the tree is dead or is hazardous and includes: a. Removal techniques; b. Procedures for protecting the surrounding area; and c. Replacement of native trees, if applicable. Where possible, hazard trees within the shoreline buffer shall be turned into snags. 21.50.270 Water quality, stormwater, and non-point pollution. A. Applicability. This section applies to all projects that add any pollution-generating impervious surfaces. This standard supersedes the regulatory threshold specified in the City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, which is applicable outside the shoreline jurisdiction. B. Regulations. 1. All activities shall comply with the SVMC 22.150 Stormwater Management Regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency's Underground Injection Control program, the Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requirements, applicable total maximum daily loads laws and regulations, and other water cleanup plans. 2. Use of chemicals for commercial or industrial activities shall be in pursuant to SVMC 21.50.530(C). 3. Herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, and pesticides shall not be applied within 25 feet of a water body, except by a Qualified Professional in accordance with state and federal laws. 21.50.280 Archaeological and historic resources. A. Applicability. This section applies to: 1. Projects with archaeological and historic resources on site that are either recorded at the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), or Spokane County; 2. Projects where archaeological and historical resources have been inadvertently uncovered; or 3. Permit applications that contain a ground-disturbing component. B. Standards. 1. Archaeological sites are subject to chapter 27.44 RCW Indian Graves and Records and chapter 27.53 RCW Archaeological Sites and Records. Development or uses that may impact such sites shall comply with WAC 25-48 as well as the regulations of this section. 2. A cultural resources site survey or assessment prepared by a Qualified Professional is required for all Shoreline Permit applications that contain a ground-disturbing component if the proposal meets the criteria below, which may be determined through review of Spokane County and/or DAHP resources: a. The project is on property known to contain archaeological, historic, or cultural resources; or b. The project is in an area mapped as having the potential for the presence of archaeological, historic, or cultural resources. 3. When required, the cultural resources site survey or assessment shall: a. Use standard procedures and methods to assess the potential for presence of archaeological, historic, or cultural resources that could be impacted by the project; b. Provide appropriate recommendations for protecting and preserving the archaeological, historical, or cultural resources; c. Make an inventory of buildings or structures over 50 years in age located within the project area in a DAHP Historic Property Inventory Database entry; and d. Record archaeological sites located within the project area on DAHP Archaeological Site Inventory Forms. 4. When required, the cultural resources site survey or assessment shall be circulated to DAHP and affected tribe(s). The Director shall consider comments from DAHP and affected tribe(s) prior to approval of the survey or assessment. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft Based on the cultural resources site survey or assessment, the application may be conditioned to ensure that such resources are protected. 5. If archaeological, historic, or cultural resources are inadvertently discovered or uncovered during excavation, the Applicant shall immediately stop work on that portion of the project site and notify the City. The Applicant may be required to prepare a cultural resources site survey or assessment pursuant to SVMC 21.50.280(B)(3), after coordinating with DAHP. 21.50.290 Gravel pits. A. Applicability. This section applies to existing and active gravel pit operations including but not limited to known gravel pits located at 2010 North Sullivan Road and 220 North Thierman Road. B. Standards. Active gravel pits are not regulated as Shorelines of the State until reclamation is complete and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources terminates the Surface Mine Reclamation Permit. Proposed subsequent use of mined property shall be consistent with the provisions of the Urban Conservancy Environment unless a different environmental designation is established through an amendment pursuant to WAC 173-26-201. 21.50.300 Specific shoreline use regulations. Applicability. The regulations in SVMC 21.50.300 through 21.50.450 apply to specific common uses and types of development to the extent they occur within the shoreline jurisdiction. 21.50.310 Boating facilities. A. Applicability. This section applies to new and existing boating facilities. B. Standards. 1. Boating facilities shall: a. Be allowed only for water-dependent uses or for public access; b. Be limited to the minimum size and height necessary to achieve the intended purpose of the facility; and c. Incorporate measures for cleanup of accidental spills of contaminants. 2. Public boating facilities shall be located only at sites identified in the Public Access Plan. 3. All new boating facilities shall incorporate public access when required by the Public Access Plan and SVMC 21.50.250 herein. 4. New launch ramps shall be approved only if public access is provided to public waters which are not adequately served by existing access facilities because of location or capacity. Documentation of need shall be required from the Applicant prior to approval pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access. 5. Existing boating facilities may be maintained and repaired pursuant to SVMC 21.50, provided the size is not increased. 6. In addition to the regulations above, boating facilities shall comply with SVMC 21.50.320 Commercial Use, SMVC 21.50.360 Recreational Development and Use, and SVMC 21.50.430 Piers and Docks, as applicable. 21.50.320 Commercial use. A. Applicability. This section applies to all commercial uses. B. Standards. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 1. New non water-oriented commercial uses shall be prohibited, except within the Urban Conservancy Environment, where such uses may be permitted if: a. The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent uses; and b. Provides a significant public benefit, such as public access or ecological restoration; or The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another parcel or public right-of-way. 2. New commercial uses shall comply with the following criteria: a. Windows, breezeways, and common areas should be oriented towards the shoreline or recreational amenities on the site; b. Buildings should provide at least one main entry that orients toward the shoreline, not including a service entry; c. Architectural features that reduce scale shall be incorporated, such as pitched roofs, offsets, angled facets, and recesses; d. Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water shall employ materials that minimize reflected light; e. Building mechanical equipment, noise generating systems, vents, utility cabinets, and small scale service elements shall be incorporated into building architectural features, such as pitched roofs. Where it is not possible to incorporate into architectural features, a landscaping screen consistent with SVMC 22.70.030(C) shall be utilized; f. Screening and buffering, or other visual screen consistent with the building exterior material and colors, shall be provided that conceals view of such equipment from the shoreline; g. Commercial uses shall be screened from any adjacent residential uses by providing a Type I-Full Screening Buffer pursuant to SVMC 22.70 Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping; h. Landscaping within the shoreline setback area shall incorporate native plant materials; Loading docks and maintenance facilities shall be located away from the shoreline to minimize visual, noise, or physical impacts on the site, street, adjacent public open spaces, and adjacent properties; and j. A site plan and landscaping plan shall be submitted showing all the applicable items listed in SVMC 21.50.320(B)(2). 3. Commercial wireless communication facilities shall not be allowed within the shoreline jurisdiction. 4. Home occupations shall be allowed within the Shoreline Residential - Upland and Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designations pursuant to SVMC 19.40.140 Home Occupations. 21.50.330 Industrial use. A. Applicability. This section applies to all new Industrial uses, including uses involved in processing, manufacturing, assembly, and storage of finished or semi-finished goods and food stuffs. B. Standards. 1. New non water-oriented industrial uses shall be prohibited, except within the Urban Conservancy Environment, where such uses may be permitted if the use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent use and: City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft a. Provides a significant public benefit such as providing public access and ecological restoration; or b. The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another parcel or public right-of-way. 2. Industrial development shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated to avoid visual impacts to users of the Spokane River and Centennial Trail. 3. New industrial uses shall comply with the requirements of SVMC 21.50.320(B)(2) and (3). 4. Noise associated with operations or equipment, including volume, repetitive sound, or beat, shall be muffled or otherwise controlled so that it is not audible at a distance over 30 feet from the landward boundary of a buffer. 21.50.340 In-stream structures. A. Applicability. This section applies to all projects proposing in-stream structures. B. Standards. 1. In-stream structures shall conform with the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WDFW, SVMC 21.50.240 Flood Hazard Reduction, SVMC 21.50.270 Water Quality, Stormwater and Non-Point Pollution, SVMC 21.50.410 General Regulations for Specific Shoreline Modifications, and any other applicable federal, state, and local requirements. 2. Permanent in-stream structures shall not impede normal ground and surface water movement. 21.50.350 Parking facilities. A. Applicability. This section applies to all new parking facilities. B. Regulations. 1. A parking facility is permitted only if: a. It directly serves a permitted shoreline use, including the Centennial Trail, direct river access, and use areas; and b. It is not the primary use, for example, it cannot be a stand-alone parking facility. 2. Parking facilities serving individual buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be located: a. Landward from the principal building being served; or b. Within or beneath a structure. 3. Parking facilities shall be screened from the shoreline and less intense adjacent land uses by providing a Type I - Full Screening Buffer pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030(B) Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping. A majority of the plant materials proposed to meet the vegetation mix requirements shall be native plants. 4. Parking shall be pursuant to SVMC 22.50 Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. 