2014, 08-19 Study Session AGENDA
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday,August 19,2014 6:00 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor
(Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting)
DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL
ROLL CALL:
ACTION ITEM:
1. Eric Guth Bid Award, SE Yardley Stormwater Motion Consideration
Retrofit [public comment]
2. Steve Worley, Previously Adopted,TIB Call for Projects Motion Consideration
Sean Messner Motion to Amend [public comment]
NON-ACTION ITEMS
3. Lori Barlow Shoreline Development Regulations Discussion/Information
4.Mike Basinger Historic Preservation Discussion/Information
5. Cary Driskell Commercial Vehicles(Trucks,etc) Discussion/Information
Parking in Residential Areas
6.Mark Calhoun Goals and Priorities for Lodging Tax Discussion/Information
Advisory Committee
7.Mike Jackson Draft Council Goals Discussion/Information
8.Mark Calhoun,Erik Lamb Tourism Promotion Agency(TPA) Discussion/Information
9.Mayor Grafos Advance Agenda Discussion/Information
10.Mayor Grafos Council Comments Discussion/Information
11.Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information
ADJOURN
Study Session Agenda,August 19,2014
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2014 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit —Bid Award
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.48, Chapter 173-200 WAC, Title 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376; Storm and
Surface Water Utility: SVMC 3.80; Aquifer Protection Area Fund: RCW 36.36.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Ordinance 13-016, Adoption of 2014 Budget on October 22,
2013. An Open House for the project was held on April 23, 2014, of which several council members
attended. Info RCA was presented to Council on August 12, 2014.
BACKGROUND: The SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit is a Department of Ecology stormwater grant
funded project. It will eliminate several direct-injection drywells in the trucktown area by installing a
regional pipe collection system which will direct stormwater to a new grassy swale. Portions of Valleyway
Ave. will also be improved with curbing, widening, and roadside swale construction.
The project design was completed in June, and on July 17, Ecology approved the design for bidding. The
project was advertised for public bidding in local publications on August 1 and 8. Bids are scheduled to be
opened on August 19, 2014 at 10:00 am.
Staff will tabulate the bid results and determine the lowest responsive bidder.
Construction is anticipated to start in September 2014, and be completed by the end of October 2014.
OPTIONS: 1) Award the SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit Project to the lowest responsive and responsible
bidder, 2) not award the contract, or 3) take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I Move to award the SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit Project to
, in the amount of$ and authorize the City Manager to finalize
and execute the construction contract.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Up to $750,000 from Ecology stormwater grant funding, with an
additional City match of up to $250,000 from Fund 403 (Aquifer Protection Area).
STAFF CONTACTS: Eric Guth — Public Works Director; Ryan Brodwater—Assistant Stormwater
Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulations will be provided at the City Council meeting.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2014 Department Director Approval: ❑
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Amend Previously Approved List of TIB Grant
Applications.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Roberts Rules of Order §35
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
July 22, 2014 Council meeting, minutes excerpt:
4. Motion Consideration: Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects—Steve Worley
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize staff to proceed with applying
for TIB grants for the four projects listed above. [The projects include: (1) University, 16`h to
Dishman Mica, pavement preservation; (2) Sullivan, Sprague to 8th Avenue, mill and inlay plus
sidewalks between 4th and 8th; (3) McDonald- 16th to Mission, mill and inlay and change four lanes
to three with bike lanes; and (4) 32nd— SR 27 to Evergreen: sidewalks and barrier free accessibility
across the highway.] In speaking for Mr. Worley,Public Works Director Guth said that there are no
new projects or comments on these proposals since staff last addressed this issue. There was brief
discussion about the transition from four to three lanes and the resulting learning curve; with
mention that this would not be the only time such had occurred so it is not a new concept. Mr.
Guth also confirmed that the re-painting the bike lane to extend all the way to the Appleway Trail,
is in the plan; and said the grant application has not yet been submitted, and is due in about three
weeks. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:
In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried.
At the August 12, 2014 Council meeting, Mayor Grafos suggested, and Councilmembers
concurred, to bring back the previous Council action as noted above, in order to consider
making a change to the University Rd Preservation Project; final striping to be three lanes or
four lanes, both with bicycle lanes. Since the grant application has not yet been submitted, it is
still possible to amend the July 22 motion. The grant applications are due Friday, August 22.
Tonight's motion can be made by any Councilmember, requires a second, is debatable
concerning the merits of the question, may be amended, and since notice was given at a
previous Council meeting of this pending action, requires a majority vote in order to pass.
OPTIONS: Council discretion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "In accordance with notice given at the last meeting, I
move to amend the motion adopted at the July 22, 2014 Council Meeting to add the language
"University, 16th to Dishman Mica, to remain four lanes.""
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City's match on TIB funded projects is typically 20% of
the total project cost. As the proposed TIB applications are developed, staff will coordinate with
the Finance Department to ensure there are sufficient City funds to provide the needed match
for the proposed TIB projects. Right-of-way is not an eligible cost for sidewalk projects.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Sean Messner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Staff's estimated TIB application scores for University Road — Both 3-lane and 4-lane
configuration;
2) Cross sections showing lane widths for both 3-lane and 4-lane options;
3) Pros and Cons for 3-lane versus 4-lane on University;
4) Summary of Application Scores compared to last year's selected projects
Urban Arterial Program (UAP) 2013 TIB Winning Scores
Growth&
Developm Physical
Round City Safety Mobility ent Condition
3 Liberty Lake 66 39 76 54
5 Spokane County 73 46 30 74
7 Pullman 39 39 30 72
8 Othello 44 39 30 68
9 Spokane 45 40 26 67
9 Pullman 34 48 24 36
10 Wenatchee -_.._.._._20.._.. 48 10 39
Spokane Valley Estimated Scores,TIB 2014
University, Dishman Mica to 16th 68 46 70
(3 Lane)
University, Dishman Mica to 16th 39 46 70
(4 Lane)
McDonald, 16th to Mission 65 40 64
Sullivan Rd,8th to Sprague 34 43 73
A I
t t t A
67'
. ►
54'
6'-6" 7.5' 13' 13' 13' 7.5' 6'-6"
r, Is
ri—,.
i ‘1-11 r
M , o00 �oOo' �� . 1
, _ tib
goommor
University, 19th - 29th Avenue
3-Lane with Buffered Bike Lanes
A 4
tS 4' 14
A
67'
54'
6'-6" 5' 12' 10' 10' 12' 5' 6'-6"
►. 10,-.44 M. ►"I 110^41 M 0,4 ►
I
um-3 /'""'
DOD ODD
lt- --- E._MMI. _iMi '-1111.1111k
MEW ........ ImMlajar
University , 19th - 29th Avenue
4- Lane with Bike Lanes
Page I1
University Road, Dishman Mica to 16th Avenue
3-Lane:Continuous Two-Way-Center-Turn Lane and North and Southbound Bike Lanes
Pro Con
No reduction in Level-of-Service(LOS)by changing One through lane in each direction will be
from 4 lanes to 3 lanes, both configurations eliminated.
provide a LOSA on into 2040.
Added Two-Way Left Turn Lane(TWLTL)removes University Rd is a bus route accessing the southern
turning vehicles from the through lanes, which lead portion of the city. For stopped busses, traffic
to a reduction in rear-end and sideswipe collisions. must negotiate through the TWLTL in order to pass
the bus.
TWLTLs provide spatial separation between One through lane in each direction eliminated
opposing lanes of traffic, which can lead to a which removes driver choice to select lanes.
reduction in left-turn, angle, and head-on
collisions.
Statewide Crash Reduction Factor for installing Although overall reduction of crashes occurs, type
a TWCTL of 29%for all crashes. Nearly 1 in 3 of crashes change from angle (more severe)to
crashes will not have to happen. rear-end.
Bike Lanes added to University Rd from 32"d to 16th
Avenue will conform to the recommendations in
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Pedestrians going across University Rd will have
one less traffic lane to cross.
Adequate roadway width to provide buffered bike
lanes.
A TWLTL provides a lane for emergency vehicles.
The bike lanes allow for snow storage during
winter months.
3-lane section would allow use of flashing yellow
arrow at University/32"d, which would improve
operations at intersection.
Road diet is supported by FHWA as a proven
countermeasure to improve safety along corridors.
Page 12
University Road, Dishman Mica to 16th Avenue
4-Lane-Bike Lanes with 2 Traffic Lanes in both the North and Southbound Direction
Pro Con
Provides 2 through lanes in each direction. Providing bike lanes and maintaining 4 through
lanes will require the lane width for the travel
lanes to be reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in some
places. Narrow lanes on a bus route, combined
with bike lanes, makes for a tight roadway.
University Rd is a bus route accessing the southern Sight visibility when a bus is parked in the travel
portion of the city. For stopped busses, traffic has lane is reduced. If single lane, traffic behind bus
an additional through lane to pass a stopped bus. stops.
Emergency Vehicles have access to an added
through lane providing somewhat faster access to
and from an emergency.
Bike Lanes added to University Rd from 32'd to 16`h Minimal safety improvements as there are zero
Avenue will conform to the recommendations in crashes with bicycles. No added safety to vehicles.
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
10'lanes may serve as traffic calming by giving a 10'lanes will likely increase chances of sideswipe
"compressed"feel. crashes.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
2014-TIP APPLICATION SCORING MATRIX EVALUATION
Y W
CIS
l� r as
M R cr c4
Ly
d d CI
7
UAP Criteria Points > j
SAFETY (65 pt max)
Safety Evaluation Tool (50 pt max)
Potential crash reduction 0-15 10 1
Predicted crash frequency 0-10 5 5
Modeled crash modification factors 0-25 25 5
Safety Evaluation Tool Sub-Total (50 pt max) 50 1 40 11
Countermeasures not Modeled in Safety Tool (15 pt max)
Grade Separation 0-4 0 0
Adds Pedestrian Facility 0-3 0 0
Increase Sight Distance 0-6 0 0
Corrects offset/skewed Intersection 0-4 0 0
Countermeasures not modeled in Safety Tool Sub-Total (15 pt max) 15 0 0
Total Safety (65 pt max) 40 11
PHYSICAL CONDITION (65 pt max)
TIB Engineer PCR Score Rating (30 pt max) 0-30
TIB Engineer PCR Score Sub-Total (30 pt max) 30 1 20 20
Non Pavement Condition (12 pt max)
Walls 0-4 0 0
Storm water conveyance 0-4 0 0
Bridges or Culverts 0-6 0 0
Slope Stability 0-2 0 0
Non Pavement Condition Sub-Total (12 pt max) 12 1 0 0
Existing Attributes (10 pt max)
Illumination 0-2 0 0
Fixed Objects 0-2 2 2
Access Control 0-2 0 0
Alignment 0-5 5 5
Channelization 0-2 2 2
Turning Radius 0-2 2 2
Sight Distance 0-2 2 2
Existing Attributes Sub-Total (10 pt max) 10 1 131 13
Loading (10 pt max)
Volume 0-4 0 0
Truck Route Classification 0-4 1 1
Busses 0-4 2 2
NHS Route 3 1 1
Loading Sub-Total (10 pt max) 10 1 4 4
Sidewalk Condition (5 pt max)
Meets Standards 0-3 3 3
Overall Sidewalk Appearance 0-3 2 2
Sidewalk Condition Sub-Total (5 pt max) 5 5 5
Total Physical Condition (65 pt max) 42 42
Page 1 TIB-Funding App Scoring Matrix(2014)
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
2014-TIP APPLICATION SCORING MATRIX EVALUATION
co CO
co w
ai 0 ai
c r
as v ca
•y
L N
0
7 7
UAP Criteria Points > j
MOBILITY(65 pt max)
Congestion & Level of Service (35 pt max)
Significant congestion problem 0-10 0 0
Increase in LOS within project limits 0-20 0 0
Addresses congestion on the system or adjacent routes 0-10 0 0
New Route 0-20 0 0
High Volume 0-5 0 0
Existing Attributes Sub-Total (10 pt max) 10 I 0 0
Network Connectivity (10 pt max)
Complete/extend corridor improvements 0-6 3 3
Complete gap/extend improvements 0-4 2 2
What does the project connect to? (highest classification) 0-4 3 3
Network Connectivity Sub-Total (10 pt max) 10 I 8 8
Modal Access (10 pt max)
Improve Transit Access 0-4 2 2
Improve connections to non-motorized access 0-2 2 2
Improve freight facilities 0-6 0 0
Modal Access Sub-Total (10 pt max)1 10 I 4 4
MOBILITY(CONT) (65 pt max)
Features (10 pt max)
Relieves Bottleneck 0-2 0 0
Improves access to CBD or urban center 0-6 4 4
Traffic signal interconnect 0-2 2 2
Features Sub-Total (10 pt max) 10 6 6
Total Mobility(65 pt max) 18 18
Sustainability (15 pt max)
Adopted GH Gas Policy 1 1 0 0
Adopted GH Gas Policy Sub-Total (1 pt max) 1 I 0 0
Modal Measures (8 pt max)
Completes gap in HOV system 3 0 0
Adds HOV lanes in each direction 2 0 0
Adds Queue Jump or Transit Only Lane 1 0 0
Peak hour transit buses 0-3 3 3
Sidewalk width greater than than TIB standard &/or planter strip (3'min width) 0-3 1 1
Bicycle facilities 0-3 3 3
Correction of fish barrier 0-3 0 0
Enhances stream bank condition 1 0 0
Corrects existing sensitive area impacts 2 0 0
Reducing existing pavement width while accommodating all roadway users 0-3 0 0
Modal Measures Sub-Total (8 pt max)1 8 I 7 7
Page 2 TIB- Funding App Scoring Matrix(2014)
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
2014-TIP APPLICATION SCORING MATRIX EVALUATION
CD w
CD co
r t4
m v CZ
E E
Vl N
> >
UAP Criteria Points
Environmental Measures (8 pt max)
LID or enhanced treatment stormwater controls 2 2 2
Use of non-potable water for irrigation or no permanent irrigation 1 0 0
Hardscaping or native planting,project must not include permanent irrigation 1 0 0
Environmental Measures Sub-Total (8 pt max) 8 I 2 2
Energy (4 pt max)
Replace or install low energy street lighting 3 0 0
Solar powered signage 1 0 0
Energy Sub-Total (4 pt max) 4 I 0 0
Recycling Measures (4 pt max)
Reuse/recycling of materials (on-site or off-site) 2 2 2/
In-place pavement reconstruction or structural retrofit 2 2 2
Recycling Measures Sub-Total (4 pt max) 4 4 4
Total Sustainability (15 pt max) 13 13
Constructibility (20 pt max)
Full funding (15 pt max)
Over Match (1 pt for every 2% above minimum) 0-10 0 0
Full funding in Place 5 5 5
Full funding (15 pt max) 15 5 5
Construction Readiness & Ease of Implementation (10 pt max) 0 0
Plans, Specs and Estimate finished 0-3 0 0
Permits completed 0-2 0 0
Cultural Resources complete 0-2 0 0
Right of Way certified or not required 0-3 3 3
No federal funding unless construction ready 1 0 0
No sensitive areas or issues pending 0-2 2 2
Use of accelerated construction methods 0-2 2 2
No railroad impact 1 1 1
Utility Upgrades not needed 0-2 2 2
Construction Readiness & Ease of Implementation (10 pt max) 10 10 10
Constructability (20 pt max) 15 15
UNIVERSITY 3-LANE
SAFETY 68
MOBILITY 46
PHYSICAL CONDITION 70
UNIVERSITY 4-LANE
SAFETY 39
MOBILITY 46
PHYSICAL CONDITION 70
Page 3 TIB- Funding App Scoring Matrix(2014)
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2014 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update — Draft Development
Regulations
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous discussions regarding local implementation
of the Shoreline Management Act under RCW 90.58.
BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update team has completed
the Draft Shoreline Development Regulations. The document completes phase seven of the
City's Update process and introduces the regulations that will implement the SMP. The Draft
consists of the following sections:
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 Municipal Code.
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.
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.
The Planning Commission review was completed over a series of seven meetings beginning on
March 27, 2014. A public hearing was conducted on May 22, 2014 and deliberations were
completed on July 10, 2014. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend acceptance of the draft
Regulations with minor changes to the document. Those changes have been incorporated into
the Planning Commission Recommended Draft presented to the Council with one exception —
the Commission noted that a definition for native and non-native vegetation should be added to
the Definitions section. Staff is working with Ecology to provide an acceptable definition, and it
will be provided prior to action by Council. All other changes to the document that resulted from
the public review and technical review group have been left in track changes form.
Attorney Tadas Kisielius participated in the review of the draft document and his input was
incorporated during the development stage. Very little comment was received during the review
process. The comments are attached for your information. Mr. Kisielius and staff will present an
overview of the Draft Shoreline Master Program Development Regulations and highlight issues
covered by the Planning Commission.
OPTIONS: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Planning Commission Draft Shoreline Master Program Regulations, Definitions
and Maps
Attachment B: Comments
Hugo Flores, DNR, letter dated April 22, 2014
Jamie Short, DOE, email dated April 22, 2014
Robin Bekkedahl, AVISTA, letter dated April 22, 2014
Kitty Klitzke, Futurewise, letter dated May 22, 2014
Witherspoon-Kelly for Centennial Properties, letter dated July 10, 2014
Attachment C: Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2014
April 24, 2014
May 8, 2014
May 22, 2014
June 12, 2014
June 26, 2014
July 10, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
21.50.470 Maps and inventories.
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,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended 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,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended 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).
I D. The Director mayshall 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:
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
1. The public comment period for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall
be 30 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-110.
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;
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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;
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
I. Non water-oriented Industrial Uses and Mining; and
J. The construction of breakwaters, jetties, groins, or weirs.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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
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, 20,000, 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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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
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:
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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
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.
I A. Classification Criteria—A use, structure,- appurtenant structure, or lot is nonconforming
if it was legally established but is inconsistent with a subsequently adopted regulation or
regulations. Lawful uses, structures, appurtenant 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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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
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 which are within the shoreline
jurisdiction and excluding public roads.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
Table 21.50-1: Shoreline Uses
I I
I
To 70
U U
0J= C C
✓ 7 f0 f0
N 7 L L
✓ a) 00 0 f6
_ -a c ,_ V G.J 3 u
_y C Ty L C C U +,
L (p L yam, co
ra ra s
s 0- - °° o-
SHORELINE USES N m N = 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
Asan 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- N/A P P P
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
I I I
To 70
U U
C C C C
4J 4J CO c0
N 47 L L
v (1) O 0 o c0
.� c Lc c U ++
ca � c ca c0 s
s Q- - tic a
SHORELINE USES '^ n N = a
family residences
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 P A6
KEY: A=Allowed P= Permitted C=Conditional Use Blank= Prohibited N/A= Not Applicable
Notes:
1For 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(6)(1) or 21.50.330(6)(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 byA Letter of Exemption is required if the maintenance activity involves any
ground disturbing activity or is located within the Urban Conservancy High Quality
Environment.
'—A Letter of Exemption is required.
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 20
Recommended Draft
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.
