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