5. Private projects, excluding single family residential projects, which include public access features shall dedicate parking stalls for public use that are in addition to the number of parking stalls necessary to serve the proposed development pursuant to SVMC 22.50 Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards: a. Projects shall provide and dedicate additional parking for public use. Applicants shall either use a presumptive standard of one additional space for public parking for every 25 parking spaces required to serve the City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft proposed development or provide an assessment of public access need which supports a different ratio. Any proposal to change from this presumptive standard shall be approved by the Director, which approval shall be based upon the unique factual circumstances of the development and surrounding shoreline uses; b. Spaces that are dedicated for public use shall be marked with appropriate signage; and c. Stalls dedicated for public use shall be near the public access point. 21.50.360 Recreational development and use. A. Applicability. This section applies to public and commercial shoreline recreational facilities and uses, including but not limited to trails, viewing platforms, swimming areas, boating facilities, docks, and piers. B. Standards. 1. Non water-oriented recreation uses are prohibited in Urban Conservation - High Quality Shorelines except limited public uses that have minimal or low impact on shoreline ecological functions, such as the Centennial Trail and appropriately- scaled day use areas. 2. Water-oriented recreational structures, limited to boat launches, ramps, public docks or piers, commercial docks or piers, and private docks serving more than four residences may be allowed waterward of the shoreline buffer and setback. 3. Water-oriented recreational structures, limited to access routes, boat and equipment storage, viewing platforms, amenities such as benches, picnic tables and similar facilities for water enjoyment uses, including those related to the Centennial Trail shall be allowed within the shoreline buffer and setback area provided: a. Structures are located outside of an Urban Conservancy - High Quality area; b. Structures are not located in, on, or over water; and c. Structure height limit is less than 15 feet. 4. All recreational development shall provide: a. Non-motorized and pedestrian access to the shoreline pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access; b. Landscaping, fencing, or signage designed to prevent trespassing onto adjacent properties; c. Signs indicating public right of access to shoreline areas, installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at the point of access and the entrance; and d. Buffering of such development and uses from incompatible adjacent land uses pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030 Screening and Buffering, and Table 22.70-2 - Buffers Required by Type, as applicable. 5. Recreational development and uses shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.310 Boating Facilities, SVMC 21.50.320 Commercial Use, and SVMC 21.50.430 Piers and Docks, as applicable. 21.50.370 Residential development and use. A. Applicability. 1. This section applies to single family and multi-family structures, lots, and parcels. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 2. Residential uses also include accessory uses and structures normally associated with residential uses including, but not limited to, garages, sheds, decks, driveways, fences, swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, and tennis courts. 3. Clearing, grading, and utilities work associated with residential use are subject to the regulations established for those activities. B. Standards. 1. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is not required for construction by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence, provided, any such construction of a single-family residence and all accessory structures meet the requirements of the SMP. 2. Residential development, including single family structures, shall be required to control erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation shall be minimized and any areas disturbed shall be restored to prevent erosion and other impacts to shoreline ecological functions pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260. 3. New residential development, including accessory uses and structures, shall be sited in a manner to avoid the need for structural improvements that protect such structures and uses from steep slopes and shorelines vulnerable to erosion, including bluff walls and other stabilization structures. 4. New over-water residences and floating homes are prohibited. 5. New single-family residential accessory structures, excluding accessory dwelling units, may be located waterward of the shoreline setback provided that all of the following criteria are met: a. The combined building footprint of all accessory structures does not exceed 10 percent of the lot area; b. Structures are located outside of critical areas, their associated buffers, and the shoreline buffer; and c. Structures are set no closer than five feet to any side or rear property line. 6. New attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall: a. Be located landward of the shoreline buffer and outside of all critical areas and their buffers; b. Be pursuant to SVMC 19.40.100 Accessory Dwelling Unit; and c. Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 7. New residential developments of four or more lots shall comply with the following requirements: a. The shoreline buffer shall be shown on the plat and permanently marked on the ground with methods approved by the Director; b. A site plan shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit application showing the project elements described in SVMC 21.50.370(B)(3), and c. Provide a project narrative describing how the project elements are being met. 8. Exterior lighting associated with single-family residences, such as pathway lighting and lighting directed at landscaping features, is permitted within the setback area so long as it is directed away from the shoreline. 9. Recorded plats shall include language that states that pursuant to SVMC 21.50.230, use and development within the defined shoreline buffer area is prohibited. Title notices shall be recorded with each newly created parcel with the restrictive language. 10. New fences shall meet the requirements of SVMC 22.70 Fencing, Screening and Landscaping. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 11. Fences are prohibited in the following areas: a. Shoreline buffers, b. Critical areas, and c. Waterward of the OHWM. 21.50.380 Signs and outdoor lighting. A. Applicability. This section applies to any commercial, industrial, or advertising sign directing attention to a business, professional service, community site, facility, or entertainment conducted or sold, and all outdoor lighting, except those associated with residential use and public street lighting. B. Standards. 1. All signs shall comply with SVMC 22.110 Sign Regulations; variances from these regulations may be granted pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140 Shoreline Variances. 2. Signage, including kiosks and directional signage to commercial uses or recreation areas, related to, or along, the Centennial Trail, is allowed without a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit provided: a. Signage is consistent with the SMP, the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and any applicable master plan of Washington State Parks; and b. Signage proposed within a buffer area shall not: Exceed 15 square feet in area; ii. Exceed six feet in height; iii. Be illuminated unless warranted by safety factors; and iv. A building permit is obtained, if required. 3. Outdoor lighting shall comply with SVMC 22.60 Outdoor Lighting Standards. 4. New permanent outdoor lighting is prohibited within the shoreline buffer. 5. Pedestrian-oriented lighting along walkways and paths shall be allowed within the shoreline setback area if: a. The purpose of the light is safety; b. Lighting structure height is not greater than 12 feet; and c. Lighting fixtures are downward directed and fully shielded. 6. All outdoor lighting shall be oriented away from the shoreline and adjacent uses using directional lighting or shielding. 21.50.390 Transportation facilities. A. Applicability. This section applies to structures and developments that aid in land, air, and water surface movement of people, goods, and services. They include roads and highways, bridges, bikeways, heliports, rail, and other related facilities. Trails are addressed in SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access. B. Standards. 1. New road and bridge construction and expansion of existing roads and bridges shall only be located within the shoreline jurisdiction upon approval by the Director when deemed necessary for the good of the community, or when deemed related to, and necessary to support permitted shoreline activities. 2. When allowed, transportation facilities shall be: a. Consistent with an approved private project or applicable City plans, including the City's Transportation Improvement Plan, Public Access Plan and Restoration Plan; b. Located on the landward side of existing structures or uses; and City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft c. Be designed to minimize clearing, grading, and alteration of natural features. Roadway and driveway alignment should follow natural contours and minimize width. 3. To the extent consistent with federal jurisdiction, new rail lines and corridors or expansion of existing rail lines and corridors shall be allowed only for the purpose of connecting to existing rail lines or rights-of-way. New rail lines, including bridges, shall be constructed within existing rail corridors or rights-of-way. 4. To the extent consistent with federal jurisdiction, new rail lines shall be constructed so that they do not compromise the public's ability to access the shoreline safely. 21.50.400 Public facilities and utilities. A. Applicability. This section applies to all public facilities and utilities. This section does not apply to on-site utility features serving a primary use, such as water, sewer, or gas lines to a development or residence. These utility features are considered "service utilities" and shall be considered part of the primary use. B. Regulations. 1. New public facilities and utilities may only be allowed pursuant to Shoreline Conditional Use permit and if they meet the following conditions: a. Address conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses through site design or configuration, buffers, aesthetics, or other methods; and b. Identify the need to site within shoreline jurisdiction and why it is not possible to locate outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. 2. New wastewater and stormwater outfalls shall not be allowed. 