Table 21.50-2: Shoreline Modification Activities
1 i
i
70 70
U U
0J= C C
v 7 03 03
N 7 L L
v a) o o o f6
_ -a c ,_ V G.J 3 u
.) C .u LC C U ++
L (p L yam, in ra s
co
.0 Q- - ra
tia a
SHORELINE MODIFICATION ACTIVITY '^ M '^ = a
Shoreline/Slope Stabilization
Structural, such as bulkheads N/A
INonstructural, such as soil bioengineering N/A P P 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
I Groins and Weirs N/A 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(6)(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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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(6)(4) is required when
specified in these regulations or for projects that:
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 4-525 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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 22
Recommended Draft
3. Shoreline buffers for new and expanded uses may be reduced up to 25 percent
by the Director 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
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
1 A 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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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;
c. All removed native plants shall be replaced with native vegetation;
removed ornamental plants may be replaced with similar species;
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); and
e. Proiects that propose a pathway or trail in the shoreline buffer shall meet
the additional following standards:
Pathways and trails that are roughly parallel to the OHWM may be
allowed if:
(1) It is a public non-motorized multi-use equestrian or
pedestrian/bike trail;
It is located at the landward edge of the shoreline buffer
with the following exceptions:
(a) When physical constraints, public safety concerns,
or public ownership limitations merit otherwise; or
(b) When the trail will make use of an existing
constructed grade such as those formed by an
abandoned rail grade, road, or utility.
ii. Pathways, trails, and river crossings that are perpendicular to the
water, and lead to the OHWM, shall be sited in a location that has
the least impact to shoreline ecological functions with mitigation
sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.250.210. Previously altered or
disturbed locations shall be preferred.
iii. All pathways and trails shall be located, constructed, and
maintained so as to avoid, to the maximum extent possible,
removal and other impacts to perennial native vegetation,
including trees, standing snags, forbs, grasses, and shrubs,
consistent with the vegetation management plan.
iv. Alternatives to impervious paving should be considered and are
encouraged.
v. Total trail width, inclusive of shoulders, shall be the minimum
width necessary to achieve the intended use and shall not exceed
14 feet.
vi. Disturbed areas (outside of the designated trail and trail
shoulders) shall be re-vegetated with native vegetation consistent
with the vegetation management plan.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 26
Recommended Draft
vii. Public, non-motorized multi-use equestrian pedestrian/bike trails
shall only be allowed in the shoreline buffer for the Urban
Conservancy-High Quality environment designation to connect to
or from (in phases or otherwise) an existing regional multi-use
non-motorized trail and only pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(B).
viii. Encroachments in the buffer allowed by the exceptions listed
above shall be the minimum necessary to provide for the
permitted use.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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
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 ;r 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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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(6)(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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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(6)(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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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 stuffsproducts.
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:
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(6)(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 impcdc normal ground and surfacc
water movement.ln-stream structures shall provide for the protection and
preservation of ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural
resources pursuant to WAC 173-26-241(3)(g).
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 32
Recommended Draft
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.
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(6)(3), and
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 34
Recommended Draft
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
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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,with the
exception of docks proposed on the Spokane River that are located west of the
City of Millwood, 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;
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 36
Recommended Draft
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.
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
UccSubstantial Development 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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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:
a. For residences occupied or constructed prior to January 1, 1992;
b. There are overriding safety or environmental concerns;
c. The replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization
structure; and
d. The Department of Natural Resources has approved, if applicable, the
proposed project if it is on state-owned aquatic lands.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
8. Piers and docks proposed on the Spokane River and located east of the City of
Millwood shall comply with SVMC 21.50.410(6)(4) and the following additional
criteria:
a. The site suitability analysis shall demonstrate that:
i._ The river conditions in the proposed location of the dock, including
depth and flow conditions, will accommodate the proposed dock
and its use; and
ii._ Any design to address river conditions will not interfere with or
adversely affect navigability.
b. The Habitat Management Plan for any such docks shall demonstrate that
the proposed dock will not result in a net loss of ecological functions.
9. New residential development of two or more dwellings within the shoreline
located east of the City of Millwood, and west of the Centennial Trail Pedestrian
Bridge, shall provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather
than allowing individual docks for each residence.
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;
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 39
Recommended Draft
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:
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 40
Recommended Draft
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 existing irrigation and drainage ditches, utility lines,
and appurtenances;
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; and
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.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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 water 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;
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 42
Recommended Draft
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 consistent
with appropriate state and federal guidelines.
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;
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 up to ten years for
compensatory mitigation; and
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 43
Recommended Draft
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.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
4. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to any illegal modifications.
C. Wetland buffers.
1. Applicability. These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands cxccpt 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
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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;
ii. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area
required without averaging; and
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10,2014 Planning Commission 47
Recommended Draft
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.
D. Mitigation.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended 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 ander 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,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended 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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
for contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the
replenishment of ground water.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 52
Recommended Draft
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.
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 53
Recommended Draft
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.
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(6)(2), except in accordance with this section. Buffers
shall be required only for FWHCAs described under SVMC 21.50.540(6)(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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 54
Recommended Draft
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;
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(6)(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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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(6)(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;
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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;
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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.
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;
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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(6)(5);
b. No alternative locations are available;
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.
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 59
Recommended Draft
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:
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(6)(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;
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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;
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
City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission
Recommended Draft
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
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,July 10, 2014 Planning Commission 62
Recommended Draft
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. Definitions.
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,installation of a septic tank and drainfield, and grading
which does not exceed 250 cubic yards-and does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or
waterward 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 Planning Commission Recommended Draft 1
Definitions—Appendix A-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 Planning Commission Recommended Draft 2
Definitions—Appendix A-1
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 fmished
or semi-finished 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 Planning Commission Recommended Draft 3
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 Planning Commission Recommended Draft 4
Definitions—Appendix A-1
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 Planning Commission Recommended Draft 5
Definitions—Appendix A-1
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 Planning Commission Recommended Draft 6
Definitions—Appendix A-1
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 Planning Commission Recommended Draft
Definitions—Appendix A-1
--
J „nal ) -
y
� r ,r l s.• e r�lr c. Y .w '1-_,,,.54 ,�
i"r�
�' -��� . r fid^ �- 'x�IT” �. ...:4:4,-4.
�r ... ��' t 4x�� : '� -�:� t��:.. � - L a���
1,1
tom`—� iiii =..L t
I
14 �� �lA iii '
„7„:,,ril..,4„.,„„..r.,,
,. r A oK� . 4.'Sa� „ .. � I ...spy.� ,y. �.-i �� �� �5 (1.1�
F # i i
n
y : F r } I* .....„.•-••••
f "c ___1fY- I } �
{ ".ice ♦, 'M ,'f : - '4<e.`> ,!*'^'^^^' _ .,f
�ry
� lilt 'ff-'
. .x kl;' 'w"t , .,-_ ,5. • .�z ,.r -.�,.�. - ----1-,.,4-'
�lx+i _ 5E, l '�_ I. ��F=
.•. : ,:4' r it ..., 't:. et `, i,2 F--, -- _-
,� Ki �.- -,,- ._c .;n, +' 3 '$f.F.•. .; 1 - a.. '- e _ ,,I iyf_ ^n r y:
a + yy 11 r t _
'"t=� � ., s -4a -..,... �' :,:� -a 1 'fl�, ___.-1P-
� I��� +I11� _ �b�;. <4..i � �`� rg - �- '�.. 'C,#
p
-
_Jo
'; �. ,x= .ar... • `, '`baa ', '1,' ,-- L
If r t r 1 1 _ `` +:�,. - 4EYlr t ,1 2` i _ �x:. IL
z -�- sF. iy' `� _—j-7 ill t�`..,1z:,.4. { „�F r' -j---3,L,;.,,,...------1,"
-''?ba z+� ..Y�-" i' f i t i'% .
4.
' t.� a •
7: .� ".' W!s: fi -� - t i -r. z _ a '� x +3}
�
,:.. ..,, ..,,, ..:::,',4..1 -
� t _ a �.,« I ,4 _.;,._-07'-...,„ -----i4-,,,,,
cc s. „ '"
r
k.
efil
Q
}
7
-'-:-:;-4Y-%1::
e•f r. ..- � -4,-,i.„,-,„..,,,sr,
c fi'., t 'Ugly,
- "' Cdr _.. ti •
t+t;.. �11 y T . , .'�'r...... 'n t. ,y ,, ..,",,,$;4.;11;,
, l+ 1.1—.., 1, :;-_,;,;=-",
n'' SII y";...,e Y..-:_'
F r
; Air
.
. ,,•:...t ,sf
0.
r�� !'..':,7-,*: ; *s ,:". ..a. ,�. L i, n � :4_,dtl i-41-7,11.......„,
r • .,y li�, I _'*
}
,''. , ., Yq rte, • - e.-.i -.;-51, , H-., - - 4� ��—
YY
" F a,,,t; . _ e '�R �9 4 - ».�. .b..Y,�'.7.7)
_ 5 J
-. a+.ti rte. � �, �,�['- �! .„-,,,,,,,!'„.44::„:1.,:`,-
Y ` � r r
• 1�
6
if,-,,,, �1 t �x�9rt e
iOrchardAvenueg: . ;zP {, IA 1. ®,
r,
:-'• .,::, '
- war. t ( 11y
4" ° 'y r t ':% I.
xa 14 +M w
a
4 i �
.`ate°t4.'...e�o'�r d`s,c?y. t`S' r.. ,4-41-'''''."--f' 1. •fi, - I _�= l"�
sY-- IN �F i . ' "'''',7:4°,:'.1-'t +`gra
�� - �s'��• .a '.' y' � _ '-';..":.."--f
� :1!7;';''
ts.w;
' 1 7„�^i 1'L - STS; °;'--rs k _-J
4 i.v . '. ., ,,; , : . -.. .,fila y .... ,,.,3.. ,
y
" * - ` . ' ,,,,k,,,__,. .-
s t a z➢I „i .t a.,n ,1---.-.--„,'-s'me ,..-ti# r -$. c x r .n, 1 -,, .lv
Ordinary High Water Line Centennial Trail 1 N II II Shoreline Master Program
•
0 25 025
Shoreline Jurisdiction City of Spokane Valley — Draft Shoreline Buffers Map
Buffer Appendix A-2
�'°•0135�`�" City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Prog am Update
L March 20,2014
1 _ c- rT� _ -
*Jr ;sir' •
: ,d t . ly {
l
I
#
41 is7
• ��y
r
•
��i �r_�..'gz twr
�� ��tkk
�' — 4 p or aim+ *�
_
. - ' y . _ ®a. tiR; ,�. EUCLID AV
re, -----"Ill.! .–fr-''''',crii.
III
MONTGOMERY AV - - - .F'- - ,_ Illi r - _ '.
t i� ,iill� ..., glib*..,��-
all
.,:r.. , '
...,....
INDIANA AV _-- ,
' I Interstate 90
t . 1 Interstate 90 sUM
-.-+- - w 4r i tet1, e _
.A
f.
- L. - - hNISSIbN FAV- '. .-. Is- - -. �.-
,. -
'1 7:.-: __.F..i! ,"7,.i....., ,, ,,_j ,,1 -..,,„ H. ____ . - --- - ...,, --' 4 Z:4.. .. .. - 14.1104,''raj- t:1./.:1: ... .-- - •'
y •
®1111 ` ,;....,-.,0, ,.,� , t' R �y<"��s `
4LT I /J./y
i0 -. v't •111 z VALCEYWAY AV .� _ ' `,l.r= 1 ,��IIII�II��� i-, -
' :---1-':
lir
,11 �t ree
Orchard Avenue. r 1,7------1.-. :.`' - LD J _ - p, � ' i-111
,akl.ut 4 �I e
t
_ , : _ r ., ,, k a...,: d Sheley ak ,
- I L e
,1 � fl.'eps N.
f_ l
N
Shoreline Residential-Upland Aquatic Environment I City Council Draft
- Shoreline Residential-Waterfront ----' Centennial Trail Environment Designation Map
= Urban Conservancy Parcels ✓�'���� *��������
c�zn�mza,,:-v�szn ;e� CityofS Spokane Valley
Origir,:9]lv Aegrvvs p
••
Urban Conservancy HQ jCity p••: of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates
„_„_ November 13,2012
Attachment B
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
Amp
Natural Resources
NIIMEW Peter Goldmark-Commissioner of Public Lands
April 22, 2014
Lori Barlow, AICP Planner
Spokane Valley City Hall
11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Comments
Dear Lori,
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you and your staff for the work
completed to update the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program. As steward of more
than 2.6 million acres of state-owned aquatic lands and their attached biological communities,
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) takes responsibility for ensuring that the people of
Washington benefit from the use of aquatic lands, while also ensuring environmental protection
of our natural resources for current and future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide comments. I am including a table with DNR staff comments on the proposed City of
Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program. The table identifies the issue/topic and provides a
page number of the documents reviewed, along with DNR's comments and suggested language.
I hope these comments are helpful to you and your staff. In addition to this, the City of Spokane
Valley should be aware that DNR has been developing an Aquatic Lands Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP) and conducting extensive review and analysis on the environmental impacts of
DNR-authorized activities on state-owned aquatic lands and the species that use those lands.
From this research, DNR has concluded that the most effective way to provide sustainable
stewardship for our aquatic lands is to manage through habitat stewardship review on individual
use authorizations and leases on a case-by-case basis. The overarching goal is to first avoid and
secondly minimize negative effects to submerged habitats and the species that depend on them.
If you have questions, you may contact me at: hugo.flores@dnr.wa.gov or(360) 902-1126.
Sincerely,
Hugo Flores
SMA Coordinator
SMPs.SpoVa/14
Attachment B
Document/Location Text Comment Suggested Language
Appendix A-1 Page 3 In-stream structures Consider adding piers and docks to the or other purpose such as piers
definition. DNR believes that the placement and docks.
of 30 piers and docks within a relative small
shoreline segment may have impacts on the
hydraulics of the river system.
Shoreline Master Program Standards 6. Consider referencing SVMC 21.50.410 to this and SVMC 21.50.410 General
Regulations. 21.50.310 Boating section. This would address cumulative regulations for specific
facilities B. Standards. 6. Page 28 impacts analysis as well as habitat and shoreline modifications, as
shoreline changes. applicable.
Shoreline Master Program Shoreline/slope Consider including language that d. The Department of Natural
Regulations. 21.50.420. B. stabilization acknowledges DNR's management authority Resources has approved or is
Standards. 8. Page 36 for projects on state-owned aquatic lands. aware of the proposed project
if it is on state-owned aquatic
lands.
Shoreline Master Program Piers and docks Even though there is an implication that 8. Piers and docks shall also
Regulations. 21.50.430. B. SVMC 21.50.410 is also applicable to piers, comply with SVMC 21.50.410
Standards. Page 37 DNR believes that referencing it again in this General regulations for
section would address the lack of cumulative specific shoreline
impact analysis identified at the Inventory and modifications, as applicable.
Characterization Report (Shoreline
Modifications. Page 47)related to the 31 lots
with direct access to the river where docks are
allowed as a part of the development.
SMPs.SpoVa/14
Chris Bainbridge
From: Short, Jaime (ECY) <JSHO461 @ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:20 PM
To: Lori Barlow
Subject: Ecology comments on draft City of Spokane Valley SMP work products
Dear Lori,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Spokane Valley's draft Shoreline Buffer
map and draft Shoreline Management and Restoration Program. Given the time allotted for review and my
other commitments, I was unable to review the Definition section at this time. I've organized my comments
by document below:
Draft Shoreline Buffers—
I appreciate the City's effort to tailor buffers at the parcel level. They are a direct reflection of the work
performed on the Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization. At this time, however, I cannot understand how
the buffer depicted on the GIS layer can be implemented on a project-by-project basis.
• SMP maps are only designed to indentify shoreline jurisdiction at the planning level—jurisdiction is
refined at the project scale once the Ordinary High Water Mark has been delineated for parcel in
question. In some instances, the buffer extends to the limits of jurisdiction. What happens to the
buffer if that line ends up being further upland? For example, the OHWM location is mapped
inaccurately at the Trailside development, OHWM being further landward than shown just upstream of
the Centennial Trail Bridge. What happens to the buffer at that location?
• How will the average project proponent mark the extent of the buffer "clearly on the ground" as is
required in section 21.50.230(2)?
• How do you implement the structural setbacks called for in Table 21.50-3 using these maps?
We understand that the mapping is intended to depict the actual location of the buffer on each parcel, but
these are not survey-grade map products and by nature have only limited accuracy. Again, we applaud the
City's commitment to protecting and preserving riparian vegetation at the parcel scale, but the current
approach is missing a procedure that will take the GIS map layer and translate it to implementation on the
ground. Without clear direction, consistent implementation of the buffers is unlikely.
Draft Shoreline Management and Restoration Program —
• 21.50.030(D): Please amend to read "The Director will consult with Ecology, at his discretion,to
ensure..," per WAC 173-26-140.
• 21.50.110(F): Please include the remainder of the definition in WAC 173-27-040(2)(g) as it pertains to
appurtenant structures.
• 21.50.110(G): Please amend to reflect the new thresholds reflected in ESHB 1090 (effective date
6/12/2014).
• 21.50.110(H): Please clarify the difference between activities covered under this exemption and
similar activities described in section 21.50.090(C).
• 21.50.150(6)(5): Please add to the end of the sentence, "or be authorized through the issuance of a
Shoreline Variance."
1
• Table 21.50-1: We suggest removing the "Allowed Use" category. All of the activities in the table that
have been designated with an "A" should be designated with a "P". They are exempt from issuance of
an SDP but they are still subject to review and will require a Letter of Exemption.
• Tables 21-50-1 and -2: We suggest using something other than a blank square to note "Prohibited"
activities. At first glance it looks like the tables are simply incomplete.
• 21.50.230(B)(3): This section is a little confusing. If you want to permit buffer reductions through a
Variance, I would suggest removing the 25%limitation and note that applicants must meet the
requirements of 21.50.140. Other SMPs allow for administrative reductions up to 25%with similar
sideboards to what you have written in this section—is that the direction you meant to go? Buffer
averaging may be a useful tool in those circumstances. See Spokane County's SMP, section 5.2.5(8) for
sample language.
• 21.50.260(B)(2)(c): Please provide dimensional and/or performance standards for new trails
developed within shoreline buffers. See Spokane County's SMP, section 5.2.5(5) for sample language.
• 21.50.340(8)(2): Please edit to read, "...surface water movement. They shall provide for the
protection and preservation of ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources
in accordance with WAC 173-26-241(3)(g)."
• 21.50.360(B)(5): Please add SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation to this list.
• 21.50.370(B)(5): Is this section allowing structures to be built between the edge of the vegetated
buffer and setbacks listed in Table 21.50-3? Wouldn't that run counter to the purpose of a structural
setback?
• 21.50.420(B)(3&4):These regulations appear to say that projects using vegetation to stabilize a
shoreline will require a CUP—is that the City's intention?
• 2150.430: Please clarify where new docks will be permitted in accordance with SMP 12-27 in the
Council approved Draft Goals and Policies Report.
• 21.50.430: Per WAC 173-26-231(3)(b), please add to the list, "New residential development of two or
more dwellings shall provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allow
individual docks for each residence."
• 21.50.480(C)(4)(a): Please edit to read, "Legally constructed existing irrigation and drainage ditches,..."
• 21.50.510(B): Please add to the end of the sentence "consistent with appropriate state and federal
guidelines".
• 21.50.510(D)(f)(i): Please edit to read "....temporary impact restoration and five up to ten years for
compensatory mitigation;"
• 21.50.520(C)(1): Please edit to read, "These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands excep iso
Category III and IV wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that:". This change will bring the section in
line with Ecology's and Corps' guidance and the most recent and relevant scientific information.
• 21.50.520(E)(1)(c)(v): Please edit to read, "Soil conditions based on site assessment ander soli survey
information;"
My comments at this juncture represent a relatively high-level technical review of the documents. We wilt
review these documents, in concert with the other documents constituting your SMP, in greater detail once
the entire package is available for public consumption. One barrier to providing a complete review is the lack
of a Cumulative Impact Analysis. A complete CIA is a necessary tool in our evaluation of the development
regulations and helps ensure compliance with the No Net Loss standard.
Please feel free to call me with any questions. Thanks again? -Jaime
Jaime Short
Shoreline Planner
2
WA State Dept of Ecology
4601 N. Monroe
Spokane,WA 99205
509.329.3411
Please note:This communication is public record and may be subject to disclosure as per the Washington State Public Records Act,
RCW 42.56.
3
WIST1t
1.911 East Mlisspon Avenue
P
Rctil 3727
WA 9 -377
April 22, 2014
City of Spokane Valley
c/o Ms. Lori Barlow
11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106
Spokane Valley,WA 99206
Dear Lon:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Development Regulations on the Shoreline Master Program.
Also,thank you for including public utilities as a section in the draft regulations. As a member of the Technical
Advisory team for the development of the Shoreline Master Plan, I have some comments that would better clarify the
areas of interest.
Section 21.50.110(L)(4) Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit.
This section says"The Applicant first posts a performance surety acceptable to the City to ensure that the site is
restored to pre-existing conditions".
Avista requests that this be deleted. This section refers to site exploration and investigation activities that
are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization etc. This usually means
geotechnical borings of an area to determine the soils and stability. Boring test pit holes are not usually a big ground
disturbance activity and restoration is fairly simple. The criteria of Section L indicates that this activity needs to be
minor and not cause any significant adverse impacts so it would seem inefficient to have to post a performance bond
to restore to pre-existing conditions. Performance bonds are usually for significant land use activities.
Table 21.50.1: Shoreline Uses
The table shows most of the routine maintenance of existing utility corridor and infrastructure as an allowed activity in
the shoreline zones with the exception of Urban Conservancy-High Quality with a footnote that this activity may be
allowed by a Letter of Exemption if the maintenance activity involves ground disturbing activity or is located within the
Urban Conservancy—High Quality Environment.
Avista requests that this be an allowed use in all of the shoreline zones. The corridors in the City of Spokane
Valley have existed for the past 60-70 years and have been maintained as such. The shoreline map has our
corridors in many of the shorelines designated areas including Urban Conservancy—High Quality Environment.
Avista only removes vegetation capable of growing tall leaving the low growing vegetation. Avista requests that
footnote#6 be revised to"Be allowed by Letter of Exemption if the maintenance activity involves over 500(or another
specific and reasonable number)square feet of ground disturbing activity." The word"may"in the footnote places
any of our maintenance activities, such as changing a pole, open to individual interpretation. The permitting
requirement needs to be more commensurate with the maintenance activity.
Section 21.50.260 (C)(2): Shoreline vegetation conservation
This section states"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...
Ms. Lou Barlow
April 22, 2013
Page 2
Avista requests that this be revised to state "Pruning, thinning, and removal within a utility corridor by the
utility service..." Removal of tall growing species is important to the reliability of our system. Tall growing species
eventually become a hazard to our system and compromise the integrity.
Section 21.50.400(B)(3): Public facilities and utilities
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.
Avista requests that routine maintenance, replacement,and minor upgrades of existing utilities be allowed
even if the activity involves ground disturbance and is located in Urban Conservancy—High Quality
Environment. Most of our typical activities such as pole and conductor replacements, maintaining proper
clearances or crossarm work are very tow impact. Avista has maintained the several affected line crossings for many
decades, including some in Urban Conservancy, and has not impacted or affected that classification. We believe it
would be better to qualify and quantify the amount of ground disturbance that needs a letter of exemption regarding
the maintenance of utilities in the shoreline area.
Thank you for providing a draft for my review. Please feel free to contact me at 509-495-8657 or
robin.bekkedahl a(�avistacorp.com.
Sincerely,
Robin Bekkedahl
Sr. Environmental Scientist
futurewise
Bui
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
May 22, 2014
Page 2
21.50.430. B Regulations on p. 35
We support the recommendation of the Department of Natural Resources that piers and
docks should also comply with proposed SVMC 21.50.410 as applicable. This will clarify
that important protections also apply to piers and docks.
We support the Department of Ecology recommendation to add a new"8" to read as
follows: "New residential development of two or more dwellings shall provide joint use or
community dock facilities,when feasible, rather than allow individual docks for each
residence."As Ecology points out, this is required by the Shoreline Master Program
Guidelines in WAC 173-26-231(3)(b).
21.50.470 Maps and inventories p. 36
While we recognize that the list of maps and inventories in proposed 21.50.470 is not an
exclusive list, we suggest that a reference to the latest Department of Natural Resources
(DNR)Natural Hazards map available at DNR's Washington State Geologic Information
Portal. While the map does not show all geological hazards, it does include many. 1
21.50.500 Critical area report requirements for all critical areas p. 37
Critical areas, especially natural hazards, have the ability to affect development well
beyond 200 feet from the development site.2 Similarly, some fish and wildlife buffers
extend beyond 200 feet. So we recommend that critical areas that can either adversely
affect the proposed development or that the development may adversely affect be
identified in the critical areas report. We recommend that 21.50.500(D)(7) be modified to
read as follows with our additions double underlined and our deletions double struck
through:
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, any critical area buffer that includes any part of the project area,or any critical areas
that has the potential to harm people or structures within the project area,whichever is
farther. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap(such as buffers for a stream and
a wetland),the wider buffer shall apply;
21.50.540 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas - Shoreline critical area
regulations p. 49
Proposed 21.50.540(C)provides that"[Nutters shall not exceed 100 horizontal feet from
the edge of the FWHCA."However, buffers wider than 100 feet are needed to protect fish
and wildlife habitats. For example, in urban areas great blue heron rookeries may require
buffers as wide as 197 feet.3 WAC 173-26-221(2)(a)(ii)requires that SMPs are to
1 Washington State Geologic Information Portal accessed on May 22,2014 at:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/geosciencesdata/pages/geology_portal.aspx
2 See for example Washington State Department of Natural Resources,Significant Deep-Seated Landslides in
Washington State and Widespread Shallow Debris-Flow Landslide Events in Washington State accessed on
May 22,2014 at:http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger list large landslides.pdf and enclosed with this
letter with the filename:ger list large_landslides.pdf.
3 J.M.Azerrad,Management recommendations for Washington's priority species:Great Blue Heron p. 6
(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia,Washington:2012)accessed on May 22 at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01371/wdfw01371.pdf and enclosed with this letter with the filename:
wdfw01371.pdf.
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
May 22, 2014
Page 3
"[p]rovide a level of protection to critical areas within the shoreline area that assures no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources."
Limiting fish and wildlife buffers to 100 feet will not assure no net loss. So the 100 foot
buffer limit must be deleted.
21.50.540 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas - Shoreline critical area
regulations p. 51
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife priority species and habitats
databases include habitats depicted as points, areas, and lines. The area habitats include,
for example, the communal roost of the bald eagle, a Washington State sensitive species.
The proposed regulations, however, limit protections for nearby developments to den and
nest sites and point locations. This is inconsistent with WAC 173-26-221(2)(a)(ii)which
requires shoreline master programs to"[p]rovide a level of protection to critical areas
within the shoreline area [including fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas] that
assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural
resources[.]"By failing to protect habitats depicted as lines and areas, the Spokane Valley
SMP fails to meet this standard. Our suggestions to address this issue are shown below
with our additions double underlined and our deletions double struck through.
2. Any proposal in a FWHCA or within 1,320 feet from a habitat with which priority species
has a primary association den or ncst 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:
viii.The location of priority habitat types or priority species habitats point locations
within 1,320 feet of the proposal
21.50.550 Geologically hazardous areas - Shoreline critical area regulations p. 53 -- 54
Geological hazards have the ability to affect development well beyond 50 feet from the
development site.4 They may also reach well beyond the height of the slope or 50 feet. The
slope responsible for the Oso tragedy had a slope height of about 600 feet tall but ran out
for nearly a mile from the bottom of the slope. While we recognize the that there are, no
slopes in Spokane Valley this large until there are scientific standards, landslide hazard
buffers should be determined on a case-by-case basis. We recommend that 21.50.550(C)(1)
and 21.50.550(D)(2)be modified to read as follows with our additions double underlined
and our deletions double struck through:
1. Any development or uses proposed for an area that may be subject to damage from-_-
50 fcct 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).
4 See for example Washington State Department of Natural Resources,Significant Deep-Seated Landslides in
Washington State and Widespread Shallow Debris-Flow Landslide Events in Washington State accessed on
May 22,2014 at:http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger list large landslides.pdf
5 Sandi Doughton,Expert baffled by ferocity, distance of freakish'slide Seattle Times(April 8,2014).
Accessed on April 22,2014 at:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023331700_mudslidescientistxml.html
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
May 22, 2014
Page 4
2.Buffers from all edges of Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas.
a. For landslide hazards, a Qualified Professional shall review the landslide hazard and
determine buffers sufficient to protect proposed and existing development from the risk
of damage.For erosion hazards the minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of
the slope or 50 feet,whichever is greater.
b. For erosion hazards,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.
21.50.520(C)(1)Wetlands - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations on p.41
WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A)requires Shoreline Master Program regulations "to achieve,
at a minimum, no net loss of wetland area and functions ...."Wetlands provide important
functions that benefit Spokane Valley residents, property owners, and businesses. These
functions include removing pollutants, such as nitrogen, that would otherwise get into
surface waters and ground water drinking water supplies and recharging ground water. The
city must adopt wetland regulations that achieve no net loss of wetland area and function
which the proposed wetland regulations fail to do.
Small wetlands provide important wetland functions. The Washington State Department of
Ecology has summarized the science applicable to small wetlands:
• The studies of the correlation of wetland size to wildlife use conflict
somewhat in their findings, but most generally conclude that small
wetlands are important habitats (particularly where adjacent buffer
habitats are available) and that elimination of small wetlands can
negatively impact local populations.
• Small wetlands provide habitat for a range of species that are not a
subset of the species found in larger, more permanently inundated
wetlands. Small wetlands do not just provide a smaller area for the same
array of amphibian species found in larger wetlands.
• Small wetlands are very important in reducing isolation among wetland
habitat patches. Smaller wetlands provide significant habitat for wildlife
and affect the habitat suitability of larger wetlands by reducing isolation
on the landscape.
• The presence of small wetlands reduces the distance between wetlands
and thus increases the probability of successful dispersal of organisms.
This, in turn, likely increases the number of individuals dispersing
among patches in a wetland mosaic, thereby reducing the chance of
population extinction.
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
May 22, 2014
Page 5
• Isolated wetlands provide the same range of wetland functions as non-
isolated wetlands. Isolated wetlands6provide important water quantity,
water quality, and habitat functions.
Failing to require buffers for smaller wetlands will result in a loss of wetlands area and
functions. This violates WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A). So we recommend proposed
21.50.520(C)(1)be modified so the wetland buffers apply to all wetlands. Our
recommended deletions are shown below with double strike throughs.
1. Applicability. These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands except isolated Category III
and IV wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that:
a. Arc 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 Heritag-c plant species identified by the WDNR;
c. Arc not a vernal pool;
d. Arc not an alkali wetland; and
c. Do not contain aspen stands.
Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information please
contact me at telephone (509) 838-1965 or e-mail Kitty@futurewise.org
Sincerely,
Kitty Klitzke
Spokane Program Director Bart Mihailovich
Futurewise Spokane Riverkeeper
Center for Justice
)44.LAL,
Mike Petersen 2/litatoyil
Executive Director
The Lands Council Mr. Bill Abrahamse
Chapter President
Trout Unlimited
6 D. Sheldon,T.Hruby,P.Johnson,K.Harper,A.McMillan,T.Granger,S. Stanley,and E. Stockdale,
Wetlands in Washington State- Volume 1:A Synthesis of the Science pp.5-12—5-13(Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication#05-06-006 Olympia,WA:March 2005).Accessed at on May 22,2014
at:https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0506006.html
Futurewise Eastern WA 35 W.Main Street, Suite 350 Spokane,WA 99201 p.509-838-1965 www.futurewise.org
WITHERSPOON-KELLEY
Attorneys&Counselors SPOKANE ; COEUR D'ALENE
Nathan G.Smith*
email:ngs@witherspoonkellcy.com
July 10, 2014
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Spokane Valley City Hall.
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
RE: Draft Shoreline Regulations
Dear Commissioners:
We are counsel to Centennial Properties, Inc. ("Centennial") We have been asked by Centennial
to comment on certain limited components of the draft Shoreline Master Program Development
Regulations ("Development Regulations") under consideration by the Planning Commission.
Centennial appreciates the reasoned approach employed by the City of Spokane Valley in
approaching the preparation of the Development Regulations to balance both the-interests of the
public and the private property owners consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, The
Development Regulations offer flexibility and incentive to property owners to be good stewards
of the environment.
Centennial reviewed the Development Regulations and offer the following comments:
A. SECTION 21.50.150(8)(5)-TERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHT'S.
Development Regulation Section 21.50.150(B)(5) purports to require development on lots
legally established prior to the passage of the updated Shoreline Master Program to comply with
its provisions. RCW 58.17.170 protects lots on subdivisions from subsequently enacted
regulations. When a subdivision was approved. after December 31, 2007, and before December
31, 2014, the subdivision is subject to the regulations in effect at the time of approval for a
period of seven (7) years. When the subdivision is approved on or after January 1, 2015, the
period is five years. Section 21.50.150(B)(5) subjects physical development within the shoreline
jurisdiction to the new setback, height and other construction requirements of the updated SMA.
Section 21.50.150(B)(5) appears to violate Chapter 58:17 RCW because it does not protect
subdivisions from subsequently enacted regulations. This section should be modified to allow
development under lots created in advance of the adoption of the updated Shoreline Master
Program to proceed in accordance with the approval and the regulations in effect at that time.
422 L '_ Riverside Avenue,So:le 1100 Tei,: 5C'-i.624.5265
Spokane,4Nashiogton 99205-o3O0 lax: 509.458.2720
w.v w,withersponnke iey.com
"Admitted in Washington
S0956Q22.DOCX
•
July 10,2014
Page 2
This language can be incorporated by acknowledging that plats approved prior to the update of
the City's Shoreline Master Program retain those rights provided by RCW 58.17,170 until their
expiration.
B. SECTION 21.50.070-CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
Section.21.50.070 of the Draft Regulations identify the Director's authority to impose conditions
of approval on development or use. Section C appears to impose an obligation on property
owners to address preexisting conditions that are not the responsibility of the property owner.
The Washington State Supreme Court has stated that property owners are not required to address
or repair preexisting deficiencies. Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Ratti` Ground, 146 Wn.2d
685, 695, 49 P.3d 860 (2002), In addition, Section D appears to provide the director with
unfettered discretion to make decisions to protect the shoreline "from damaging and
incompatible development," There are no limitations on the authority of the director and it
appears that these provisions are void for vagueness since they are subject to multiple
interpretations. Anderson v, City of Issaquah, 70 Wn,App. 64, 75, 851 P.2d 744 (1993).
Centennial suggests that there be some identification of what could be considered "incompatible
development" and that Section C be limited to those identifiable impacts associated with the
project being reviewed by the City.
C. SECTION 2130.370-TITLE NOTICE AND PROPERTY MARKING.
Section 21.50.370 requires property owners to delineate the butler and shoreline jurisdiction on
the face of the plat. It also requires property owners to provide for the physical marking of
buffers on the property. The Shoreline Management Act and guidelines do not impose this
requirement and local regulations are required to be consistent with the Shoreline Management
Act. May v. Robertson, 153 Wri.App. 57, 74, 218 P.3d 211 (2009); RCW 90.58.080(1). Nothing
within the SMA provides for the recording of a title notice or the marking of property. hi
addition,the recording of a title notice or delineation on a plat potentially clouds title for a period
beyond the time that the property may be subject to its restrictions. For instance, if buffer
regulations were to be reduced on a given property, there would be no corresponding amendment
to the plat or title notice. In addition, the requirement to mark buffers poses continuous
repetitive maintenance obligations on property owners and unsightly signage.
D. SECTION 21..50.51.0E-WARRANTY AND BONDING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 21.50.510 requires property owners to post security with the City to guarantee the
successful completion of mitigation by a property owner. This is not contemplated under the
Shoreline Management Act. Depending upon the size and scope of development, the potential
surety will be significant and increase the potential costs of development within the City. The
City should consider whether such sureties can be legally required and whether the City wants to
July 10,2014
Page 3
impose additional unnecessary conditions on development. In addition, the City may also want
to allow for a variance from the surety requirements.
Centennial appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Development Regulations. It
looks forward to working with the City towards the successful completion of the Shoreline
Master Program update.
Very truly yours,
W ITHE•'�"' Y
IS•.,
11, ,_. w . Smith
NGS/kh
C: Doug Yost, Centennial Properties
ATTACHMENT C
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
Mardi 27,2014
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 Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager
Christina Carlsen Cary Driskcll,City Attorney
Bob McCaslin Lori Barlow,Senior Planner
Steve Neill Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant
Mike Phillips
Chris Sneider
Joe Stoy
Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the March 27,2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed
seven to zero. Regarding the March 13,2014 minutes commissioners noted the vote for CPA-02-
14 was incorrect. Commissioner McCaslin and Commissioner Sneider's vote was recorded
opposite of their actual vote. Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the March 13, 2014
minutes as corrected. The minutes will be corrected. Motion passed seven to zero.
COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no report.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Scott Kuhta reported the permitting
activity is increasing. The City is also seeing an increase in land use pre-application conferences
as well. Mr. Kuhta shared a flyer for an upcoming 2nd Annual IES-APA Planning Awards
Dinner.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
A. Unfinished Business:
Findings of Fact: Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments: Chair Stoy introduced the
Planning Commission finding for the 2014 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Vice Chair
Carlsen moved to approve the findings for CPA-01 through 10-2014,
Commissioner Sneider commented since the city center has been completely removed from
the Comprehensive Plan there didn't seem to be any strategic plan for the City's future. He
expressed his concern there no longer seemed to be a plan for the City's future. He hoped the
City would be able to come up with a replacement sooner rather than later, hoping the new
things which are happening near Sprague and Herald could be leveraged to help plan for the
future of our City.