3. Routine maintenance, replacement, and minor upgrades of existing utilities shall be allowed; provided that if the activity involves ground disturbance or is located in the Urban Conservancy - High Quality Environment, then such maintenance, replacement and minor upgrades shall only be allowed by Letter of Exemption. If existing high-quality vegetated areas, as noted in the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis, are disturbed by maintenance activities in Urban Conservancy - High Quality designated shorelines, mitigation pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing, shall be required. 4. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables, and pipelines, should be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. 5. New utility corridors shall be prohibited within the Urban Conservation — High Quality Environment. 6. New over-water utility crossings are allowed within existing utility corridors. 7. New or expanded service utilities shall: a. Be located underground, unless placement underground results in more damage to the shoreline area; b. Utilize low impact, low profile design, and construction methods; and c. Restore any areas disturbed to pre-project configurations, replant with native species, and maintain until the newly planted area is established. 8. Stormwater pipe systems shall not be allowed within the shoreline buffer. 21.50.410 General regulations for specific shoreline modifications. A. Applicability. SVMC 21.50.410 through 21.50.450 apply to all shoreline modifications. Shoreline modification activities are structures, including in-stream structures, or actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft B. General shoreline modification standards. 1. All shoreline modification applications shall also comply with: a. SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulations; b. SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities; and c. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (WDFW, Ecology and Transportation, 2003 as adopted or amended). 2. All shoreline modification activities shall ensure that the no net loss of ecological function standard is met. 3. Structural shoreline modifications within the regulated floodplain, geologically hazardous areas, and in-stream shall only be allowed where it can be demonstrated that nonstructural measures are not feasible or the proposed activities are necessary to: a. Support or protect a legally existing shoreline use or primary structure that is in danger of loss or substantial damage; b. Reconfigure the shoreline or channel bed for an allowed water-dependent use; or c. Provide for shoreline mitigation or enhancement purposes. 4. All shoreline modifications within the regulated floodplain and in-stream shall provide the following: a. Site suitability analysis that justifies the proposed structure; b. A Habitat Management Plan prepared by a Qualified Professional that describes: The anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife habitat and migration areas; ii. Provisions for protecting in-stream resources during construction and operation; and iii. Measures to compensate for impacts to resources that cannot be avoided. c. An engineering analysis which evaluates and addresses: The stability of the structure for the required design frequency; ii. Changes in base flood elevation, floodplain width, and flow velocity; iii. The potential for blocking or redirecting the flow which could lead to erosion of other shoreline properties or create an adverse impact to shoreline resources and uses; iv. Methods for maintaining the natural transport of sediment and bedload materials; v. Protection of water quality, public access, and recreation; and vi. Maintenance requirements. 21.50.420 Shoreline/Slope stabilization. A. Applicability. This section applies to shoreline modification activities for shoreline and slope stabilization projects, including structural and nonstructural measures. B. Standards. 1. Nonstructural measures are the preferred method for slope and shoreline stabilization. 2. Nonstructural measures may include building setbacks, relocation of the structure to be protected, groundwater management, and planning and regulatory measures to avoid the need for structural stabilization. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 3. Structural stabilization measures may include hard surfaces such as concrete bulkheads or less rigid materials, such as vegetation, biotechnical vegetation measures, and riprap-type stabilization. 4. New structural shoreline modifications require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. 5. New structural stabilization measures may be allowed under the following circumstances: a. To protect existing primary structures, public facilities and utilities, and the Centennial Trail. Prior to approval, a geotechnical investigation shall: Demonstrate that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion by currents or waves; and ii. Evaluate on-site drainage and address drainage problems away from the shoreline. b. To protect new non water-dependent uses from erosion, when all of the following apply: The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions; ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient; iii. An engineering or scientific analysis demonstrates that damage is caused by natural processes; and iv. The stabilization structure shall incorporate native vegetation and comply with the mitigation sequencing in SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing. c. To protect water-dependent development from erosion when all of the following apply: The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions; ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient; and iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. d. To protect restoration and remediation projects when all of the following apply: The project is conducted pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW Model Toxics Control Act; and ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient. 6. Unless otherwise exempt from Shoreline Permit requirements, replacement of an existing shoreline stabilization structure may be approved with a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, provided the structure remains in the same location and the outer dimension changes by 10 percent or less. However, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be required if existing shoreline stabilization measures are relocated or the outer dimension changes by more than 10 percent. 7. All new or replaced structural shoreline stabilization measures shall provide: a. Design plans showing the limits of construction, access to the construction area, details, and cross sections of the proposed stabilization measure, erosion and sediment controls, and re-vegetation of the project area; and b. An engineered report that addresses the purpose of the repair, engineering assumption, and engineering calculations to size the stabilization measure. 8. A replacement structure shall not encroach waterward of the OHWM, unless all of the following apply: City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft a. For residences occupied or constructed prior to January 1, 1992; b. There are overriding safety or environmental concerns; and c. The replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure. 21.50.430 Piers and docks. A. Applicability. This section applies to the construction or expansion of piers and docks constructed waterward of the OHWM. B. Standards. 1. Piers and docks designed for pleasure craft only, and for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multi-family residences, shall require a Letter of Exemption. Any other dock or pier permitted under the SMP requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 2. Piers and docks serving more than four residences and public or commercial piers and docks shall comply with SVMC 21.50.310 Boating Facilities. Public or commercial piers and docks shall comply with SVMC 21.50.360 Recreational Development and Uses. 3. New piers and docks shall only be allowed for water-dependent uses or public access. A dock associated with a single-family residence and designed and intended as a facility for access to watercraft is a water-dependent use. 4. New piers and docks shall be the minimum size necessary based upon a needs analysis provided by the Applicant. However, the size shall not exceed 55 feet in length measured perpendicularly from the OHWM. Total deck area shall not exceed 320 square feet. 5. The City may require modifications to the configuration of piers and docks to protect navigation, public use, or ecological functions. 6. Wood treated with toxic compounds shall not be used for decking or for in-water components. 7. Existing legally established docks, piers, or viewing platforms may be repaired or replaced in accordance with the regulations of the SMP, provided the size of the existing structure is not increased. 21.50.440 Dredging and fill. A. Applicability. This section applies to shoreline modification activities for projects or uses proposing dredging, dredge material disposal, or fill waterward of the OHWM. B. Regulations. 1. Dredging and dredge material disposal is prohibited unless associated with a comprehensive flood management solution, an environmental cleanup plan, a habitat restoration, fish enhancement project, or when considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with, the Dredged Material Management Program of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. These projects require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. 2. Fill shall be allowed only when necessary to support the following uses (a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is required unless stated otherwise): a. Water-dependent uses; b. Public access; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft c. Cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental cleanup plan; these proposals may be exempt from a Shoreline Permit of any type by the Model Toxics Control Act. d. Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities. These proposals shall also demonstrate that alternatives to fill are not feasible and require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; e. A mitigation action; and f. An environmental restoration or enhancement project. 21.50.450 Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects. A. Applicability. This section applies to all shoreline habitat and natural system enhancement projects. B. Standards. 1. Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects are encouraged. These projects shall: a. Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or a Letter of Exemption; b. Demonstrate that the main project purpose is enhancing or restoring the shoreline natural character and ecological functions by establishing the restoration needs and priorities; and c. Implement the restoration plan developed pursuant to WAC 173-26- 201(2)(f) and with applicable federal and state permit provisions. 21.50.460 General - Shoreline critical areas regulations - Applicability. A. SVMC 21.50.460 through 21.50.560 apply to critical areas and their buffers that are completely within the shoreline jurisdiction as well as critical areas and their buffers located within, but extending beyond the mapped shoreline jurisdiction boundary. Regulated critical areas include: wetlands, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs), Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs), geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas, pursuant to WAC 173-26-221(2) and (3), and WAC 365- 196-485. B. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within the shoreline jurisdiction of the City, whether or not a shoreline permit or other authorization is required. No person, company, agency, or other entity shall alter a critical area or its associated buffer within the shoreline jurisdiction except as consistent with the purposes and requirements of the SMP. 21.50.470 Maps and inventories. A. The approximate location and extent of known critical areas are depicted on the Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map updated and maintained by the Community Development Department. The Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map is a reference tool, not an official designation or delineation. The exact location of a critical area boundary shall be determined through field investigation by a Qualified Professional. B. In addition to the Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map, City staff may review additional reference materials to determine whether a proposed development has the potential to affect a critical area within the shoreline jurisdiction. Reference materials may include, but are not limited to the following as adopted or amended: City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 1. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Spokane County, Washington, 2012; 2. USGS 7.5 Minute Series Digital Elevation Model; 3. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Spokane County, Washington and Incorporated Areas, July 6, 2010; 4. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory; 5. Aerial photos; 6. WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and Wildlife Heritage Maps and Data; and 7. City critical area designation maps. 21.50.480 Exemptions from critical area review and reporting requirements. A. Activities exempt from critical area review and reporting requirements shall ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210. Exempt activities shall be conducted consistent with performance standards identified in SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.450, including mitigation sequencing. B. Any incidental damage to or alteration of a critical area or their buffers resulting from exempt activities shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the expense of the responsible party within one growing season. C. The following activities are exempt from critical area review and reporting requirements: 1. Conservation or enhancement of native vegetation. 2. Outdoor recreational activities which do not involve disturbance of the resource or site area, including fishing, hunting, bird watching, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, and natural trail use. 3. Education, scientific research, and surveying. 4. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of: a. Legally constructed irrigation and drainage ditches, utility lines, and appurtenances; and b. Facilities within an existing right-of-way and existing serviceable structures or improved areas, not including expansion, change in character or scope, or construction of a maintenance road. c. State or City parks, including noxious weed control and removal of hazard trees where the potential for harm to humans exists. 5. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. 6. Routine maintenance, repair, and minor modifications (such as construction of a balcony or second story) of existing structures where the modification does not extend the structure further into or adversely impact the functions of the critical area. 7. In Category III or IV wetlands only, stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioinfiltration swales located within the outer 25 percent of the buffer provided that no other location is feasible. 21.50.490 Critical area review. A. All clearing, uses, modifications, or development activities within a shoreline critical area or its buffer shall be subject to review under SVMC 21.50 unless specifically exempted under SVMC 21.50.480. B. Applicant shall identify in the application materials the presence of any known or suspected critical areas on or within 200 feet of the property line. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft C. If the proposed project is within or adjacent to a critical area, or is likely to create a net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain a critical area, the City shall: 1. Require and review a critical area report for each applicable critical area; and 2. Determine if the proposed project adequately addresses and mitigates impacts to the critical area and is consistent with the requirements of the SMP. 21.50.500 Critical area report requirements for all critical areas. A. When required by SVMC 21.50.490(C), the Applicant shall submit a critical area report subject to the requirements of this section and any additional reporting requirements for each critical area, as applicable. B. Critical area reports for two or more types of critical areas shall meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. C. All critical area assessments, investigations, and reports shall be completed by a Qualified Professional. D. At a minimum, all critical area reports shall contain the following: 1. The name and contact information of the Applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the permit(s) requested; 2. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site; 3. A statement from the Qualified Professional certifying that the report meets the critical area requirements; 4. A description of the nature, density, and intensity of the proposed use or activity in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such proposal upon identified critical area; 5. List of all references used and all assumptions made and relied upon; 6. A scaled site plan showing: a. Critical areas and their buffers; b. Ordinary high ordinary mark; c. Proposed and existing structures and related infrastructure; d. Clearing and grading limits; e. Impervious surfaces; f. Location of temporary and/or permanent construction signage and fencing to protect critical areas and their buffers; g. Topographic contours at two foot intervals; h. Fill and material storage locations; Proposed and existing drainage facilities and stormwater flow arrows; and j. Title, date, scale, north arrow, and legend; 7. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, water bodies, and critical areas associated with buffers located on-site, adjacent to, and within 200 feet of proposed project areas. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer shall apply; 8. A mitigation plan which contains a description of the application of mitigation sequencing and offsetting of impacts pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing; 9. Erosion and sediment control plan and drainage plan, as applicable for conformance with SVMC 24.50; 10. Cost estimate for required mitigation when a financial surety is required pursuant to SVMC 21.50.510; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 11. A discussion of the performance standards applicable to the critical area and proposed activity; and 12. Monitoring plan pursuant to SVMC 21.50.510(D) when mitigation is required. E. The Director may modify the required contents or the scope of the required critical area report to adequately evaluate the potential impacts and required mitigation. This may include requiring more or less information and addressing only that part of a site affected by a development proposal. 21.50.510 Mitigation. A. Applicants shall follow the mitigation sequencing put forth in SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss Mitigation and Sequencing. B. All impacts to critical areas and their buffers likely to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain the critical area shall be mitigated. C. Unless specifically addressed in specific critical area sections, compensatory mitigation may be provided by any of the following means, in order of preference: 1. Except as provided in SVMC 21.50.510(C)(2)(a), adverse critical area impacts shall be mitigated on or contiguous to the development site through resource expansion, enhancement, protection, or restoration. 2. Off-site mitigation. a. Off-site mitigation may be allowed if an Applicant demonstrates that mitigation on or contiguous to the development proposal site cannot be achieved and that off-site mitigation will achieve equivalent or greater ecological functions. b. When off-site mitigation is authorized, priority shall be given to the following locations within the same drainage sub-basin as the project site: Mitigation banking sites and resource mitigation reserves. ii. Private mitigation sites that are established in compliance with the requirements of SVMC 21.50.510(C)(2) and approved by the Director. iii. Offsite mitigation consistent with Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Eastern Washington) (Publication #10-06-07, Olympia, WA, November 2010 as adopted or amended). c. The Director shall maintain a list of known sites available for use for off- site mitigation projects. 3. Title notices shall be recorded against the affected parcels for on-site mitigation, and easements shall be recorded for off-site mitigation, to avoid impacts from future development or alteration to the function of the mitigation. The mitigation site shall be permanently preserved. D. Monitoring. 1. The Applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and submit performance monitoring reports, as specified in the applicable permit conditions. 2. When required, the monitoring plan shall: a. Demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the SMP and specific permits and approvals; b. Describe the objectives and methods for monitoring and quantifying; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft c. Provide results with an estimate of statistical precision; d. Identify the length of monitoring and reporting requirements; e. Recommend management actions based upon the monitoring results; and f. Address the length of the mitigation consistent with the following: Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a minimum of two years for temporary impact restoration and five years for compensatory mitigation; and ii. If the mitigation objectives are not obtained within the initial monitoring period, the Applicant shall remain responsible for restoration of the natural values and functions until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved. E. Sureties. 1. Performance and maintenance sureties shall be required from all private persons and entities required to provide mitigation and a maintenance plan. 2. The performance surety shall be in substantially the same form as provided for in the City's Street Standards as adopted or amended. 3. A performance surety shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development, Conditional Use Permit, or Grading Permit. The surety shall include costs to cover for construction and vegetation, annual maintenance for a five-year period, and a 25 percent contingency fee. 4. The performance surety shall be released when the following conditions have been met: a. The installation of the required mitigation is approved by the City; and b. The Applicant has submitted a warranty surety pursuant to SVMC 21.50.510(E)(5). 