Commissioner Anderson said he felt the findings for CPA-02-14 presented both sides of the
story. Commissioner Anderson noted one of findings said future property owners would be
permitted to build a building on the property if the change were approved; he said in fact
Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) would be permitted to do
that as well. He commented from the staff report statements which said this amendment will
provide an upgraded necessary animal control facility" and "if plans were to change the
proposed designation would allow for transitional uses more suitable to the location that may
act as a buffer." Commissioner Anderson was concerned these statements are not reflected
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7
because it does not delineate there are possibilities of change which could occur, if this is
approved, which would be very negative to the residents and the residents would have no
control over these actions. Commissioner Anderson asked to clarify if SCRAPS could use
this properly to walk dogs as it is currently designated. Ms. Barlow said although.Mr.
Palaniuk had previously answered yes it was inaccurate. This information was also clarified
at the Public Hearing. Walking dogs on the property would be an extension of their use as a
regional animal control facility and they currently are not allowed to utilize the property for
that purpose. He said in the findings under Attachment 2 (b)(ii) it states "SCRAPS is the
property owner of the proposed amendment site and a denial will inhibit the use of the site as
they intend." Mr.Anderson said there was testimony from Nancy Hill of SCRAPS,that there
was no original intended use for the property. She had testified they had to purchase this
piece of property as part of the overall land purchase. Mr. Kuhta said however they do now
intend to use the property and the report does reflect that. The City Council will get this
report and all of the supporting information to be able to make a decision.
Commissioner Phillips pointed out on the findings document that CPA-01-14 was listed in
the conclusions as the amendment which ended in a tie, CPA-02-14 actually was the
amendment which ended in a tie. Mr. Kuhta said staff would correct the error before
signatures were obtained and moved forward.
Commissioner Corbett moved to amend the original motion by stating the findings shall read
"CPA-01-14 and CPA-03-14 are not in compliance and CPA-02-14 resulted in a tie. The
vote on this amendment was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes. The vote on the
motion to approve the Planning Commission findings as amended, seven in favor, zero
against, motion passes.
Mr. Kuhta shared that at the April 1 Council meeting Mike Jackson, John Holman, Cary
Driskell, Erik Lamb and himself will be providing an overview of Comprehensive Planning
to the City Council. He said some of the items to be discussed will be the major update,
annual updates, role of the Commission, and public hearings. Mr. Kuhta encouraged the
Commissioners to attend.
B. New Business:
Study Session Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP),Draft Regulations:
Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained contents of the Buffer Map Booklet provided to the
Commissioners and noted that it would be used throughout the Draft Regulations.
Ms. Barlow discussed the key points of the upcoming draft regulations. These regulations
will only be applicable to the City's shorelines. Ms. Barlow noted the gravel pits will not be
considered until all mining operations have stopped. Generally speaking the City does not
have a lot of shoreline. Sixty two percent of the shoreline in the City is public land, thirty
eight percent is privately owned.
Ms. Barlow said the draft regulations would be reviewed in three pieces, administrative
provisions, general provisions on April 24, and critical areas on or about May 8, 2014. The
regulations were developed in conjunction with URS, and in-house staff. She shared staff
would be conducting an open house closer to the public hearing, tentatively scheduled for
May 22, 2014. After the regulations have been reviewed by the Planning Commission, the
City Council will adopt them by resolution. After all of the pieces of the Shoreline Master
Plan have been adopted by resolution, the entire package, would return for the formal
adoption process. After the local adoption process has been completed, the Plan is sent to
Washington State Department of Ecology(DOE)for state adoption.
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7
Commissioner Anderson asked who was expected to use the regulations stating they are
written in a difficult manner to read and use. He said there were too many cross-references
back and forth, it was confusing to try and read. Ms. Barlow replied both, staff and the
public, would be using the document. City Attorney Cary Driskell interjected this was an
internal and external document. There had been a concerted effoit by staff to make the
document as readable as possible, while still making it as direct as necessary. Mr. Driskell
stated it was a technical document and it was going to be difficult for some people. Ms.
Barlow noted that generally property owners come to the city with questions about a project.
Staff works with them to explain the regulations. Staff is always willing to help our citizens
understand the City's regulations.
Ms. Barlow proceeded to review administrative sections of the regulations taking questions as
they occurred.
• 21.50.020 explains where the shoreline jurisdiction is,and who and what it applies to. The
regulations will apply,even if a shoreline permit is not required. In our City it would apply
to the river,Shelley Lake and extend 200 feet from the shoreline.
• 21.50.030 and .040 states the Community Development Director is the shoreline
administrator. It also notes he has the ability to consult with experts if needed to make an
appropriate decision,and explains the different types of shoreline permits.
• 21.50.050 lays out the process for a shoreline permit. A shoreline development permit
(SDP) requires a 30-day notice which is unique to the shoreline permitting process.
Appeals will go to the Shoreline Management Hearings Board. There was an option to
adopt a local appeal process, but after discussions staff found no value in this process.
Staff felt it would only extend the process,when the decisions could still be appealed to the
Shoreline Management Hearings Board. The section identifies permit procedures unique to
the SMP, as well as permit expiration dates noted in the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC). Commissioner Stoy asked why utility extensions and shoreline stabilizations only
required a 20-day notice. She said she recognized the difference but that it was straight out
of the WAC. She did not have the reason for the difference.
• 21.50.060 and 070 discuss how permit decisions will be made and possible conditions
which could be applied to the permits.
• 21.50.080 lists all activities and uses which are prohibited in all shoreline designations.
Ms. Barlow said these activities are prohibited, and one of the more flexible types of
permits, like a Shoreline Variance or a Conditional Use Permit to get permission to allow
the development or use. Commissioner Sneider asked why items in (J) construction of
breakwaters, jetties, groins or weirs, would not be allowed. He offered there are times
when a weir, or a spur dike, can be built to protect the shoreline. Ms. Barlow stated that
she thought the listing of prohibited activities was from the WAC and noted that she would
bring back additional information.
• 21.50.090 this section clarifies what minor activities are allowed without a permit, such as
regular maintenance of existing landscaping, creating unimproved trails less than two feet
wide, and planting native vegetation. It also mentions what cannot be done without a
permit, such as remove trees, bring in fill, earthwork, and arca-wide removal of noxious
weeds. She clarified that this does not mean that these activities are prohibited, but they
require a permit.
Ms. Barlow covered the definitions of development and substantial development. Section
21.50.100 covers when a substantial development permit (SDP) is required. The WAC
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7
defines development as: any construction or exterior alteration of structures, dredging,
drilling, dumping,filling, removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk heading; driving
of pilings;placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature
which interferes wills the normal public use of the surface of waters overlying lands subject
to the SMA a! any stage of water level. Substantial development is defined as any
development which the !oral cost or fair market value exceeds $6,416 or any development
which materially interferes with the normal use of the wafer or shorelines of the stale. The
dollar amount is adjusted every five years by the Office of Financial Management.
Commissioner Phillips asked if projects were considered as a whole and would not be done
in parts in order to stay under the minimum. Ms. Barlow said the nrles apply to the project
in its entirety
A SDP is required unless it is specifically exempt. if the project is listed as an exempt
development, by the WAC, it means the project is exempt from the SDP process. It does
not mean the project is exempt from complying with the rules or the goals and polices; it
only means that it is exempt from the SDP process which requires public review and
comment,and a filing period with Ecology.
• 21.50.110 lists all of the exemptions from a SDP permit. These exemptions are straight
from the WAC. Although this section is lengthy, and somewhat poorly worded, staff has
been advised to stay with the WAC language because these exemptions, as written, have
been supported by case law.
Commissioner Carlsen asked what the current process and cost would be for a shoreline
permit. Ms. Barlow said the cost would vary because it would depend on the number of
permits required for the project, but a SDP is currently $840.00 and the SEPA is $350.00.
The process for notices and completeness review are in the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC). The SDP can be issued following the noticing and comment periods. ,
This takes approximately three months.
Commissioner Anderson questioned item G,personal docks. He asked if the legislature
hadn't recently changed the amount from$10,000 to$20,000. He stated the bill had just
been passed. Ms. Barlow said that new law would become effective this summer,and the
draft would be updated to reflect the most recent amount prior to adoption.
• 21.50.120 addresses Letters of Exemption (LOE). All of the exempt activities require a
letter spelling out exactly what is being approved. it will explain what the property owner
can do and what they cannot do. The LOE is also sent to DOE but they do not have the
opportunity for comment or review. The advantage is a homeowner can get the LOE in
approximately two weeks, if SEPA is not required. The letter can't go out until SEPA
review has been done, if it is required. Other jurisdictions charge for LOE but currently the
City does not. The LOEs can be conditioned, like a permit, but without the time for public
and agency review process. Commissioner Sneider asked if someone wanted to perform
one of the exempt activities, if they would need to have the LOE before they begin the
work. He stated there were many activities listed that many people may not know they
needed the letter before they did the work. He wondered how the City would let people
know. Ms. Barlow shared these are not new regulations; they have been in effect since the
SMA was enacted in 1971. She said the City did not go out looking for violators, but did
follow up on complaints received of people working in the shoreline areas without permits.
• 21.50.130 identifies when shoreline Conditional Use Permits (CUP)are needed, and notes
that if a proposed use is not listed in the Shoreline Use Table, or it is not addressed in the
SMP a shoreline CUP is required. hr that case the City becomes a recommending body
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7
when it comes to the conditional use permit,and the final authority lies with DOE. A CUP
can't be used to allow a prohibited use. Conditions can be placed on a CUP.
• 21.50.140 addresses Shoreline Variances for a shoreline permit. A Shoreline Variance is
only granted when extraordinary or unique circumstance exist which create a hardship or
conflict with the SMA policies. It is not for a self-made situation. An example would be if
the lot was situated so a home could not reasonably be built on it without encroaching into
the shoreline buffer or setback. Commissioner Stoy asked if a property owner could get
relief for lot coverage and other similar things through an administrative exception. Ms.
Barlow stated not under the SMP, the rules are not written to allow those kinds of relief. A
Shoreline Variance would be required which also places DOE as the final decision making
authority.
• 21.50.150 speaks to non-conforming development in the shoreline in three different ways.
There are non-conforming uses, structures, or lots. Staff have written the non-conforming
regulations to allow flexibility for property owners. The definition is a legally established
use, lot or structure which no longer meets the regulations. A structure or use which never
got permits, and now does not meet the regulations,does not meet the definition. The non-
conforming regulations allow for new development but the new development must conform
to the current regulations. A use could be expanded or intensified but specific criteria must
be met. Converted or discontinued uses lose their non-conforming status, after a period of
time, which is in line with the non-conforming regulations in the SVMC. If a building
containing a non-conforming use is destroyed the building could be rebuilt, and the use
continued, as long as the building was built to regulations. A non-conforming building
could be expanded but not into the shoreline area. If it could be expanded landside, this
would be allowed but the non-conforming section could not be expanded.
• Ms. Barlow explained the SMP requires a revision to an approved permit whenever the
applicant proposes substantive changes to the project approved by permit. "Substantive
changes" are those that materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its
conformance to the terms and conditions of the permit, the SMP and/or the policies and
provisions of the Shoreline Management Act.
• 21.50.160 allows for minor revisions to a permit which the director can approve. The
criteria is very specific: If it is determined to be within scope and intent of permit,
authorized use does not change, no adverse environmental impacts will occur, no new
structures, no additional over-water construction except that docks, etc. may increase by
1094, ground area coverage and height may be increased 10%, revised landscaping is
consistent with SMP and permit conditions. If these criteria can be met, then a minor
revision can be granted. If the criteria can't be met then a new permit must be applied for.
Ms. Barlow said the next study session would cover general provisions, shoreline uses,
shoreline use table, modification activities table, no net loss regulations, and buffers. Ms.
Barlow stated she thought Mr. Kisielius from VanNess Feldman would be attending the
meeting to assist the Commissioners in understanding the regulations.
Commissioner Carlsen asked if she had missed the enforcement section. Ms.Barlow said the
enforcement is 21.50.170 which generally points back to the SVMC for enforcement
provisions. However it does highlight what a person could be required to do if restoration
activities are necessary. An example might be if you are party to a violation to a critical area,
you might have to develop a restoration plan.
Commissioners look a break at 8:00 p.m. returning at 8:10 p.m.
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7
Commissioner Anderson questioned, on page 3,21.50.010 first paragraph,who came up with
the term"liberally construed." Ms. Barlow replied it came from the WAC. He wondered if
the term was necessary, he would like to leave it out. Staff discussed the language was
straight from the WAC and actually was beneficial to property owners and should not be
changed.
Commissioner Anderson said under 21.50.050(B)(1) it says The public comment period for
Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be 30 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-110.
21.50.050(B)(7) says For Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Ecology shall file the
permit without additional action pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. Mr. Anderson wanted to
know if the items could be reorganized so they could be lined up together. Ms.Barlow stated
the way the list is written right now it is laid out in more of a chronological list, instead of
like items together.
Commissioner Carlsen said on the same page 21.50.030, She felt references to the director
should not be gender specific. Mr.Driskell answered there is a provision in the SVMC which
states all references to"he"encompasses"she"as well.
Commissioner Anderson directed attention to section 21.50.060(A)(1)Basis for action,
"danger to life and property that wound likely occur as a result of the project." Mr. Anderson
wondered how this item came to be included in the regulations. He felt this should be a
building dept. issue. He did not feel this was a purview of the shoreline regulations.
Previously staff and the Commissioners had been discussing a shoreline violation, where
there had been concern for the property owner's safety from work which had been done in the
shoreline area. This would be grounds for denial,
Commissioner McCaslin asked in reference to 21.50.050(A)(5) adequacy of the information
provided by the applicant or available to the Director: and 21.50.170(0)(3) The Director
may, at the violator's expense, consult with a Qualified Professional to determine if the plan
meets the requirements of the SA'IP. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the violator for
revision and resubmittal,: he wondered how specific the process was,and what is given to the
applicant so they can know they have done what is required. Ms. Barlow explained the City
uses a Joint Aquatic Research Project Application (JARPA). The application is lengthy and
asks for very specific information required for these types of projects. Mr. Kuhta stated staff
works very hard with the applicants to help them and to get the information needed.
Commissioner McCaslin felt that was wonderful now,but if staff changed and it were worded
differently it might read better for the people who have to fill it out.
Commissioner Anderson said 21.50.090(A)Maintenance of existing landscaping, he asked to
clarify the statement "Removing trees and shrubs within a buffer is not considered a
maintenance activity," if it should read "native trees and shrubs?" Mr. Anderson said if he
planted a tree before there was a buffer then that tree was his property, Ms. Barlow replied
the buffer is a restricted area and no activity is allowed without a permit. Mr.Kuhta clarified
the question, Mr. Anderson asked if the trees were planted before the enactment of the
Shoreline Management Act and the buffers were established, and he planted the tress, the
trees belonged to him and were not part of the shoreline buffer, he would consider them his
personal property. Staff explained after the SMA was enacted and the buffers established,the
trees fall under the SMA. Commissioner Anderson said it would be considered a taking. Mr.
Driskell said lie would disagree with the statement. Mr. Driskell also said he would caution
the Commissioners with the terms they use for the actions taken by government. It isn't
considered a"taking"within the definition of the law. Ms.Barlow said legislatively the City
has the authority to regulate those areas, structures, uses, activities. The draft regulations do
say intentionally that a property owner can't remove trees or shrubs from their own property,
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7
in the buffer area without consulting the City. These regulations are restrictive on private
property rights, and the ability of the legislature and local jurisdictions to impose these types
of restrictions have been litigated and the courts have upheld theses rights. Mr. Driskell
explained that staff is trying to draft and adopt regulations which reflects the community's
values within the constraints provided by the WAC and DOE.
Ms. Barlow displayed a JARPA application to show the Commissioners the detail required.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Carlsen said she has been working with the
Environmental Protection Agency regarding clean-up of pre-1978 homes and lead based paint.
She asked who she would talk to see if the people doing work on these homes had the proper
certifications. Mr. Kuhta directed her to the City's Building Official Doug Powell.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
1 , ,
Joe Stoy,Chair s
Y P
46, 1-IthM3
Deanna Horton,secretary
Date signed
03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Connell Chambers—City Hall,
April 24,2014
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 Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager
Christina Carlsen Cary Driskell,City Attorney
Robert McCaslin Absent,Excused Lori Barlow,Senior Planner
Mike Phillips Deanna Horton,Secretary
Chris Sneider
Steven Neill
Joe Stoy
Hearing no objections, Commissioner McCaslin was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Carlsen moved to
accept the April 24,2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed six to zero. Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept
the March 27,2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed six to zero.
COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no report.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Kuhta reviewed the advanced agenda with the
Commissioners.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comments regarding subjects not on the agenda.
Kathleen Carstens, 1804 N Hodges Lane: Ms. Carstens shared her history with the Commission and explained she
now lives in a manufactured home she owns on rented property. She expressed concerns about the land owner's
ability to be able to sell the land she and 140 other residents live on,and require the tenants to move. Currently the
law only requires the land owner to give the residents a 12-month notice to vacate. Ms. Carstens said although she
lived in a "mobile home" it wasn't mobile and if she had to try and move it she would lose everything she had,
because the costs would be too great. She requested the Planning Commission put a request for a mobile home park
zone on the 2015 Comprehensive Plan annual update docket.
Ida Mulkay, 1490 S Park Road.: Ms.Mulkay stated she was a member of mobile home park association. She said
she too owned her home but rented the land to put it on. She said she and her husband were on a fixed income and
would have nowhere to go if the landlord decided to sell the property. She appreciates the sense of community,
manageable living spaces her home allows,it is close to services,and it is less than renting. Ms. Mulkay said one of
the requirements of the Growth Management Act is to preserve the neighborhoods. Ms. Mulkay requested the
Commissioners meet to discuss the proposals of the Association of Manufactured Home Owners.
Commissioner Stoy suggested the group could ban together and pay for a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Planning Manager Kuhta explained to the Commission actions previously taken by the City Council regarding the
Association of Manufactured Home Owners (AMHO) request. Previously, the group has requested the Council
create a manufactured home zone, staff researched the issue and Council chose not to place the item on the 2014
Comprehensive Plan Docket. Mr. Kuhta informed the Commissioners that Spokane Valley Municipal Code
17.80.140(A)(3) allows for the Commission to propose amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The
Commissioners requested information regarding the previous visits by AMHO to the City Council. Commissioner
Carlsen asked if an amendment was introduced to the Comprehensive Plan it would mean only mean policy
direction and not regulations,which Mr.Kuhta confirmed would be correct.
Amelia Odeen, 831 S Woodruff Road: Ms. Oden stated she is a representative of part of AMHO. She stated the
group has previously spoken before the City Council asking for a mobile home park zone to be placed on the
Comprehensive Plan docket. Ms.Odeen stated she had a hand out to slrnre with the Commissioners,and would like
to meet with each of them one-on-one or in pairs to discuss the information.
04-24-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5
City Attorney Cary Driskell stated he would have concerns if the Commissioners meet in small groups regarding
this subject, or any subject, it could be considered a serial meeting. He also said phone conversations and emails
could be considered the same.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Study Session Draft Shoreline Master Program(SMP),Draft Regulations:
Sr.Planner Lori Barlow introduced special council Tadas Kisielius from the firm of VanNess Feldman,who would
be assisting in explaining how the regulations fit into the state statutes.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the regulation does not specifically say it is being applied to the buffer area, then
does it mean it is being applied to the whole of the shoreline jurisdiction. Ms. Barlow explained there are
regulations which are general and apply to the shoreline jurisdiction and regulations which are for specific areas of
the shoreline,for example the buffer areas.
• 21.50.180 General Provisions—these regulations apply to the whole shoreline jurisdiction. All projects
must meet the No Net Loss standard. New projects could be prohibited if stabilization for flood hazard is
required.
Commissioner Anderson asked about#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. Mr. Anderson wanted to know how "manage to minimize" would be
quantified. Ms. Barlow stated the intent would be to have a design which would have minimal impact to
the environment as possible. She explained this would allow staff the ability to work with a project to gain
as much cooperation as possible to limit the impact. Mr.Anderson voiced he also felt it could be used to
restrict a project as well. He also asked about#8:Structures and sites shall be designed with landscaping
vegetated buffers, exterior materials, and lighting that are aesthetically compatible with the shoreline
environment. In regard to the lighting Mr.Anderson hoped safety would overrule aesthetics. Mr.Kisielius
stated it is worded to capture the statute but to allow for a bit of flexibility, otherwise it would require
specifics.
• 21.50.190 Shoreline Uses Table - This table details the shoreline uses and if they are allowed in certain
environments. Commissioner Sneider asked where the Environmental Designations were defined; Ms.
Barlow explained they were in the Environmental Designations document.
• 21.50.200-Shoreline Modification Activity Table—Ms. Barlow stated the modification activity table was
generally where the property gets prepared for the uses. Mr. Kisielius said the difference is in the
regulations,which the State has created.
• 21.50.210-No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing—This section sets the No Net Loss standards and all
projects must meet these standards.
• 21.50.220 - Height Limit Standards - Primary will be limited to a height at the peak of 35 feet and
accessory structures will be limited to IS feet at the peak. Commissioner Anderson wanted to know where
the heights limits came from. Ms.Barlow responded the primary structure height limit is the same as it is
in the residential code. The accessory structure height limit was set to limit to preserve the views. It was
discussed within staff that a 15 foot height limit would allow for a standard garage height. Accessory
structures are allowed, under certain circumstances to be in the buffer area, and the height limit is to
preserve theviews. Mr. Anderson was concerned the height would not allow for a garage which would
handle a class A motorhome.
Commissioner Anderson quoted "applies to all new or redeveloped" and wanted to know if redeveloped
meant remodeled. Ms. Barlow said it also meant expansions,modifications. Mr.Anderson said he knew
what remolded meant but he did not know what redeveloped meant and wanted terns the normal person
could understand. Commissioner Stoy asked an attached garage would have the same height limit as the
house or the accessory structure. Ms.Barlow confirmed it would match the primary structure.
Buffers, generally, will be maintained in their natural state and is a no development area, with few
exceptions. During construction a buffer is required to be marked, and protected. If it is new lot
04-24-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5
development it may be required to be recorded on the plat and on the title notice. A buffer can reduced by
a variance,for up to 25%,if the criteria is met.
• 21.50.230 Buffers and Building Setbacks—The environmental designation determines the setback from the
Shoreline Buffer. in some cases the Municipal Code residential setback was greater than the state setback
for the buffer,so the greater number took priority. Care was taken to protect the Urban Conservancy-High
Quality so a i5 foot setback was established to minimize any impacts. Ms. Barlow confirmed landscaping
could be done in the setback.
• 21.50.240 Flood Hazard Reduction—This section applies to any proposals which intend to reduce flood
hazards,temporary or permanent structures in the floodways,or may have an impact which cause the flood
hazard to be increased.
Commissioner Stoy asked about spring runoff bringing debris down the river and not being able to clean it
up. Ms.Barlow explained the regulation is referring to natural rooted materials. Natural habitats need to
be left in place as a benefit for the environment.
• 21.50.250(B) Public Access — These regulations apply to public and private projects proposed in the
shoreline. This replicates when it is required from the draft Public Access Plan.
Commissioner Anderson asked if asked if access was required on a private development, who would be
liable. Mr. Kisielius answered that it typically would be handled by an easement and be dedicated to the
City.
Mr.Anderson also had a question regarding 21.50.250.(B)(2)(i,ii,iii). Mr.Anderson wondered when these
regulations would apply. Mr. Kisielius stated if the private development were to interfere with existing
established access then it would trigger the City to have to use these regulations in order to create public
access. Mr. Anderson had concern that a trail, which was not actually public but had been used by the
public for many years, could be considered as such and would be required to be dedicated as an access
point. Commissioner Carlsen inquired when access is required and how it should be memorialized. Mr.
Driskell stated he would need time to research the subject and report back.
• 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation-Projects which are asking for removal of vegetation within
the Shoreline jurisdiction must have a vegetation management plan. The plan must have a site plan,
condition of the vegetation to be removed,and a landscaping plan. Projects within the buffer also need to
show the removal will meet the No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing and that avoidance is not feasible.
Commissioner Anderson requested the definition of native and non-native vegetation be placed into the
shoreline definitions.
• 21.50.260(C) Some minor landscaping activities are allowed without SDP or a Letter of Exemption,
pruning and thinning for maintenance,safety, forest health, and view protection if certain criteria has been
met. Commissioner Stoy noted there were separate for utility corridors. Ms.Barlow mentioned that Avista
has stated they know what they need to do,they know how to do it,and they have been doing it for some
time and don't feel they need to have to get a permit to do it.
Commissioner Carlsen noted the regulations say the maintenance could be done annually and it also says
only 30% of a trees limbs could be removed. She said if 30% of the limbs were removed from a tree
annually it would die in just over three years. She offered it could be clarified to 30%of the limbs over the
lifetime of the tree. She said it would be easy to determine the tree had been cut previously. Mr.Driskell
offered there would be a frequency limit in order to avoid that type of scenario. The regulation would need
to have a reasonable standard and it currently would not be enforceable.
Commissioner Phillips asked if a person would be able to remove trees outside of the buffer, Mr. Kisielius
answered a property owner would, but they would have to submit a vegetation management plan for the
area which was in the shoreline jurisdiction.
Mr. Kisielius explained the trees and vegetation is very important to the no net loss component. DOE is
very big on native big trees, they are going to try and protect that and the buffer is main area of focus. It
doesn't mean you can't do it, but it means they are going to want to look at it, and replacement will be
required to provide No Net Loss. If there was clearing involved,DOE is going to be concerned about it.
04-24-i4 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
• 21.50.270 Water Quality, Stormwater and Non-point Pollution — This section applies to any pollution
generating impervious surfaces. The section requires compliance with existing Stormwater regulations and
chemicals applied within 25 feet of a body of water. A qualified professional is required to do the work.
• 21.50.280 Archaeological and Historic Resources—This section protects resources which are known sites,
where resources have been uncovered, or have ground disturbing components. A qualified professional
would need to be contacted in order to review the site and record it according to state law. Commissioner
Stoy asked if the City had any archaeological sites, Ms. Barlow replied the Spokane Tribe has said there
are.
• 21.50.290 Gravel Pits—Ms. Barlow explained the City has gravel pits but as discussed previously, they
will not be regulated until the mining operations are closed. Future uses will be regulated by the SMP and
be designated as urban conservancy environment.
The Commission took a break at 8:05 p.m.returning at 8:15 p.m.
• 21.50.300 Specific Shoreline Use Regulations - 50.300 to 50.450 apply to common uses and types of
development to the extent they occur in the shoreline jurisdiction.
o 21.50.320—Boating Facilities—This applies to new and existing facilities, including launches, ramps
and docks. Boating facilities are limited to water dependent uses or public access. It also addresses the
accessory uses like picnic tables,benches or restroom facilities located at a boat launch. The facilities
are limited to places identified in the public access plan. If a boat facility were to be installed,it must
include a public access. The facilities are limited to size and height necessary for the uses and existing
facilities may be maintained or repaired but not expanded. New facilities would only be allowed if a
need can be shown. Commissioner Anderson said the regulations for boat launch ramps made sense,
but he wondered if the regulations applied to boat docks. Mr.Kisielius said the boat docks had overlap
in the regulations. Docks also have a separate section and all docks must comply with those
regulations. The only docks which must comply with the boasting section are public docks or private
docks which serve more than four residences. Commissioner Anderson asked about item (C)
incorporate measures for clean-up of accidental spills and contaminants would apply to public and
private boat ramps. It was confirmed this is correct. Commissioner Stoy asked how many boat
launches were in the City. Mr. Driskell said he was unaware of any boat launches in City limits.
There was discussion of all known launches being non-motorized,official or unofficial,whether in the
City's corporate limits or across the river at Plante's Ferry Park. Mr.Stoy also asked how the current
boats get onto the river. Mr. Driskell said this was currently an issue. There was a time when the
boats were allowed in and out once a year near Felts Field. He said he was aware there had been
negations with either the Center of Justice or the Sierra Club to stop the practice.
o 231.50.320 Commercial Uses—These are design standards which apply to all commercial uses in the
shoreline jurisdiction. The standards apply to all environmental designations. Standards might include
such features as orienting the building toward the shoreline,screening loading docks from the view of
the shoreline,designing the look to blend with the natural environment.
o 21.50.330 Industrial Uses — industrial uses have the same standards as commercial uses along with
adding avoiding visual impacts to the river and the Centennial Trail.
Commissioner Anderson requested in 021.50.330 (A) to change the phrase "food stuffs" to "food
products."Ms.Barlow said staff would look into to it but felt that the tern was tied to WAC.
o 21.50.340 In-Stream Structures — All in-stream structures must conform to all regulations of
coordinating agencies,such as the Corp of Engineers,Dept.of Fish and Wildlife,etc.
o 21.50.350 Parking Facilities — These standards apply to all new parking facilities. Parking must
directly serve a permitted use,and cannot be a primary use.
o 21.50.360 Recreational Development&Use—These would recreational facilities for public use-some
of the trail goes through areas which are UC-HC.
o 21.50.370 Residential Development - A shoreline development permit would be required for spec
homes but an owner built single fancily home does not require one. New development is not allowed if
04-24-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5
stabilization is required. Development in a buffer area is prohibited. Title notices are required for
homes in the shoreline for all future homeowners to be aware of the restrictions. Fences are prohibited
in the buffer area,critical areas and below the ordinary high water mark.
o 21.50.380 Signs and Outdoor Lighting — These standards apply to commercial and industrial
development and associated lighting. It does not apply to single family residential development.
o 21.50.390 Transportation Facilities—These standards apply to roads,bridges,bikeways and railroads.
This does not apply to trails;they are addressed in the public access plan.
o 21.50.400 Public Facilities and Utilities—The facilities are allowed by a Conditional Use Permit and
must show why other location is not possible. New utilities are prohibited in the Urban Conservancy-
High
Quality. Commissioner Neill asked if a note should be made to say that unless the
undergrounding of the utilities would cause more harm.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
Ci Aild 41 )4
TIF
Joe Stoy,I o s F r' Date signed
A0V-11450
Deanna Horton,secretary
04-24-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chain bers—City Hall,
May 8,2014
Vice Chair Carlsen 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 Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager
Christina Carlsen Lori Barlow,Senior Planner
Robert McCaslin Tadas Kisielius,Special Council
Mike Phillips Noah Herlocker,Environmental Consultant
Chris Sneider Deanna Horton,Secretary
Steven Neill
Joe Stoy,Absent-Excused
Hearing no objections,Commissioner Stoy was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Carlsen noted there were
no minutes to approve;Commissioner Neil moved to accept the April 24,2014 agenda amended. Motion passed six
to zero.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Phillips reported he attended City Hall at the Mall and the State of the
City address given by the Mayor.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Kuhta reported on City Hall at the Mall,the State of the City
address by the Mayor and the advanced agenda
PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments regarding subjects not on the agenda.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
A. Study Session Spokane Valley Municipal Code Amendment CTA-0I-14:
Planner Micki Harnois gave an overview of the proposed privately initiated amendment to the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.010(B)(3)(b) Light Industrial district to change the required side
and rear yard setbacks from the current 35 feet to 20 feet when the property is adjacent to a residential use
or zone. The request is to also change Table 19.60-1 Commercial Development Standards to specify the
minimum side and rear yard setbacks adjacent to a residential use or zone would be 20 feet in the Light
Industrial and Heavy Industrial zones. Mr. Kuhta explained the proponent has a piece of property in the
Light Industrial area, however this subject was on the list code review subjects in the Light and Heavy
Industrial areas and this request brought it to the forefront.
Ms. Hamois showed some examples of lots in the Yardley area of the City where some of the lots are only
50 feet wide. It would make it difficult for people to develop a lot this width with the current 35 foot
setback against a residential property. Mr. Kuhta reminded the Commissioners this would affect all of the
industrial properties in the City,which could also have unintended consequences. Commissioner Anderson
asked where the 35 foot setback came from. Mr.Kuhta stated he was unaware but the staff would attempt
to find the answer and have it in the staff report. Commissioner Carlsen said when multifamily is next to
single-family homes there is a provision in the SVMC, which requires buildings to be step-back in height
from the property line. She asked if this would apply in the industrial areas. Mr. Kuhta said there is no
step-back allowance for industrial buildings. It was also noted an industrial building could be built up to 60
feet in height next to a residence, with no step-back required. Commissioner Carlsen asked how people
who lived next to the industrial areas would be notified of this change,if it was approved. Mr.Kuhta stated
there would be a notice in the paper, but that individual property owners would not be noticed this
05-08-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
amendment did not fit into the noticing process of that type. Commissioner Phillips asked what the
regulations were in other jurisdictions. Mr.Kuhta stated the staff report,which would be ready at the next
meeting,would offer the surrounding jurisdictions regulations regarding this subject.
B. Draft Shoreline Master Program(SMP),Draft Regulations:
Senior Planner Lori Barlow introduced Special Council Tadas Kisielius and Consultant Noah Herlocker,
Senor Biologist from URS Corp., who helped the City develop some of the earlier shoreline documents,
such as the City's Shoreline Inventory,No Net Loss Report, Cumulative Impacts Report, and the Critical
Areas Ordinance. Mr. Kisielius is again here to assist with questions regarding the Shoreline Management
Act and how the law impacts the City's regulations. Mr. Herlocker will help explain the Critical Areas
regulations,which is the next piece for review.
• 21.50.420 Shoreline—Slope Stabilization—this applies to stabilization activities for shoreline and
slope stabilization. A Shoreline CUP is required and specific criteria applies. Existing shoreline
stabilization structures maybe replace but Shoreline Development Permit(SDP)is required.
• 21.50.420(B)(8)A replacement structure shall not encroach waterward of the OHIVM, unless all
of the following apply: a. For residences occupied or constructed prior to January 1, 1992;
Commissioner Anderson asked where the date came from. Mr. Kisielius stated it came from the
WAC 173.26.231(3)(a)(iii)(c).
• 21.50.430 Piers and Docks —Applies the construction or expansion of piers and docks. The
standards apply to docks serving four or more residences, new docks are allowed for water-
dependent uses or public access,a new dock shall be the minimum size necessary based upon the
needs of the applicant,but cannot exceed 55 feet in length or a total deck area of 320 sf. A Letter
of Exemption is required for all private docks for single and multi-family residences. The
Shoreline Modifications table would tell where a dock would be allowed. Any other dock requires
a SDP. Commissioner Phillips questioned the size saying they were fairly small. Ms. Barlow
stated it was from the WAC but had been modified to say not greater than 320 sf. Mr. Kisielius
stated the concept on docks is to make them as small as possible to the purpose.
• 21.50.440 Dredging and Fill—Applies to all dredging and fill waterward of the ordinary high
water mark(OHWM). A Conditional Use Permit(CUP) is required when it is allowed. There
are fill standards and dredging standards.
• 21.50.450 - Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancements Projects — These projects
requires a SDP or LOE and the project must demonstrate the main purpose is either enhancing or
restoring natural shoreline functions.
Commissioner Anderson asked if gravel pits were putting in fill,would these regulations apply to
them. Mr. Kisielius reminded the Commissioners the gravel pits are noted in the regulations but
are not controlled as shorelines of the state until after all mining operations have ceased.
Ms. Barlow stated Mr. Herlocker would use his expertise to explain the next section of the Shoreline
•
regulations to the Commission being the Critical Areas (CA) regulations. Mr. Herlocker explained to the
Commission in most cities,the Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO)is taken from the municipal code and put it
in the Shoreline Program as the Critical Area regulations. The City's CAO was confusing and hard to
follow. So it was decided to rewrite it,streamline it and make it applicable to the City's shorelines.
• General Provisions—if a project being proposed will affect one of the CAs, the process for the
report required to document what will be done,how it will impact the CA, what will be done to
mitigate the impact and who can prepare the report.
Commissioner Anderson stated the WAC does not have a definition of a CA. He said the
definition the City has; states it is a result of GMA. Mr. Kisielius stated originally CAs were
adopted as a GMA requirement. The SMP is later recognized as an element of the Comprehensive
Plan. When someone asked about CAs in the Shoreline, there was litigation over who was in
charge of them,the compromise was what is in place today. After the SMP update is done,then
05-08-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
CAs within the Shoreline are governed by the SMP, and are governed under the No Net Loss
standard. All other CM are governed by GMA.
Commissioner Carlsen asked if there were maps of the CAs. The City has maps which show each
of the CM. Ms. Carlsen asked if the SVMC would be updated to reflect the new regulations in
the SMP for the CA. Ms. Barlow said the SVMC would be updated to mirror the new CA
regulations in the SMP but she was not sure how soon staff would be bringing the amendment
forward. Commissioner McCaslin noticed the topic of public access appears many times in the
document. He wondered if this would be a problem with property rights. Mr.Kisielius said the
bigger concern seems to be more requiring public access on private development. The public
access plan was mirrored from the earlier portion of the regulations and because the City already
has great public access by way of publically owned lands it will not be a problem. The project
would need to show nexus in order to require it.
• Wetlands—the only wetlands which the City is aware of are at the inlet of Shelley Lake. This
would be an instance where the shoreline border was stretched,which is allowed by the WAC,to
reach around the whole wetland to keep it under one set of regulations. Although there are many
regulations,they would only cone into effect if there was a project proposed around the wetlands
at Shelley Lake.
• The Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) largely encompasses the whole City. The
regulations are written to attempt to be not overly limiting but focusing on items which could have
the potential to leak into the ground and through to the water table. Commissioner Carlsen asked
if the City's whole shoreline was a CARA. Mr. Herlocker explained the entire shoreline
jurisdiction as well as most of the City of Spokane Valley is considered a CARA.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there was any liability for the professional if the mitigation
doesn't work,such as a wetland restoration. There is no certification for wetlands professional but
the state is looking into requiring a license, where in other professions they have them, such as
biologists and geologists. There are also requirements for bonds and sureties. Mr. Anderson
asked if mitigation fails,would the City require the property owner to do the work again and not
the professional who did the work. Mr.Herlocker stated the project would be planned out well in
advance, following the strict guidelines in the regulations. Ms. Barlow reiterated the reason for
the plan and plan review was to make sure the project would succeed. Mr. Herlocker explained
the reason for the performance sureties was for protection in the case the project did not work out
because there is no insurance for some of the professionals who perform the required services in
the regulations.
• Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas(FWHA)—Mr.Kisielius stated the regulations were copied from
the good work done in the buffer report but the focus is additional fish and wildlife habitat beyond
what the buffer section addresses. Mr. Herlocker stated he was not aware of any endangered
species in the City. These regulations would cover anything which might be discovered in the
future. This would cover all riparian areas in the river.
• Geologically Hazardous Areas—This covers highly erodible soils, or soils over a certain'grade
where it would be risky to construct anything. He stated there are some erodible soils along the
bank of the river near Mirabeau Park and the Trent Bridge.
• Frequently Flooded Areas — Mr. Herlocker stated these regulations are tied in with the City's
current floodplain regulations. Commissioner Anderson asked if this was related to the FEMA
100 yr floodplain. Mr.Kisielius said yes,they were closely related.
Commissioner Anderson asked where the definition of buffer came from. Mr. Herlocker said the State of
the Science document which Ecology produced about buffers which described them. Mr. Kisielius stated
its meaning and definition is determined by the regulation which defines it. Depending on the buffer to
which is being referred,the definition can change. He said it more refers to a tool and how that tool is used
in a particular application. Mr. Anderson asked if we considered our buffers to be no touch zones. Ms.
Barlow stated the City's buffers are intended to remain in an undisturbed state. There are a list of
exemptions however after that,it would be considered as such.
05-08-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
There was a considerable discussion regarding the definitions `shoreline'and`shorelands' and how the two
intermingle in many instances.
Mr. Anderson asked if Senate Bill 5451. is that going to be included in our program, regarding legally
conforming structures. Mr. Kisielius explained how the bill came about,that it was addressing residences
that might become nonconforming due to the updated shoreline plans. The legislation allowed jurisdictions
to make all residential structures legally conforming. Mr. Kisielius said the City's buffer is following the
contours of the vegetation on the ground, and does not encompass structures as was being done in other
jurisdictions where they were applying a standard size buffer along the shorelines. Mr. Kisielius stated he
did not feel the City needed a regulation which would make any legally conforming structures because they
had taken care to avoid the problem. Mr. Anderson commented he felt it was still necessary in order to
protect personal property rights. Mr. Kisielius said he felt this would only cover the structures,and it says
the buffers as established in the map and the map is designed to avoid this problem.
Commissioner Neill asked what would prevent the river from meandering in the City limits. Mr.Herlocker
stated it was the dams and the geology of the river. The river is geologically deeply entrenched below the
surrounding prairie and the dam controls the river. The Centennial Trail floods in a couple of places along
the Coyote Rock are and along an area near Flora Rd. Those would be the only infrastructure issue the City
would have relative to flooding. Commissioner Carlsen asked if all the geological hazards were on private
land and Mr.Herlocker said he was not aware of any.
Ms. Barlow stated the technical review group was returning comments and the public hearing had been
noticed for May 22,2014. Ms. Carlsen asked who would be receiving notices regarding the hearing. Ms.
Barlow stated the City has been keeping a list of interested parties,the City has a list of people who ask for
notice for all Planning Commission activities,it will be noticed in the paper,the notice will also be posted
to the City's website. Mr. Kuhta stated the formal adoption process and there will be additional
opportunities to comment. Ms. Barlow noted the City has noticed all the property owners along the
shorelines more than once and the response from those property owners has been very limited.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
A 1 \�.�• I
Christina Carlsen, C airperson Date signed
btiiliquiio
Deanna Horton,secretary
05-08-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
May 22,2014
Vice Chair Carlsen 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 Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager
Christina Carlsen Lori Barlow,Senior Planner
Robert McCaslin,Absent-Excused Cary Driskell,City Attorney
Mike Phillips Micki Harnois,Planner
Chris Sneider,Absent-Excused Deanna Horton,Secretary
Steven Neill
Joe Stoy,Absent- Excused
Hearing no objections, Commissioner McCasiin, Sneider and Stoy were excused from the meeting. Commissioner
Neill moved to approve the May 22,2014 agenda as presented,motion passed fon•to zero.
Ms.Horton noted an amended set of minutes for May 08,2014 had been emailed to the Commissioners with some
suggested changes.
Commissioner Neill moved to approve the April 24, 2014 as presented. Motion passed,}bur to zero. Commissioner
Neill moved to approve the amended minutes for May 08, 2014. Motion passed,four to zero.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Kuhta reported the City Council was still working on
Comprehensive Plan Amendments , but had voted to approve CPA-01-14 and CPA-02-14 during a motion
consideration. CPA-03-14 was not approved with a six to one vote. All of the proposed text amendments had been
approved.
PUBLIC COMM ENT: Scott Cooper,Catholic Charities,Spokane, WA: Mr. Cooper stated he works for Catholic
Charities and with the Association of Manufactured Home Owners(AMHO). Mr.Cooper asked the Commission to
place a Manufactured Home zone on the Comprehensive Plan docket. Mr. Cooper said low-income people need a
place to live and stay. He remarked that manufactured homes are the only source of low-income housing,which is
not subsidized. Mr. Cooper said people who own manufactured homes are doing it on their own and owning their
own home. However all over the state,property owners have the ability to decide to sell the land and then leave the
people who live on the land with little warning to move their home. Other cities around the state are creating
ordinances to protect people who live in manufactured home parks. Mr. Cooper asked the Commission to please
consider adding the manufactured home park zone to the Comprehensive Plan docket and adopting a manufactured
home park zone.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
A. Public Hearing Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Amendment CTA-01-14:
Planner Micki Harnois gave an overview of the proposed privately initiated amendment to the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.010(B)(3)(b) and Table 19.60-1 to change the required side and
rear yard setbacks from the current 35 feet to 20 feet when the property is adjacent to a residential use or
zone.
05-22-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page I of 4
Commissioner Car/sen moved to amend chart 19.60-1 to create a separate row for setbacks when adjacent
to a residential use to be 20 feet, leaving the setback for adjacent to a residential zone at 35 fret.
Commissioner Anderson said he did not see the need to separate the setbacks. Commissioner Neill
commented that separating the setbacks created another hardship on the property owner; it was creating
another limiting thctor. Commissioner Anderson said he would be more agreeable to the separation if it
was 10 feet Ibr uses and 20 feet on zones,but 35 feet was too much.
Vote on the amendment was one to three, motion fails.
Commissioner Neill moved to amend the motion to return the references to all original references to Heavy
Industrial setbacks. Motion passes four to zero.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the chart could be amended to separate uses from zones even if all the
setbacks stayed the same, so if there was a time in the future when the desire to change them to separate
numbers. Mr. Kukla said it was possible to do just that.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to amend chart 19-60-1 to add for side and rear yard setbacks to separate
numbers. The motion was approved four to zero.
Commissioner Carlsen said she would be comfortable with I-2 zone setbacks at 35 feet, but changing the
use setback to 20 feet. She felt this would allow the industrial zones to change Commissioner Phillips
said he would agree to changing all setbacks to 20 feet. Commissioner Neill said he still felt a 35-foot
setback on a 50-foot lot was too much. He said lie thought a 20-foot setback for I-1 and 1-2 adjacent to
residential uses and I-I adjacent to a residential zone, and a 35-foot setback for 1-2 when adjacent to
residential zones. Commissioner Anderson said lie could support this suggestion.
Commissioner Neill moved to amend table 19.60-1 to set a 20 fool side and rear yard setbacks for 1-1 and
1-2 when adjacent to residential uses and 1-1 adjacent to a residential zone, and a 35 foot side and rear
yard setbacks for 1-2 when adjacent to residential zones. Amendment passed, three to one with
Commissioner Phillips dissenting.
Motion to recommend approval of CTA-2014-0001 to the City Council with an amended table 19.60-1 to
reflect a 20 fbot side and rear yard setbacks for 1-1 and 1-2 when adjacent to residential uses and 1-1
adjacent to a residential zone, and a 35 foot side and rear yard setbacks for 1-2 when adjacent to
residential zones. Motion passes four to zero.
B. Public Hearing Draft Shoreline Master Program(SMP),Draft Regulations:
Senior Planner Lori Barlow introduced the public hearing for the draft Shoreline Master Program
regulations. Ms. Barlow said the purpose was to conduct a public hearing to accept testimony on the draft
Shoreline Master Program regulations. She anticipated deliberations would occur Joie 12.Staff would
return at that time to discuss comments received.
Chair Carlseu opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Jamie Short, Dept.of Ecology(DOE),4601 N Monroe:Ms.Short shared Ecology's appreciation for all the
time and eflorts the City has put into the SMP which include tailoring regulations specifically to condition
in the Valley She noted that DOE appreciated the creative approach used in developing the the buffers. She
noted that Ecology had met with staff to discuss the buffers and get a better understanding of the method.
Ecology is"on board"with our buffers and thinks its an interesting approach. However,she would like to
address docks on the river. The City's regulations provide dimensional standards, but do not state where
they would be allowed. She said approximately three years ago the City Council conditionally approved
Goals and Policies which prohibit clocks on free flowing stretches of the Spokane River. This is consistent
with the recommendation with the Citizens' Advisory Group, and it is consistent with Spokane County's
Master Program. The regulations say they would be allowed in Waterfront Residential. In some cases,
this designation overlaps the free flowing portions of the river. The DOE requests the regulations
geographically define where docks will be allowed. She said Ecolgoy has weighed in before on this
subject. It was a large discussion item for the Citizens' Advisory Board. She encouraged the
Commissioners to look at the City's Inventory and Characterization Report, which describes the area and
also suggested review of the city of Spokane's Upriver Dam Project Boundary.
05-22-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 01'4
Kitty Klitzke, Futurewise, 35 W. Main: Ms. Klitzke stated she participated in the Technical Advisory
Group. She said she represented Futurewise, Lands Council, Spokane River Keepers, and the Spokane
Chapter of'l'rout Unlimited. She said the groups have issues with docks and where they should be allowed
on the river. They don't feel they should be on the free flowing sections of the river. She said there are
issues with the buffers. She said the groups feel the buffers are shallow,not exceeding 100 horizontal feet
from the ordinary high water mark at times. Species such as the Blue Heron might need 179 feet for
shelter. She said there might be places where the critical areas overlay the buffers and they might need to
be wider. Commissioner CarIsen asked if Ms. Klitzke had a specific example where she felt the buffer was
not wide enough and she responded she could not be specific off the top of her head and the letter
submitted did not address any specific area. She said there are places on the map where the habitats are
mapped with a straight line and nesting areas do not follow straight lines. She said the letter contains
suggested language changes, which also references areas the Dept. of Natural Resources and Dept. of Fish
and Wildlife have mapped. In the geologically sensitive areas the group is proposing setbacks which would
be more site specific to keep geological areas from becoming a danger to people and the environment. She
said the group does not feel that wetland buffers should not be required for smaller wetlands, and the No
Net Loss standard would be better served if some of the smaller wetlands required a buffer. Ms. Klitzke
submitted a comment letter which was given to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Anderson asked about the Upriver Dam Project Boundary information. Ms. Short from
DOE said she would be able to provide a copy to staff, who would then disseminate the information to the
Commissioners.
Bill Abrahams, 1718 S Maurer Rd.: Mr.Abrahams said he was a member of the Shoreline Advisory Group.
He complemented Ms. Barlow and staff for the hard work on the SMP. He said the rules as proposed are
pretty good. He felt the suggested changes proposed by DOE and DNR were good ones. His goals are to
preserve the river as a corridor as wild as it can be kept. He said for him,it was an escape. He said in most
cities you cannot find a river running through it in such a 'wild' state. He feels the City should encourage
'wild' nature; it should be a draw to the City. He offered the river has value and needs protection.
Seeing no one else who wished to testify,the chair closed (he public hearing at 7:34 p.m.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Planning Manager Scott Kuhta informed the Commission that he had resigned his
position and this would be his last meeting. The Commissioners wished him well and thanked hint for his service.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
/
Ai A (0 11-04
Christina Car ti tt,Chair person Date signed
r.0 AD
Deanna Horton,secretary
05-22-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 01'4
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
June 12,2014
Vice Chair Carlsen 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 Lori Barlow,Sr.Planner
Christina Carlsen Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Robert McCaslin Christina Janssen,Planner
Mike Phillips Micki Harnois,Planner
Steven Neill,Absent,Excused Deanna Horton,Secretary
Joe Stoy,Absent-Excused
Hearing no objections, Commissioners Neill and Stoy were excused from the meeting. Commissioner McCaslin
moved to approve the June 12, 2014 agenda. It was decided 10 swvilclr Hem B, Study Session for the marijuana
regulations and Hent C Shoreline Master Program. MOli0n passed four 10 zero.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the May 22, 2014 as presented. Motion passed,four to zero.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr.Planner Barlow offered an update on the Comprehensive Plan amendments.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
A. Findings of Fact for Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Amendment CTA-2014-0001.
Planner Micki Hamois gave an overview of the proposed privately initiated amendment to the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.70.010(B)(3)(b)and Table 19.60-1 to change the required side and rear
yard setbacks in the Industrial zones from the current 35 feet to 20 feet when the property is adjacent to a
residential use or zone.
Ms.Harnois explained the findings reflect the Planning Commission's request to have the setbacks changed
in the Light and Heavy Industrial zone when adjacent to a residential use, to 20 feet, and for the side
setbacks to 20 feet,and rear setback to 35 feet when adjacent to a residential zone.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the findings of fact and forward trent 10 the City Council.
Motion passed four to zero.
B. Study Session — Proposed amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to adopt Marijuana
regulations.
Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb started explaining how 1-502, the state marijuana law is being regulated
by the state. He said the state law 1-502 decriminalized the use and possession for recreational use,
established a regulatory system for licensing producers,processors and retailers and named the Washington
State Liquor Control Board(WSLCB)as the governing authority for these regulations.
Mr.Lamb explained a producer license is for the growing of marijuana. There are no limits on the number
of producing facilities,but the state is limiting iting the amount of square footage statewide to between five and
ten million square feet. Producers have a tiered system with the largest allowable size facility being 21,000
square feet. A Processor license is for anyone putting marijuana into a useable form from packaging it to
baggies,to putting it in baked goods. There are no limits on the number of processing facilities statewide.
A retailer license is for anyone who wants to sell the usable marijuana. The WSLCB will be issuing 334
retailer licenses statewide, 3 for Spokane Valley, 18 total in Spokane County. He also noted that all uses
are required to abide by local zoning codes and permitting requirements.
06-12-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
Mr. Lamb stated the Attorney General issued an opinion in January of 2014 that determined that 1-502
contains no clear indication it was intended to preempt local authority to regulate recreational marijuana.
Some cities have chosen not to allow it. Commissioner Anderson asked if a city could allow growers and
processors but not the retail sales element. Mr. Lamb said he was aware that cities had banned it, for
instance the City of Kent has banned medical marijuana, but he did not know what the basis was for the
ban.
The City made an administrative determination based on the current City zoning code to permit licensed
marijuana facilities. Production licenses will be allowed in Light and Heavy Industrial(I-I and I-2)zones
and for indoor growing only they will be allowed in Regional Commercial (RC) and Conununity
Commercial(CC)zones. Processing will be allowed in I-I and 1-2 zones. Retail sales will be allowed in
Mixed Use Center (MUC), Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), Regional and Community Commercial zones.
Commissioner Carlsen asked if the only license needed for processing was the business license for the City.
Mr.Lamb responded that if they are doing consumables it could require other permits,for instance from the
Health Department.
On February 11,2014 the City adopted interim regulations governing recreational marijuana. Interim
regulations are only good for six months and then permanent regulations need to be adopted. The interim
regulations follow the state regulations however the City determined it would appropriate to buffer the
Centennial Trail and the proposed Appleway Trail along with any vacant and undeveloped public school
land and library property. The interim regulations will expire in August 2014,so the final regulations need
to be adopted prior to the interim regulations expiring. Staff identified some issues with the interim
regulations. The buffer for the Centennial Trail extended to industrial properties on the north side of the
river,which could be used for processing and growing. Also staff considered that processing included a
variety of activities from just bagging the raw marijuana to complex chemical extractions. After reviewing
the processing options,it may be appropriate to allow for the bagging only in zones other than industrial.
On April 22,2014 Council adopted amendments to the interim regulations.
The current interim regulations are now:
• Allow Recreational Marijuana Production in CC,RC,and both Industrial zones;but in CC and RC
zones,only indoor grow operations are allowed
• Allow Recreational Marijuana Processing in CC,RC and both industrial zones;but in CC and RC
zones,only packaging and labeling of useable marijuana is allowed
• Allow Recreational Marijuana Retail Sales in MUC,CMU,CC,and RC zones;provide buffers from
Centennial Trail and Appleway Trail
• Buffer all Recreational Marijuana from undeveloped public school and public library property.
The proposed amendments would:
• Mirror Existing Interim Regulations
• Amend Appendix A-Definitions:Add definitions for Marijuana processing,production,and sales.
• Adopt SVMC 19.85:Development regulations for the processing,production and sales of Marijuana.
• Amend SVMC 19.120.050-Permitted use matrix to include Marijuana uses.
Ms.Christina Janssen then explained that the amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)
would be under Chapter 19.85. She explained the definitions would be in Appendix A, where all the
definitions for the SVMC are located. In the Pennitted Use matrix,marijuana production would be listed
under Agriculture and Animals,Processing would be listed under light industrial,and retail sales would be
listed under the retail sales section. All of these listings have a reference to the code section for more
information.
Commissioner Anderson asked if growing and processing could be allowed in the same place. Mr. Lamb
stated it was possible and that applications for both in the same place have been submitted to the City.
Conunissioner Carlsen inquired if it would make sense to have two definitions for processing based on the
zone where the property was located. Staff explained the development standards would lay out where each
type of processing would be allowed.
Staff explained the public hearing is scheduled for June 26th.
06-12-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
C. Deliberations Draft Shoreline Master Program(SMP),Draft Regulations.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation regarding some of the issues which were brought up at the
public hearing which she felt needed the Commission's direction. She stated she would be creating a
matrix to address each of the comments which had been received and the City's response to them.
Buffers came up often in the comments. Ms.Barlow said in most cities the buffer is a standard width. The
City had taken an approach to mirror the vegetation with buffers in most areas. She also reminded the
Commissioners that a majority of the land along the river is owned by public entities. Very little is
privately owned. Commissioner Phillips asked if the city is going to control the length of the buffers,how
the property owner would know how far into their land the buffer would fall. He stated he was concerned
about not knowing exactly where the property lines were in order to enforce the buffers without having
each parcel surveyed. Ms. Barlow explained the city has a very good aerial pictures and the GIS system,
while not perfect,would give a very good indication of where the property lines would be,but would only
be used for planning purposes. Ms. Barlow explained that in the area of the river which is considered
Orchard Avenue,a standard buffer of 50 feet had been suggested since most of the private development in
this area was already built out. In the Coyote Rocks area a standard buffer is applied on the properties west
of the bridge but the natural vegetation would scrvc as the buffer on the east side of the bridge.
Commissioner Carlsen asked how people would know the buffer if the buffers extended beyond the state
land and affected their property. Ms. Barlow responded that in most cases they would not know until they
came in to get a permit for a project on their property. However based on the Inventory Report, very few
properties would be impacted, but Ms. Barlow stated she could bring back information as to how many
private parcels would be impacted.
Ms. Barlow then reviewed the proposed variance process and asked for direction from the Commissioners.