5. All projects with required mitigation shall submit a warranty surety to ensure the success of the mitigation project before certificate of occupancy, final plat approval, or as required by the City. The warranty surety shall be for 40 percent of the total mitigation construction and planting costs and annual maintenance/ monitoring for five-years, including but not limited to: costs for the maintenance and replacement of dead or dying plant materials; failures due to site preparation, plant materials, construction materials; installation oversight, monitoring, reporting, and contingency actions expected through the end of the required monitoring period. 6. The warranty surety shall remain in effect for five years from the release of the performance surety or a timeframe as otherwise determined by the Director. The Applicant shall have a Qualified Professional inspect the mitigation site within 30 days of the expiration of the warranty. Any deficiencies noted shall be repaired prior to the release of the surety. If the inspection is not conducted and/or the deficiencies are not repaired, the warranty surety shall be renewed by the Applicant until all deficiencies are corrected. The City shall conduct an inspection prior to releasing the warranty surety. 7. If any deficiencies identified while the warranty surety is in effect are not corrected in the time frame specified by the Director, the City may choose to conduct the necessary repairs. The City shall then either invoice the Applicant or collect from the surety for all costs for the related work, plus a $500 administrative fee. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft F. The Director may approve alternative mitigation provided such mitigation is based on the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available and provides an equivalent or better level of protection of shoreline ecological functions than would be provided by the strict application of the SVMC 21.50. The Director shall consider the following for approval of an alternative mitigation proposal: 1. The Applicant proposes creating or enhancing a larger system of natural areas and open space in lieu of preserving many individual habitat areas. 2. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the proposed site. 3. The approved plan contains clear and measurable standards for achieving compliance with the specific provisions of the plan. 21.50.520 Wetlands - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations. A. Applicability. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within or adjacent to wetlands, unless specifically exempted by SVMC 21.50.480 B. Designation, delineation, and classification. 1. Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include, but are not limited to, swamps, marshes, bogs, ponds, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction or a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. 2. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries shall be determined through a field investigation by a Qualified Professional in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to The Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (September 2008). Wetland delineations are valid for five years, after which the City shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. 3. Classification. Wetlands shall be rated by a Qualified Professional according to the Ecology wetland rating system as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Ecology Publication #04-06-015, November 2010 as adopted or amended). The wetland categories are generally defined as follows: a. Category I (scores of 70 points or more): Wetlands that perform many functions very well. These wetlands are those that: Represent a unique or rare wetland type; ii. Are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; iii. Are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or iv. Provide a high level of function. b. Category II (scores between 51-69 points): Forested wetlands in the floodplains of rivers or wetlands that perform functions well. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft c. Category III (scores between 30-50 points): Wetlands that have a moderate level of functions. These wetlands have been disturbed in some way and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. d. Category IV (scores fewer than 30 points): These wetlands have the lowest level of functions and are often heavily disturbed but have important functions that need to be protected. 4. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to any illegal modifications. C. Wetland buffers. 1. Applicability. These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands except isolated Category III and IV wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that: a. Are not associated with riparian areas or buffers; b. Do not contain habitat identified as essential for local populations of priority species identified by WDFW or Natural Heritage plant species identified by the WDNR; c. Are not a vernal pool; d. Are not an alkali wetland; and e. Do not contain aspen stands. 2. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in SVMC 21.50.520(C)(1), wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. 3. Buffer widths. a. All buffers widths shall be measured perpendicularly from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. b. The total buffer width shall be calculated by adding the standard and the additional buffer widths together. c. The standard buffer widths in Table 21.50 - 4 are based on the category of wetland. In order to qualify for the standard buffer widths in Table 1, the measures in Table 21.50 - 5 shall be implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses on the wetland(s). d. Additional buffer widths listed in Table 1 shall be added to the standard buffer widths based on the habitat score for the wetland. Table 21.50-4: Wetland Buffer Requirements Additional Buffer Additional Buffer Additional Buffer Wetland Standard Buffer Width if Wetland Width if Wetland Width if Wetland Category Width Scores 21-25 Scores 26-29 Scores >30 Habitat Points Habitat Points Habitat Points Category I 100 feet Add 15 feet Add 45 feet Add 75 feet Category II 75 feet Add 15 feet Add 45 feet Add 75 feet Category III 60 feet Add 30 feet Add 60 feet N/A Category IV 40 feet N/A N/A N/A 4. Increased buffer widths. a. If measures listed in Table 21.50-5 are not implemented, then the standard buffer widths in Table 21.50-4 shall be increased by 33 percent. b. Buffer widths may be increased on a case-by-case basis when the wetland is used by a plant or animal species listed by the federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitored, or documented priority species or habitats, or essential or City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft outstanding habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites. The buffer increase should be determined by the Qualified Professional in the critical areas report. Table 21.50-5: Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10 foot heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer Chemical Use • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Route all untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Retrofit substandard stormwater facilities • Prevent channelized flow that directly enters the buffer • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing or plant dense,thorny vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for this area Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of corridors or • Maintain connections to off-site areas that are connections undisturbed Vegetation alteration • Protect and maintain native plant communities in buffers. 5. Buffer averaging. a. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be allowed when all of the following conditions are met: The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions and the buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft ii. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; and iii. The buffer at its narrowest point is not less than either 75 percent of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III and 30 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater. b. Buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be allowed when all of the following are met: There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging; ii. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland's functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report; iii. The total buffer area after averaging is equal or greater to the area required without averaging; and iv. The buffer at its narrowest point is not less than either 75 percent of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III and 30 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater. 6. Signs and fencing. a. Temporary. The outer perimeter of wetland buffers and the clearing limits shall be signed and fenced to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur during construction. ii. Temporary signs and fencing shall be placed prior to beginning permitted activities and maintained throughout construction. b. Permanent. The Director, at his/her sole discretion, may require installation of permanent signs and/or fencing along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. ii. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another non-treated material of equal durability. Signs, if required by the Director, shall be posted at an interval not less than one per lot, and which shall be maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. The obligation to maintain permanent signs shall be recorded against the property in a form acceptable to the City. iii. The signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the Director: Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship iv. Permanent fence shall be installed and maintained around the wetland buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on site. v. Fencing shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat and designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft D. Mitigation. 1. Mitigation ratios. a. Impacts resulting from alteration to wetlands shall be mitigated using the ratios specified in Table 21.50-6 below: Table 21.50-6: Wetland Mitigation Ratios' Wetland Creation or Category Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement Category I 4:1 8:1 16:1 Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1 Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 Refer to Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, (Ecology Publication#06-06-011a, March 2006),for further information on wetland creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement. b. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Only fully vegetated buffer areas will be included in mitigation calculations. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas shall be excluded from buffer area calculations. c. Credit/Debit Method. As an alternative to the mitigation ratios provided in Table 21.50-6, the Director may allow mitigation based on the "credit/debit" method developed by the Ecology in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Eastern Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication #11-06-015, August 2012, as adopted or amended). 2. Wetland mitigation banks. a. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved as off-site mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: The bank program is certified under state rules; ii. The Director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and iii. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified bank instrument. b. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the certified bank instrument. c. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions. d. When applying for a wetland mitigation bank, the Applicant shall prepare a Wetland Mitigation Credit Use Plan that documents consistency with these criteria and shows how the identified wetland type and associated functions will be compensated for by purchase of the credits. 3. Design. a. Design of wetland mitigation projects shall be appropriate for its landscape position. Compensatory mitigation shall result in the creation, City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft restoration, or enhancement of a wetland that matches the geomorphic setting of the site. b. The design of a wetland that has a different Cowardin or hydrogeomorphic classification than the impacted wetland may be justified if supported by a demonstrated need for, or scarcity of, the wetland type being designed. 4. Timing. a. Compensatory mitigation is encouraged to be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. b. Compensatory mitigation shall be completed no later than immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. c. The Director may authorize a one-time delay of mitigation when the Applicant provides a compelling written rationale for the delay with recommendations from a qualified wetland professional if the delay shall not: Create or perpetuate hazardous conditions; ii. Create environmental damage or degradation; or iii. Be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. E. Additional critical area report requirements for wetlands. 1. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, wetland reports shall include: a. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including but not limited to field data sheets for delineations, function assessments, ratings, or baseline hydrologic data; b. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, function assessments, or impact analyses including references; c. For each wetland identified on site, adjacent to and within 200 feet of the project site, provide: Required buffers; ii. A professional survey from the field delineation that identifies: (1) Wetland rating; (2) Hydrogeomorphic classification; (3) Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; (4) Onsite wetland acreage, and (5) Ecological function of the wetland and buffer. Note: The above shall be based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the proposed project site. iii. Estimates of acreage and boundary for the entire wetland area where portions of the wetland extend off-site; iv. Description of habitat elements; v. Soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and vi. The following information shall be provided to the extent possible: (1) Hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/outlets (if they can be legally accessed); (2) Estimated water depths within the wetland; and City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft (3) Estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.); d. A description of the proposed actions and survey and an analysis of site development alternatives, including a no-development alternative; e. An assessment of the probable impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting from the proposed development, including: An estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field delineation; ii. Impacts associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project; and iii. Impacted wetland functions; f. A description of how mitigation sequencing was applied pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing; g. A discussion of mitigation measures, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded by the current proposed land-use activity; h. Methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions; A site plan, drawn to scale, with the following information: Delineated wetland(s) and required buffer(s) for on-site wetlands as well as off-site critical areas that extend onto the project site; ii. Areas of proposed impacts to wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates); iii. Proposed stormwater management facilities and outlets for the development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas; and j. A mitigation plan, if required. 21.50.530 Critical aquifer recharge areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. A. Applicability. This section applies to the following developments and uses when proposed within designated CARAs: 1. Underground and aboveground storage tanks; 2. Vehicle repair and service uses, including automobile washers; 3. Chemical treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; 4. Hazardous waste generating uses; 5. Injection wells, not including Class V or injection wells for stormwater management; 6. Junk and salvage yards; 7. On-site sewage systems; 8. Solid waste handling and recycling facilities; 9. Surface mines; 10. Uses of hazardous substances, other than household chemicals for domestic applications; 11. Projects having the potential to adversely impact groundwater; and 12. Work within a wellhead protection area. B. Designation and classification. 1. CARAs are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 2. Aquifer recharge areas are rated as having a high, moderate, or low susceptibility based on a scientific analysis of soils, hydraulic conductivity, annual rainfall, the depth to aquifers, the importance of the vadose zone, and wellhead protection information. The entire shoreline jurisdiction, as well as the entire City, is identified as a high susceptibility CARA. C. Performance standards. The uses listed in Table 21.50-7 shall be conditioned as necessary to protect CARAs in accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations. Table 21.50-7: Statutes, Regulations, and Guidance Pertaining to Ground Water Impacting Activities Activity Statute—Regulation—Guidance Above Ground Storage Tanks WAC 173-303-640 WAC 173-216; Best Management Practices Manual for Vehicle and Equipment Washwater Automobile Washers Discharges(WQ-R-95-056) Below Ground Storage Tanks WAC 173-360 Chemical Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities WAC 173-303-300 Hazardous Waste Generator (Boat Repair Shops, Biological Research Facility, Dry Cleaners, Furniture Stripping, Motor Vehicle Service Garages, Photographic Processing, Printing and Publishing Shops, etc.) WAC 173-303-300 Injection Wells 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146;WAC 173-218 Vehicle and Metal Recycles—A Guide for Implementing the Industrial Stormwater General Junk Yards and Salvage Yards NPDES Permit Requirements (94-146) On-Site Sewage Systems (Large Scale) WAC 246-272B On-Site Sewage Systems (< 14,500 gal/day) WAC 246-272A, Local Health Ordinances Solid Waste Handling and Recycling Facilities WAC 173-304 Surface Mining WAC 332-18 Additional performance standards for storage tanks that store hazardous substances or waste. All storage tanks shall: 1. Comply with Title 24 SVMC Building Code and fire department requirements; 2. Use material in the construction or lining of the tank that is compatible with the substance to be stored; 3. Not allow the release of a hazardous substance to the ground, groundwater, or surface water; 4. Prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the operational life of the tank; and 5. Be protected against corrosion and constructed of noncorrosive material or steel clad with a noncorrosive material. D. All new underground storage tanks shall include a built-in secondary containment system that prevents the release or threatened release of any stored substances. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft E. All new aboveground storage tanks shall include a secondary containment structure and meet either of the criteria below: 1. If the secondary containment is built into the tank structure, the tank shall be placed over a sealed impervious pad surrounded with a dike. The impervious pad/dike shall be sized to contain the 10-year storm if exposed to the weather; or 2. If the tank is single walled, the tank shall be placed over a sealed impervious pad surrounded with a dike. The impervious pad/dike shall have the capacity to contain 110 percent of the largest tank plus the 10-year storm if exposed to the weather. F. Additional performance standards for vehicle repair and servicing. Vehicle repair and servicing must be conducted over impermeable pads and within a covered structure capable of withstanding normally expected weather conditions. G. Additional standards for chemical storage. 1. All chemicals used shall be stored in a manner that protects them from weather. Secondary containment shall be provided. On-site disposal of any critical material or hazardous waste shall be prohibited. 2. All developments and uses shall provide a narrative and plan to show how development complies with the regulations and performance standards in SVMC 21.50.530(C-F), or prepare a hydrogeological assessment in accordance with SVMC 21.50.530(H). 3. Proposed developments and uses that are unable to satisfy the performance standards in SVMC 21.50.530(C-F), shall submit a hydrogeological assessment report. H. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, hydrogeological assessments shall include: 1. Available geologic and hydrogeological characteristics of the site, including ground water depth, flow direction, gradient, and permeability of the unsaturated zone; 2. Discussion of the effects of the proposed project on groundwater quality and quantity; 3. A spill plan that identifies equipment and/or structures that could fail, resulting in an impact. Spill plans shall include provisions for regular inspection, repair, replacement of structures and equipment that could fail, and mitigation and cleanup in the event of a spill; and 4. Best management practices proposed to be utilized. 21.50.540 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. A. Applicability. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within designated FWHCAs. B. Designation. 1. The shoreline buffer as mapped by the City, which protects riparian habitat, and the waters and land underneath the Spokane River are FWHCAs. The City protects shoreline functions of these through the Shoreline Buffer established in SVMC 21.50.230 and the vegetation conservation standards in SVMC 21.50.260. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft 2. Additionally, all areas meeting one or more of the following criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated FWHCAs: a. Areas where state or federal designated endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association; b. State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species, as identified by the WSDFW and are updated periodically; and c. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas. Natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas are defined, established, and managed by WDNR. C. Performance standards. All development and uses shall be prohibited within FWHCAs designated in SVMC 21.50.540(B)(2), except in accordance with this section. Buffers shall be required only for FWHCAs described under SVMC 21.50.540(B)(2), excluding Priority Habitats. Buffer requirements shall be based on the recommendations of the FWHCA critical area report. Buffers shall not exceed 100 horizontal feet from the edge of the FWHCA. 1. General. a. A FWHCA may be altered only if the proposed alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not create a net loss of the quantitative and qualitative shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain the FWHCA. b. No plant, wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall be introduced into a FWHCA unless authorized by a state or federal permit or approval. c. Contiguous functioning habitat corridors are preferred to minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas. d. Vegetation. Vegetation shall be maintained in its natural state and shall be disturbed only as minimally necessary for the development; and ii. Riparian vegetation shall not be removed unless there are no other alternatives available. When it is necessary, only those areas of vegetation that are absolutely unavoidable may be cleared, and shall be re-vegetated with natural riparian vegetation as soon as possible. e. The subdivision and short subdivision of land shall comply with the following provisions: Land that is located wholly within a FWHCA or its buffer may not be subdivided; ii. Land that is located partially within a FWHCA or its buffer may be divided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new lot is located outside of the habitat conservation area or its buffer; and iii. Access roads and utilities serving the proposal may be permitted within the FWHCA and associated buffers only if the City determines that no other feasible alternative exists and when consistent with the SMP. f. The project may be conditioned to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: Establishment of buffer zones; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft ii. Preservation of critically important vegetation, including requirements for re-vegetation of disturbed areas with native plants; iii. Vegetation screenings to reduce the potential for harassment from people and/or domesticated animals; iv. Limitation of access to the habitat area during critical times of the year; v. Fencing to protect wildlife and deter unauthorized access; vi. Dedication of all or part of the required open space to fish and wildlife habitat conservation; and vii. Seasonal restriction of construction activities. 2. FWHCAs with endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. a. No development shall be allowed within a FWHCA or buffer where state or federal endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association without state and federal consultation and approval from WDFW and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), respectively. b. Approval for alteration of land or activities adjacent to a FWHCA having a primary association with state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species shall not occur prior to consultation with the WDFW. c. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected consistent with: WAC 232-12-292, Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules; and ii. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which may require a permit obtained from the USFWS. D. Mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring for FWHCAs designated in SVMC 21.50.540(B)(2). 1. Mitigation sites shall be located: a. Preferably to achieve contiguous functioning habitat corridors that minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas; and b. Within the same aquatic ecosystem as the FWHCA disturbed. 2. Where necessary, a permanent means of irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings. The design shall meet the specific needs of riparian and shrub steppe vegetation and be prepared by a Qualified Professional and/or landscape architect. 3. Mitigation shall be installed no later than the next growing season after completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Director. 4. Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and management plan objectives are successful. 5. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous, as-needed elimination of undesirable plants, protection of shrubs and small trees from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants, and repair and replacement of any dead plants. 6. Planting areas shall be maintained so they have less than 20 percent total non- native/invasive plant cover consisting of exotic and/or invasive species. Exotic and invasive species include any species on the state noxious weed list, or considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Conservation Services Department or local conservation district. 7. The Applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and submit performance monitoring reports to the City consistent with the following: a. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for five years. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft b. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a Qualified Professional: One year after mitigation installation; ii. Three years after mitigation installation; and iii. Five years after mitigation installation. c. The Qualified Professional shall verify whether the conditions of approval and provisions in the fish and wildlife management and mitigation plan have been satisfied. d. Mitigation planting survival shall be 100 percent for the first year, and 80 percent for each of the four years following. E. Additional critical area report requirements for FWHCAs designated in SVMC 21.50.540(B)(2). 1. Report Contents. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, FWHCA reports shall include: a. Habitat assessment, including: Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area; ii. Identification of any species of local importance, priority habitats and species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species; iii. A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including WDFW habitat management recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area; iv. A discussion of measures, including mitigation sequencing, proposed to preserve existing habitats or restore any habitat that was degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity; and v. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect habitat after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs. 2. Any proposal in a FWHCA or within 1,320 feet from a priority species den or nest site that the Director (in consultation with the WDFW) determines is likely to have an adverse impact on a FWHCA or associated species shall provide a Habitat Management Plan, including: a. A plan, drawn to scale, that identifies: The location of the proposed site; ii. The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and built elements; iii. The nature and intensity of the proposed use or activity; iv. Proposed improvement(s) locations and arrangements; v. The location of the OHWM, shoreline jurisdiction, and riparian habitat area boundary lines; vi. The legal description and the total acreage of the parcel; vii. Existing structures and landscape features including the name and location of each; and viii. The location of priority habitat types or priority species point locations within 1,320 feet of the proposal; b. An analysis of the impact of the proposed use or activity upon FWHCAs or associated species and riparian habitat area; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft c. A mitigation plan that may include, but is not limited to: Establishment of perpetual buffer areas; ii. Preservation and/or restoration of native flora; iii. Limitation of access to habitat area; iv. Seasonal restriction of construction activities; v. Clustering of development and preservation of open space; vi. Signs marking habitats or habitat buffer areas; vii. Use of low impact development techniques; viii. Recorded deed, plat, binding site plan, or planned unit development covenant, condition, or restriction legally establishing a riparian habitat area for subject property; ix. Conservation or preservation easements; and x. Dedication or conveyance of title of a riparian habitat area to a public entity for the purpose of conservation; and d. A summary of consultation with a habitat biologist with the WDFW. If the habitat management plan recommends mitigation involving federally listed threatened or endangered species, migratory waterfowl, or wetlands, the USFWS shall receive a copy of the draft habitat management plan and their review comments shall be included in the final report. The Director shall have the authority to approve habitat management plans or require additional information. 21.50.550 Geologically hazardous areas - Shoreline critical area regulations A. Applicability. 1. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within designated geologically hazardous areas. 2. Applications for development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall identify if it is located within a geohazard area as designated on the City Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map. The Director may require additional information based on the criteria in SVMC 21.50.550 to identify unmapped geohazards if application material and/or a site visit indicate the potential for geohazard. B. Designation and classification. 1. Areas susceptible to erosion, sliding earthquake, or other geological events are designated geologically hazardous areas in accordance with WAC 365-190-120, Geologically Hazardous Areas. 2. Categories. a. Erosion hazard areas are identified by the NRCS as having a "moderate to severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter-rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas also include areas with slopes greater than 15 percent. b. Landslide hazard areas are subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope, slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors and include the following: Areas of historic failures, including: (1) Areas delineated by the NRCS as having a significant limitation for building site development; and (2) Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps published by the United States Geological Survey or WDNR. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft ii. Areas with all of the following characteristics: (1) Slopes steeper than 15 percent; (2) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock; and (3) Springs or groundwater seepage. iii. Areas that have shown movement during the holocene epoch (from 10,000 years ago to the present) or which are underlain or covered by mass wastage debris of this epoch; iv. Slopes that are parallel or subparallel to planes of weakness (such as bedding planes,joint systems, and fault planes) in subsurface materials; v. Slopes having gradients steeper than 80 percent subject to rockfall during seismic shaking; vi. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action, including stream channel migration zones; vii. Areas that show evidence of, or are at risk from snow avalanches; viii. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding; and ix. Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of bedrock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief. c. Seismic hazard areas are subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or subsidence, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. One indicator of potential for future earthquake damage is a record of past earthquake damage. C. Standards applicable to all geologic hazard areas. 1. Any development or uses proposed within 50 feet of a geologic hazard area shall prepare a critical areas report satisfying the general critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500 and the additional standards for Geologic Hazard Areas in SVMC 21.50.550(E). 2. Development or uses within geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers shall only be allowed when the proposed development or use: a. Does not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre-development conditions; b. Does not adversely impact other critical areas; c. Is designed so that the hazard is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than pre-development conditions; and d. Is determined to be safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a Qualified Professional. 3. New development that requires structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development is prohibited, except in instances where: a. Stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses consistent with SVMC 21.50.420(B)(5); b. No alternative locations are available; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft c. Shoreline modifications do not negatively affect other critical areas pursuant to SVMC 21.50.460; and d. Stabilization measures conform to WAC 173-26-231, Shoreline Modifications. D. Standards applicable to erosion and landslide hazard areas. 1. Development within an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of the SMP. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function: a. Development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic conditions shall be based on a minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the Uniform Building Code as adopted or amended; b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas; c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography; d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation; e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties; f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes; and g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage. 2. Buffers from all edges of Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas. a. The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope or 50 feet, whichever is greater. b. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a Qualified Professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject critical area. c. The buffer may be increased where the Director determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development. 3. Removal of vegetation from an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and/or buffer shall be prohibited unless as part of an approved alteration plan consistent with SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. 4. New utility lines and pipes shall be permitted only when the Applicant demonstrates that no other practical alternative is available. The line or pipe shall be located above ground and properly anchored and/or designed so that it will continue to function in the event of an underlying slide. 5. Stormwater conveyance shall be allowed only when the pipe design includes a high-density polyethylene pipe with fuse-welded joints, or similar product that is technically equal or superior. 6. New point discharges from drainage facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas shall be prohibited except as follows: City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft a. If it is conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazards areas downstream from the discharge; b. If it is discharged at flow durations matching pre-developed conditions, with adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously conveyed stormwater runoff in the pre-developed state; or c. If it is dispersed or discharged upslope of the steep slope onto a low- gradient undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and stormwater runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope. 7. Division of land in Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas and associated buffers is subject to the following: a. Land that is located wholly within a designated Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area or an associated buffer shall not be subdivided. b. Land that is located partially within a designated Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area or an associated buffer may be subdivided, provided that each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area outside of the Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and buffer to accommodate reasonable development without impacting the critical area or requiring structural stabilization consistent with SVMC 21.50.180(B)(5) General Provisions. c. Access roads and utilities may be permitted within an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and associated buffers if the City determines that no other feasible alternative exists. 8. On-site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas and associated buffers. E. Additional critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas reports. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, geologically hazardous area reports shall include: 1. A site plan showing the following: a. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of groundwater on or within 200 feet of the project area or that have potential to be affected by the proposal; b. The topography, in two-foot contours, of the project area and all hazard areas addressed in the report; and c. The following additional information for a proposal impacting an Erosion Hazard or Landslide Hazard Area: The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross section of the project area; ii. Stormwater runoff disposal location and flow patterns; and iii. The location and description of surface water runoff. 2. A geotechnical study that addresses the geologic characteristics and engineering properties of the soils, sediments, and/or rock of the project area and potentially affected adjacent properties, including: a. A description of the surface and subsurface geology, hydrology, soils, and vegetation found in the project area and in all hazard areas addressed in the report; b. A detailed overview of the field investigations; published data and references; data and conclusions from past assessments of the site; and site specific measurements, test, investigations, or studies that support the identification of geologically hazardous areas; c. Site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft d. A description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic and other geologic events; e. Proposals impacting an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area shall include the following additional information: A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover; ii. An estimate of load capacity including surface and ground water conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations, and all structural development; iii. An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated life of the structure; iv. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100 year storm event; v. Consideration of the run-out hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run-out on down slope properties; vi. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed angles of cut and fill and site grading; vii. Recommendations for building limitations, structural foundations, and an estimate of foundation settlement; and viii. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to erosion. f. A detailed description of the project, its relationship to the geologic hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the subject property, and affected adjacent properties; g. Recommendations for the minimum no-disturbance buffer and minimum building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the geotechnical analysis; h. A mitigation plan addressing how the activity maintains or reduces the pre-existing level of risk to the site and adjacent properties on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or occupation); Proposals impacting an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area shall include the following additional information: An erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in SVMC 22.150 Stormwater Management Regulations; and ii. Drainage plan for the collection, transport, treatment, discharge, and recycle of water; j. Location and methods of drainage, surface water management, locations and methods of erosion control, a vegetation management and replanting plan, or other means for maintaining long-term soil stability; and k. A plan and schedule to monitor stormwater runoff discharges from the site shall be included if there is a significant risk of damage to downstream receiving waters due to: Potential erosion from the site; ii. The size of the project; or iii. The proximity to or the sensitivity of the receiving waters. 3. A geotechnical report, prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions are unchanged, may be incorporated into the required critical area report. The City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft Applicant shall submit a geotechnical assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site. 21.50.560 Frequently flooded areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. A. Incorporation and applicability. SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulations are incorporated by reference herein and apply to all uses, activities, and structures within frequently flooded areas. B. Additional critical areas report requirements for frequently flooded areas. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, critical area reports for frequently flooded areas shall include: 1. A site plan showing: a. All areas of a special flood hazard within 200 feet of the project area, as indicated on the flood insurance map(s); b. Floodplain (100-year flood elevation), 10- and 50-year flood elevations, floodway, other critical areas, buffers, and shoreline areas; and c. Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures, and the level to which any nonresidential structure has been flood proofed. Alterations of natural watercourses shall be avoided, if feasible. If unavoidable, the critical area report shall include: A description of and plan showing the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated; ii. A maintenance plan that provides maintenance practices for the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse to ensure that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished and downstream or upstream properties are not impacted; and iii. A description of how the proposed watercourse alteration complies with the requirements of FWHCAs, the SMP, and other applicable state or federal permit requirements. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, March 20, 2014 Public Review Draft