She displayed two options for the Commissioners:Option 1 would allow a reduction of the buffers by up to
25%on an administrative determination if a specific criterion is met;Option 2 would remove up to 25%on
an administrative determination and require applicants go through the formal variance process which would
require DOE (Department of Ecology)to make the determination. It seemed the Commissioners present
would rather have the 25%to be done administratively. Any request for more than 25%would still require
the formal process and approval by DOE.
Ms.Barlow moved on to a comment from DOE,that they feel standards are lacking in regard to trail/paths
which will be allowed in the shoreline area. She displayed where the proposed requirements address trails
and paths,but said there are no specific standards identified. She shared the trail/path standards which are
contained in the Spokane County SMP,which DOE feels should be adopted.
The next subject was where docks will be allowed on the river. There has been considerable discussion
about where docks should be allowed on the river,by both user groups. Ms.Barlow pointed out where the
standards are for allowing docks and said they are not allowed in free flowing portions of the river. DOE
and Futurewise both commented that the regulations should state specifically where docks will be allowed.
Ms. Barlow said staff felt the Shoreline Modification Activity table was specific enough stating in which
environments they would be allowed. Commissioners discussed where on the river docks would be
allowed, in the Orchard Avenue portion of the river, and Coyote Rocks development. Commissioner
Anderson asked if a bond was required to install a dock in the case that the dock should come free of its
moorings and float off and cause damage to someone else's property. No bond is required at this time to
install a dock on the river. Commissioner Carlsen said it would be the homeowner's risk to install a dock
in a more flowing section of the river. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners the City would not be the
only reviewing agency in regard to docks on the river and more stringent regulations from some of the
other agencies. At this time,the Commissioners agreed to leave the dock regulations alone.
The last subject discussed was Avista's request for less stringent regulations from the City to perform
maintenance duties around their power lines. Ms.Barlow informed the Commissioners when she returns at
the next meeting with the matrix,staff will not be proposing any changes to the language regarding these
requests. Ms. Barlow said she felt the current allowances in the proposed regulations would take care of a
majority of the maintenance work. Anything greater would require a permit and the City would like the
ability to review any major work.
06-12-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
GOOD OF THE ORDER: There were no comments concerning the Good of the Order.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
/
/ P
/ I Lao / A Co(7J (/L(
or
Christi/arisen,C e se Date signed
&Wiz Afta. (g4).(1/611--)
Deanna Horton,Secretary
06-12-14 Planning Coinmission 41inuccs Page 4 of 4
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
June 26,2014
Vice Chair Carlsen called the meeting to order at 6:15 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
Robert McCaslin,Absent Excused Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Mike Phillips Christina Janssen,Planner
Steven Neill,Absent,Excused Tadas Kisielius,Special Council
Joe Stoy,Absent-Excused Deanna Horton,Secretary
Sam Wood
Hearing no objections, Commissioners McCaslin, Neill and Stoy were excused from the meeting.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 26, 2014 amended agenda. Motion passed four to
zero.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 12, 2014 minutes as presented Motion passed four
to zero.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Phillips and Wood reported they attended the June 24,
2014 City Council meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Mr.Hohman welcomed new Commissioner Sam Wood. Mr.Hohman
also discussed the Planning Commission advanced agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
A. Public Hearing Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Amendment CTA-2014-0002.
Vice Chair Carlsen opened the public hearing at 6:27 p.m. City Attorney Cary Driskell gave an
overview of Initiative 502, (I-502) regarding the regulations adopted by the state for the
producing, processing and retail sales of recreational marijuana. He said the state law I-502
decriminalized the use and possession for recreational use, established a regulatory system for
licensing producers, processors and retailers and named the Washington State Liquor Control
Board(WSLCB)as the governing authority for these regulations. The federal administration has
determined it will not interfere with states who have voted to legalize recreational use of
marijuana as long as those states can govern it appropriately.
Mr. Driskell stated the Attorney General issued an opinion in January of 2014 that determined
that I-502 contains no clear indication it was intended to preempt local authority to regulate
recreational marijuana. On February 11, 2014 the City adopted interim regulations governing
recreational marijuana. Interim regulations are only good for six months and then permanent
regulations need to be adopted. The interim regulations follow the state regulations,however the
City determined it would be appropriate to buffer the Centennial Trail and the proposed
Appleway Trail along with any vacant and undeveloped public school land and library property.
The interim regulations will expire in August 2014, so the final regulations need to be adopted
prior to the interim regulations expiring. Staff identified some issues with the interim regulations.
The buffer for the Centennial Trail extended to industrial properties on the north side of the river,
which could be used for processing and growing. Also staff considered that processing included
a variety of activities from just bagging the raw marijuana to complex chemical extractions.
After reviewing the processing options, it may be appropriate to allow for the bagging only in
zones other than industrial. On April 22, 2014 Council adopted amendments to the interim
regulations.
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
The current interim regulations are:
• Allow Recreational Marijuana Production in CC,RC,and both Industrial zones;but in CC
and RC zones,only indoor grow operations are allowed.
• Allow Recreational Marijuana Processing in CC,RC and both Industrial zones;but in CC and
RC zones,only packaging and labeling of useable marijuana is allowed.
• Allow Recreational Marijuana Retail Sales in MUC, CMU,CC,and RC zones; provide
buffers from Centennial Trail and Appleway Trail.
• Buffer all Recreational Marijuana from undeveloped public school and public library
property.
The proposed amendments would:
• Mirror Existing Interim Regulations.
• Amend Appendix A-Definitions:Add definitions for Marijuana processing,production, and
sales.
• Adopt SVMC 19.85: Development regulations for the processing, production and sales of
Marijuana.
• Amend SVMC 19.120.050-Permitted use matrix to include Marijuana uses.
Ms. Christina Janssen then explained that the amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC)would be under Chapter 19.85. She explained the definitions would be in Appendix A,
where all the definitions for the SVMC are located. In the Permitted Use matrix,marijuana
production would be listed under Agriculture and Animals,Processing would be listed under light
industrial, and retail sales would be listed under the retail sales section. All of these listings have
a reference to the code section for more information.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the City would be issuing a license for the marijuana Mr.
Hohman explained the City does not issue a business license, only an endorsement. The State
would be handling all of the licensing requirements. Commissioner Carlsen asked if the City
would be able to approve who would be receiving a license. Mr. Hohman said the City can
register an objection with the state, and we believe they are taking those objections into account,
however the City does not have any approving authority regarding who will receive a license.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a list of who had received a license. Mr. Hohman
explained it was a dynamic process with many people inquiring, two to three a day, about the
different aspects of starting each type of license on a regular basis.
Having no one who wished to testify, Commissioner Carlsen closed the public hearing at 6:43
p.m.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CTA-2014-0002 to the City Council.
Commissioner Phillips stated he was opposed to any use of marijuana, and even opposed to
voting in favor of these regulations. He said he would vote for it, however he would rather not
have any marijuana in the City. Commissioner Wood said he understood Commissioner Phillips
statement, but felt there were good buffers in place for the uses. Commissioner Carlsen said she
feels the City has made a good attempt with the regulations laid out for the legalized uses,and the
buffers will protect future uses. Commissioner Anderson voiced he felt the regulations were
approving where legal operations would be allowed. He said he felt the legislature would be
changing the rules because people did not vote on infused products.
Motion passed four to zero.
B. Deliberations Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP),Draft Regulations.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow stated that Mr. Kisielius was present to assist with guidance for a
couple of items which staff needed direction before bringing back the Planning Commission draft
of the regulations for review. Ms.Barlow handed out the comment matrix,which she offered had
a response to each of the comments received at the public hearing along with a letter received
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
from the Department of Ecology (DOE). Commissioner Anderson asked if the letter from DOE
was appropriate after the close of the public hearing. Mr. Kisielius responded that DOE had a
special role in the Shoreline Master Program. As the approving agency and a partner in the
regulations, they have the authority and ability to provide more input than would normally be
allowed in other circumstances. The Commissioners reviewed the comment matrix and changes
were noted.
Ms. Barlow said that at the last meeting, the question was asked how many privately owned
parcels and structures would be impacted by the buffers. After an analysis, there were 92
privately owned parcels that would be impacted. Only 30 of those parcels would be impacted
greater than one to two feet, 30 would be impacted by one to two feet and only two structures
would be impacted. Those parcels impacted greater than one to two feet,the buffer might go up
to the property line,but residential uses do not have a setback so it would have little effect on the
property. The two structures which have been impacted are located on the north side of the river,
on Kaiser property, which are pump houses. The buffers in the Orchard Avenue area have not
changed, a straight 50 feet, which is the same as what it was before. The buffer in the Coyote
Rock area is a straight 75 feet. Other areas will have a buffer which will follow the Shoreline
Vegetation Report.
21.50.030(D) DOE is asking to have the language changed to state that the director will consult
with DOE. "Shall"will be inserted for"will"and the change will be made.
21.50.110(F) DOE would like the whole definition from the WAC used.The definition will be
updated.
21.50.110(G) Amending to update the new threshold for replacement docks, from $10,000 to
$20,000.
21.50.260(B)(2)(c) DOE is asking for standards for paths and trails. Standards will be added to
the regulations.
21.50.340(B)(2) will modify this section to remove the reference to permanent in-stream
structures not impeding normal ground and surface water. Also,Table 21.50-2 will be changed to
allow groins and weirs as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the environments which allow in-
stream structures.
21.50.430,where docks will be allowed on the river. There has been considerable discussion by
both user groups about where docks should be allowed on the river. Ms. Barlow pointed out the
standards for allowing docks and said they are not allowed in free flowing portions of the river.
DOE and Futurewise both commented that the regulations should state specifically where docks
will be allowed. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners the City would not be the only
reviewing agency in regard to docks on the river and that there are more stringent regulations
from some of the other agencies. Mr. Hohman commented that he and Mr. Driskell had taken a
tour of the river and the river at Coyote Rock is very shallow and the red band trout do indeed
like to live in this area, as well as their predators. According to SVMC motorized boats are
allowed to the Centennial Trail Bridge. Mr. Hohman said additional analysis should be required
to have a dock at the location of the Coyote Rock area because previously two docks had been
placed in this area and they had come loose and floated down the river. There are safety issues
with a dock based on the structure of the river, such as the need to have a longer dock to get to a
depth needed for a boat, and the problem of rafters running into the dock. The decision is to
allow docks in the Orchard Avenue Area; and to allow docks in the Coyote Rock area provided
the dock meets set criteria and shows that structural and habitat issues are addressed, and the
dock must also meet the permitting regulations of all other required agencies. One of the options
to address this issue will be some type of regulation regarding joint use/community docks.
21.50.480(C)(4)(a)request to modify language to say "legally constructed existing irrigation and
drainage ditches..." This will be modified.
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
21.50.510(B)will add"consistent with appropriate state and federal guidelines."
21.50.510(D)(f)(i) Commissioner Anderson said he had an issue with the language because it
seemed there is a changing time line for monitoring the compensatory mitigation. Mr. Kisielius
noted he would have the consultant biologist Noah Herlocker review the language.
21.50.520(C)(1)will modify to remove the exception for category III and IV wetlands.
21.50.520(E)(1)(c)(v)will remove the"or."
21.580.310 will wait to see how the language is drafted in regard to docks and then determine
how to proceed.
21.50.420 modify to acknowledges the Department of Natural Resources has jurisdiction over
projects on state owned land.
21.50.430 will be a place holder waiting on piers and dock language to be coming soon.
Avista requested less stringent regulations from the City to perform maintenance duties around
their power lines. City staff is not recommending any changes based on their request, but
suggests a new foot note to the table 21.50-1 to clarify conditions when a Letter of Exemption
would be required. Ms. Barlow said she felt the current allowances in the proposed regulations
would take care of a majority of the maintenance work. Anything greater would require a permit
and the City would like the ability to review any major work.
21.50.110(L)(4) Commissioner Anderson asked about this section and Avista having this section
deleted. Staff stated after Avista explained the project, it could be determined it would not be
necessary, however the language is from the WAC (Washington Administrativ Code) and it
would be necessary depending on the project to require the Shoreline Development Permit or the
surety bond.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m., motion passed four to zero.
Staff is not recommending any changes based on Futurewise's comments except those which
have already been addressed by DOE.
Staff will be returning at the next meeting with a marked up version of the draft regulations for
the Planning Commission's review.
C. Findings of Fact for Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Amendment CTA-2014-0002.
The Commission reviewed the findings for CTA-2014-0002, Marijuana regulations.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Commission's Findings of Fact for CTA-2014-
0002. Vote on the motion was four in favor,zero against, motion passed.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners welcomed Mr.Wood to their group.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Christina Carlsen, Chairperson Date signed
NOW/09..a k,f0e...}4.0.
Deanna Horton bDeanna 4...., '
0.101014.0807 ILLTSX-OTOY
Deanna Horton,Secretary
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
July 10,2014
Vice Chair Carlsen 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
Robert McCaslin Lori Barlow,Senior Planner
Mike Phillips
Steven Neill
Joe Stoy,Absent-Excused Deanna Horton,Secretary
Sam Wood
Hearing no objections, Commissioner Stoy was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Anderson
moved to approve the July 10, 2014 agenda. Motion passed six to zero.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 26, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed,five
to zero. This was Mr. Wood first meeting. he was ineligible to vote on the minutes of a previous meeting.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Wood reported he attended the recent Spokane Home
Builders Association (SHBA)meeting. Mr. Wood noted interesting comments were the Call before you
Dig law will now apply to political signs where it has not in the past. Also,homeowners who are putting
political signs in their yards which will penetrate more than twelve inches will be required to call as well
for locates. Previously"Call before you Dig" had only been enforcing the law based on complaints but
they will now be actively looking for violators. Mr. Wood also reported Mr. John Pederson from
Spokane County Spokane spoke at the SHBA meeting regarding the Growth Management Act.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Mr. Hohman reported the group of amendments which staff is
currently working to bring forward would not be ready for the next meeting. He offered, since there
would be nothing for that agenda,the Commission could consider canceling the July 24,2014 meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment was offered.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
A. Deliberations Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP),Draft Regulations.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow presented to the Commission the Planning Commission
recommended draft of the Shoreline Master Program regulations. The Planning Commission
recommended draft regulations reflect the Commission's requested changes except for the
changes which have been proposed related to docks on the river. The Planning Commission had
previously stated it wanted to allow docks in both the Orchard Avenue and Coyote Rock area of
the City. Both the Dept. of Ecology (DOE) and Futurewise have requested the City not allow
docks in the Coyote Rock area of the City. Based on these differing opinions staff crafted the
proposed regulations in the draft copy. This version would allow docks in the Orchard Avenue
area, as has already been allowed in the past, however docks in the Coyote Rock area would
require a site suitability analysis shall demonstrate that (1) the river conditions in the
proposed location of the dock, including depth and flow conditions, will accommodate
the proposed dock and its use; and (2) any design to address river conditions will not
interfere with or adversely affect navigability. As well they will be required to submit a
habitat management plan for all proposed docks to prove no net loss of ecological
function.
This draft would also require joint use or community docks in the Coyote Rock area
when feasible,rather than allowing 30 individual docks.
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3
Commissioner Phillips had a problem with `feasible,' saying he felt it would be a
subjective term. Ms. Barlow commented the definitions include the Washington
Administrative Code's (WAC)definition for feasible and that some common sense would
also be used to determine if a community/joint dock would be the best solution. She also
said the goals and policies state that it would be to encourage the use of joint/community
docks. However, the requirement to demonstrate no net loss of ecological function and
that the river could accommodate the dock in these locations would be more of the
deciding factors. Commissioner Anderson stated that the legal definition would be
difficult for people in the field to enforce, Ms. Barlow responded that DOE would be a
consistent partner in the enforcement of all of the regulations, including the dock
regulations.
Ms. Barlow said the only other new information was the standards included from the
Spokane County Shoreline program for pathways and trails as had been requested by
DOE, and had been discussed at the previous meeting. Commissioner Anderson asked
where the standard width of 14 feet had come from. Ms. Barlow stated she believed it
was the width of the Centennial Trail.
Commissioner Wood said 21.50.170 (C)(2)(b)Any risk of personal injury resulting from the
alteration shall be eliminated or minimized, he felt that risk of personal injury should be
eliminated and not just minimized and that the last two words should be removed from the
sentence. He said he did not feel after taking care of a problem someone had created they should
be allowed to leave a problem which could cause injury at all. The consensus of the Commission
was to have the sentence end at eliminated.
21.50.250(B) There was discussion regarding being able to make public access for disabled and
physically impaired persons. Accommodations will be made whenever possible but there could
be times when the terrain could make it physically impossible for it to be safe for some people to
be safe on an access to the river.
21.50.280 Commissioners asked if there were maps which would designate areas as historic or
archaeologically significant sites. Ms.Barlow and Mr.Driskell stated there are maps which show
areas of potential significance. Staff route all projects to all interested parties, including the
Spokane Tribe and should they have any questions they would contact staff and let us know if
they have concerns regarding a development.
Commissioner Wood noted that 21.50.500(D)(6)(b)should read ordinary high water mark.
Commissioner Anderson noted the definitions are still missing for native and non-native
vegetation.
21.50.150(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. After a discussion of nonconforming it was decided to add
"appurtenant structures"to the classification criteria to make sure that all structures were covered
under the nonconforming
21.50.180(A)(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. After some discussion it was agreed to add
to the end of this sentence "which are within the shoreline jurisdiction, excluding any public
roads." In order to make this only encompass the shoreline jurisdiction.
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
21.50.220(B)(2)The Commissioners agreed to change the height of an accessory structure which
would be allowed in the buffer setback to be 25 feet in height at the peak.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of the Planning Commission
recommended draft Shoreline regulations to the City Council with the following changes:
• 21.50.150 add"appurtenant structures"after legally established structures,
• 21.50.170(C)(2)(b),remove"or minimized",
• 21.50.180(A)(7) add "which are within the shoreline jurisdiction and excluding public
roads",21.50.220(B)(2)change the accessory height limit to 25 feet,
• 21.50.500(D)(6)(b),change to read ordinary high water mark,and
• add a definition for native and non-native vegetation.
Commissioner Wood stated he felt the 25 foot height limit on an accessory structure was too
high. Mr. Wood said an RV would only be 14 feet tall, and the extra 11 feet is too much for a
building. He felt it would make it out of scale. Commissioner McCaslin stated he felt that since
the height for the residential structure could be 35 feet,the 25 foot height would be fine.
Vote on the motion was six to zero, motion passed.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commission decided to cancel the July 24,2014 meeting, since there was
nothing for that agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Christina Carlsen,Chairperson Date signed
Deanna Horton,Secretary
06-26-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2014 Department Director Approval: El
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ Consent ❑ Old business ❑ New business ❑ Public Hearing
❑ Information ®Admin. Report❑ Pending Legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Historic Preservation and Special Evaluations
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A.020
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
The Growth Management Act calls on counties and cities to identify and encourage the
preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical or archaeological significance.
The Act does not require a separate historic preservation element; rather it states that counties
and cities must be guided by the historic preservation goal in their comprehensive plan.
The Land Use element of the City's Comprehensive Plan discusses historical and cultural
resources. The plan identifies that cultural resources include structures and landscapes
engineered and built by man. These resources can include buildings, structures, districts,
objects, and landscapes of historic significance.
Currently, the City of Spokane Valley does not have a Historic Preservation program in place to
recognize, protect, enhance and preserve buildings, districts, objects, sites and structures of
historic significance.
Establishing a historic preservation program can make it possible to offer historic building
rehabilitation projects assistance, ranging from state and federal financial incentives to special
consideration with building and zoning codes.
To pursue an in-house historic preservation program, the City would need to become a Certified
Local Government (CLG) which would allow the City to receive technical assistance, apply for
special grant funding, offer Special Tax Valuation to local register properties, and comment on
federal and state historic preservation actions.
The process for becoming a CLG would require the passage of a historic preservation
ordinance and the establishment a City Historic Preservation Commission.
OPTIONS: Discussion only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator
Page 1 of 1
Historic Preservation
c93
Mike Basinger
Economic Development Coordinator
History
•o ion
c�a Federal Highway Act of AnBtworkofin@eeStatBi
F}'4
;.--i,
1956 ;a�, LS ,•NO MN $, V`
Iiir
$ 94 ':-C..2::.
{
-2 •r =r�-1 OSLO 11
.'�9 --.1-41,7_.a 15 wl 94, i.11 N, e!1';-- RIMA
c�a The National Historic J L°""
i #
Preservation Act of 1966 LarAn9eiesA- +• ,, �� IX'i4Kss 44•
WOE
40111
• Section 106 Reviewlt
.7:I, �0 75 Lp
(IP" .iti
PUERTO RICO
2
Framework
Federal
National Park Service (NPS)
1
State
Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation (SHPOs)
i
Local
Local Government Historic
3
Preservation Program (CLG)
Local Historic Preservation
oa Receive technical assistance
oa Ability to apply for grant funding
cQ Ability to offer Special Tax Valuation
oa Allows for a local register of historic places
Becoming a CLG
oa Historic Preservation Ordinance
oa Historic Preservation Commission
oa Survey and Inventory System
Cultural w .C
ASY _
1----,,,.___
X
rr S4'
1
FMchti Rae
Err rid A, 6uC3id Ave. �,.kuf lid Ave.
Resources eucteY[AYL_ 5.
S}rcgsyme=yh
E�F:ixya+.•f . Ne R4ndIeW Ayr
1061YOl Rut
L SlL'WT k'9'7'1hiMranr•A r s•
�� Edusna 416
Map _
1Eiaa�,a.;r Av. - x _ r
7 a
5 6 A
Salk' 15'A5x A411
9 ii .1 Val Avc airman'4` uuk u's. A-: �1,,����°°o-o-��
P.
-..�. _
FnW AvS- F/1:661 +'[
iA
A5
R EaSmn 2 ?rm AVEC
211k-
- �Aaa
Elmira S -] �
� K
i k %.
4
]661AYf 1 .AY[
NIIIIIvIHR r•
� W
0. {�9�
33 9Are ^ 32.1 AIM
f
V1 R
fi
41b lw 1
6
Pump
_ . .__. • .
1 ,,,,____________1 __ __ _
______ __
y
, ,
,.._:,,_
3 _ I __.__.''--_. -
,__-__ __
..,_r_ r_01-N1,,,-.-- •-, . --t'
IiC-e' 7"
S=rli
-'*T4
r
r "�
N.
u. •
.F' q j _ s �-a 6 was
�!0,REM J�'z_a1— _ ,n z �'�`."=
C 3't� —� —�_ --gra
y„M + �. r`'•tom �w-.„ +- _ -- �,�
Houses
..„,, _
. ..,.. . . ... . I$� r . .. i
Y.
= #i t-
P.
-
ar
- ph..-,.-i,, AlillOg I - - ' N ilk?' . . _.,
! .` I 1 L
y I, A 'g I
ii
y - ,{hili
y
r
r - _.
Th ePlantation
- 9
Monuments / Structures
_
. .
. .. .. ., . .
li. ''. le' • 1104 e' ..,'• ' '
. .
''',........„,,,,,,
f • 14. ,41. f 4, -
•
,;.-''.: 3-1/•• 4-4,' ,,..4- ,,,..-„. _- . .ni- .
.._
;, -- _- ..-7AA-, etZr,,,..E--• 4, -,
.,
-••••• ,I.1. - -
_..a
.,,
. . .
_ . .
- ,
_. . I. .
_ _
:...._ ...is. -.".....a•••+ .11'1 . . ,
0.41446•*VT Z.441,1r.. - -— _ __
. ' 4.../-e•'. .-
' ...1;41:41701...Zerr PI;
•-'• .''''' ' ,- '•ron•gar it.7.-4•0111.•• __....%..;-_....r . , I' ',- t - ' ' . - us' - -;
- , ..., . .... •.•••• 1 i - _ -
:A,•41 illki:X goes- 1 4. 4011-.4,4Tr--4c ' :.
_
. ...-_-_ 7,-.7.. gfr at • -...._ , __ . .
. ,. . . _ ..
- —JL-
Rock Houses
,
_______ . .
.. .
0.„.., ..... . . ..,....
.,.. „..,,.. .. . . , . ,, .
_ • .. .. • ., 40.4,-...... %
11441 ilk, .=• ..• ..--4t,A.-
. ..„,....,
t----
\ii---._1---J1111
._.:-
_ ,,,, 1 - -
,
.
1 ) - - ..
_ .
. _
•• •-
.
..0%'.- "! A
,,,..11M191114•14W-4144-:,.'4olg lAilmINIII•lo '
.. ,.
r• :. ---- . ...
4 ..,-- ...,..r- . •
.. _ I/
. .
If •
, I,.le 4, • •,.°_::*.:::: -'N.'.
, .
. . ;---;,:t• .- ..
L...-- .
. _
—•
. ,
;AT*,
rFbir-
• ' -
_ .
- -11
Opportunity Town Hall
-I • 4f-r1,4 - '
, -, . .444 A - p • , r.l.
i'
- . 0
._.,-.. -llik I a ,
8 Azibg oh At, it
-A
Bill N
1,-
12
Benefits of Local Preservation
oa Community Identity
oa Quality of Life
oa Retain Existing Resources
oa Tourism
oa Economic Development
13
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2014 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing
[' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative report - commercial vehicles parking in residential areas.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 9.05.010; SVMC 9.30; WAC 308-330-462; RCW
46.61.570; RCW 46.44.080.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: May 29, 2012 City Council meeting, Council received
an administrative report on potentially restricting semi-truck parking in residential zones; June
26, 2012, received a follow up administrative report from the perspective of the professional
trucking community; September 4, 2012 administrative report; October 23, 2012 administrative
report; November 13, 2012 first reading of Ordinance 12-029; December 11, 2012, second
reading and adoption of Ordinance 12-029; information only item May 20, 2014; administrative
report June 3, 2014.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
TYPES OF VEHICLES TO BE COVERED
Clarify whether you want to consider total vehicle length, i.e:
Tractor trailer combination
Tractor only
Trailer only
Shorter delivery trucks
Vehicle trailers
Boats
Recreational vehicles
Combinations of commercial and recreational vehicles
Considerations:
- exception for moving vans for reasonable time (three days?)
- many business owners drive a company vehicle home each day
- others?
BASIS FOR RESTRICTION
Generalized prohibition —A few cities have a broad ban on non-passenger vehicles in
residential areas.
Spokane—"habitual parking of any auto stage, farm vehicle, for-hire vehicle,
limousine, motor home, motor truck, private carrier bus, road tractor,
semitrailer, trailer, park trailer, travel trailer, tractor, truck, truck tractor, boat,
or any other "commercial vehicle" on any street in or bordering a residential
zone."
Federal Way— allows up to one commercial vehicle under 80 inches (5.5 feet)
wide;
Issaquah —commercial vehicles, regardless of size and weight, prohibited except
for delivery; RVs not allowed on street or front yards;
1
Vehicle length - Different jurisdictions establish different lengths of vehicles which are
prohibited from parking in residential areas. A standard long-haul trailer is 53 feet. A
standard full-length half-ton pickup is 19 feet. A long bed three-quarter ton pickup can
be 21.9 feet.
Bellevue— over 40 feet for commercial vehicles or RV/boats;
Burlington — over 20 feet long for commercial vehicles (alternatively uses weight
limit);
Des Moines — over 20 feet (and over 10,000 GVW);
Federal Way— recreational vehicles and boats over 22 feet long and nine feet
high prohibited;
Vehicle weight- Some jurisdictions prohibit commercial vehicles based on their weight
Liberty Lake —over 10,000 GVW prohibited;
Burlington —over 10,000 GVW prohibited;
Clark County— over 10,001 GVW prohibited;
Redmond - over 10,000 GVW prohibited;
Renton - over 12,000 GVW prohibited;
Tacoma - over 12,000 GVW prohibited.
LOCATION
Location considerations, i.e:
Public right-of-way
Private property
If on private property, whether restrictions would apply to the front yard, side
yard, or rear yard. Similarly, would it apply if in a garage or carport?
Not everybody has access to rear yard from the street for a large vehicle.
DURATION — A maximum length of time certain types of vehicles in residential
neighborhoods, or parked on the right-of-way, etc. Policing of this type of regulation would
need to be considered.
OPTIONS: Discussion about options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
2
H:1City DepartmentslFinancet2014 Lodging Tax and TPAIRCA 2014 08 19 Council Goals and Priorities for LTAC.docx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2014 Department Director Approval: X
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information®admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Council Goals and Priorities for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Imposition of tax, set-up of lodging tax advisory committee and
determination of qualified expenditures is governed by RCW 67.28, as amended by Engrossed
Substitute House Bill 1253 in 2013; and SVMC 3.20.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: An administrative report was delivered to Council on this
topic on August 12, 2014.
BACKGROUND: On August 12, 2014 an administrative report was delivered to Council that
addressed the process leading to the annual award of lodging tax proceeds to applying
organizations. Topics in the report included a discussion on the tax itself as well as the roles of the
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee and City Council. At the conclusion of the discussion Council
expressed an interest in revisiting the goals and priorities they previously established in August
2013 with the intent of ultimately delivering these to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee in order to
inform that body of what Council will consider when it ultimately makes the 2015 awards.
The goals and priorities established by Council in 2013 are as follow:
1. The Council will distribute lodging tax revenues to organizations on the basis of application
materials and the recommendation of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, and will make a
direct award based on an historical amount to CenterPlace to continue promoting tourism
activity through that facility.
2. Council desires to focus on all aspects of allowable lodging tax revenue uses by allocating
portions of the available lodging tax revenues to each category specified in RCW 67.28.1816,
as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1253:
a. Tourism marketing.
b. The marketing and operations of special events and festivals.
c. The operation and capital expenditures of tourism related facilities owned or operated by a
municipality or public facility district.
d. The operation (but not capital expenditures) of tourism related facilities owned or operated
by non-profit organizations.
3. To consider the economic impact derived through the expenditure of lodging tax proceeds of all
major components of our tourism-based economy including shopping, dining, and overnight
visits.
4. Utilize funds for capital expenditures to develop tourism destination facilities or venues within
the City of Spokane Valley (this option is limited to facilities owned by a municipality or public
facility district).
1
H.1City Departments1Finance12014 Lodging Tax and TPAIRCA 2014 08 19 Council Goals and Priorities for LTAC.docx
5. Programs, projects or events should have the goal of becoming operationally self-sustaining in
the future.
2014 LODGING TAX APPROPRIATION TIMELINE
The calendar we plan to follow in 2014 for 2015 lodging tax awards is as follows:
Wed 9/3/2014 City runs notice in newspaper, places on web site, and sends letters to
2013 award recipients and others agencies that may have expressed
interest.
Fri 10/3/2014 Grant proposals are due to City by 4pm (no late submittals will be
accepted).
Fri 10/10/2014 Applications sent to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for review.
Wed 10/15/2014 * 8:30 am Applicant presentations to Committee.
Tues 11/18/2014 Council Study Session
Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to City Council
Tues 12/9/2014 * Formal Council Meeting
City Council Motion Consideration: Award Lodging Tax for 2015
RCW 67.28.1817 requires that the City wait for a period of at least 45 days after the LTAC
meeting before action can be taken by the City Coucil.
* 12/9/2014
* 10/15/2014
55 days
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
Staff is seeking Council consensus on goals and priorities as discussed.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total lodging tax appropriation ranges from approximately
$450,000 to $550,000 per year.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun and Erik Lamb
ATTACHMENTS: Lodging Tax Award History—2003 through 2014
2
P:\Clerk\AgendaPackets for Web\agendapacket 2014,08-19\Item 6 Lodging Tax Award History 03-14.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA
Lodging Tax Application/Award History
For the years 2003 through 2014
F;r s , .. . ° 2003 2D04 -;€t 2005 205 2007 2qo . 2009
A0EyG �,, . «y , � ,. . Application] Award ,. �!9�0tt ;A� ¢ tApplication ( Award 0.1! t �4*s;i.07 Apply07 Award Sprg 07 ApplY_S r 07 Award .%�#tcfiA..vAYApplication A
w
rd
Armed Forces&Aerospace Museum 3,327 0 2,531 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burke Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147,500 0 0 0 0 0
CenterPlace 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 0 40,000 0 0 90,000 90,000 0 90,000
City of Spokane Valley Directed Marketing Efforts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chamber of Commerce 0 0 0 0 15,440 0 15,440 5,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 155,000 0 0 0
Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fair&Expo Marketing 58,376 17,500 35,000 25,000 21,000 18,000 0 0 20,000 20,000 0 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 18,250
Fairgrounds 0 0 21,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Friends of Centennial Trail 23,480 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 9,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUB Sports Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Inland Dance Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,535 0 0 0 2,535 0 0 0 0 0
Inland NW Sr.Wellness Conference 12,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Latah Creek Wine Cellars 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Liberty Lake Rotary Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plantes Ferry Park 0 0 71,842 20,000 0 0 23,876 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Six Bridges Arts Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 12,500 0 0 0 0 0 0
Splash-Down Family Waterpark 230,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spo Con 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spokane Arts Commission 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spokane County Fair&Expo Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW 5,830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spokane Polo Club 30,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spokane Regional Sports Commission 120,000 52,200 150,000 100,000 100,000 75,000 100,000 84,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 175,000 145,000 190,000 115,000
Spokane Symphony 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 40,000 1,000 0 0 22,100 10,000 49,104 5,000 27,450 10,000 0 0 0 0 30,260 3,250
Spokane Valley Soccer Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spokane Winery Association 3,285 0 8,250 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,500 7,500 8,300 8,300 9,000 0
Sports USA Sports Complex 103,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SV Junior Soccer Association 96,642 24,800 71,842 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 0 0 17,000 30,300 0 0 0 0
U.S.Figure Skating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 0 15,000
Valleyfest 19,724 2,800 49,700 0 27,200 15,000 25,900 15,000 30,000 25,000 5,000 5,000 40,000 30,000 50,000 27,500
Valleyfest(additional for Spring 07(for float) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 0 0 0 0 0
Visit Spokane(_ . _ -.• - -• _-_-.) 200,000 83,700 250,000 150,000 200,000 136,000 200,000 165,000 175,000 175,000 78,000 78,000 325,000 306,000 336,000 236,000
WebMaker 39,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
YMCA 50,000 18,000 12,000 6,000 12,000 6,000 17,000 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
YMCA Skateboard Park 0 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1,090,264 218,000 694,165 360,000 397,740 260,000 ' 446,855 325,000' 447,450 432,500 313,535 170,800 823,300 624,300 645,260 505,000
Page 1 of 2
P:\Clerk\AgendaPackets for Web\agendapacket 2014,08-19\Item 6 Lodging Tax Award History 03-14.xisx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 17118(2014 I
Lodging Tax Application/Award History
For the years 2003 through 2014
y x 20tH 2011` r # ,a G 2013iks 20;1`4 ; Total
3EMCte.,, . ." .. _,_._._,,, /?P,i,Ca tf i?t4",APPlicationj +Award t Rdr,t,W4#4,i;M:44:Aivot igoOfokpRritr.ot4 Application I Award ,Appit4r il0 Fc ,.' Application I I Award
Armed Forces&Aerospace Museum 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,858 0
Burke Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147,500 0
CenterPlace 0 37,500 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 120,000 427,500
City of Spokane Valley Directed Marketing Efforts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,000 0 0 0 55,000
Chamber of Commerce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285,880 105,000
Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,500 7,300 7,500 7,300
Fair&Expo Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194,376 128,750
Fairgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,000 15,000
Friends of Centennial Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,600 0 41,080 2,000
HUB Sports Center 0 0 40,000 40,000 50,000 42,600 0 0 50,000 21,100 40,000 36,000 180,000 139,700
Inland Dance Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,070 0
Inland NW Sr.Wellness Conference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,500 0
Latah Creek Wine Cellars 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 0
Liberty Lake Rotary Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 0 10,000 0
Plantes Ferry Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125,718 20,000
Six Bridges Arts Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 12,500
Splash-Down Family Waterpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 230,000 0
SpoCon 0 0 0 0 70,131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,131 0
Spokane Arts Commission 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 65,000 0
Spokane County Fair&Expo Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 25,900 30,000 27,800 50,000 39,800 110,000 93,500
Spokane Horse Breeders of Inland NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,830 0
Spokane Polo Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,100 0
Spokane Regional Sports Commission 150,000 120,000 165,000 165,000 200,000 185,000 0 0 200,000 150,200 200,000 183,800 1,850,000 1,475,200
Spokane Symphony 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 0
Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 11,600 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,900 5,000 1,100 12,000 6,400 20,000 13,100 227,514 63,750
Spokane Valley Soccer Club 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 0
Spokane Winery Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,335 17,800
Sports USA Sports Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103,000 0
SV Junior Soccer Association 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189,484 59,100
U.S.Figure Skating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000
Valleyfest 50,000 30,000 50,000 36,000 50,000 0 50,000 30,000 50,000 35,200 50,000 20,000 547,524 271,500
Valleyfest(additional for Spring 07(for float) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 0
Visit Spokane(-== -•- - - -- -•_- e--) 275,000 195,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 275,000 251,720 350,000 184,800 280,000 247,000 3,194,000 2,458,220
WebMaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,000 0
YMCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91,000 37,000
YMCA Skateboard Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,000
Total 486,600 387,500 510,000 496,000 375,131 261,500 440,000 308,720 692,000 510,500 I 689,100 I 577,000 I 8,051,400 5,436,820
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2014 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Council Goals for 2015 Budget
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: Each year Council establishes major goals for inclusion in the next year's
budget. The 2015 Council Goals were discussed at the June 17, 2014 Budget Workshop.
Council has requested that we note progress and accomplishments of the previous year's goals.
After discussion, staff noted that the draft 2015 goals would be brought back to Council for
further review and discussion.
OPTIONS: Council can add to, delete, and/or modify the list of goals in order to establish the
Council Goals for the 2015 Budget.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson
ATTACHMENTS:
Powerpoint: 2015 Draft Budget Goals — 2014 Budget Goal Accomplishments
s1jioian �
jUalley
2015 Draft Budget Goals
2014 Budget Goal Accomplishments
2014 Budget Goal Accomplishments *
• Continue to monitor the discharge permit process for the Spokane County
wastewater treatment plant.
— We continue to monitor the County's progress as it relates to the renewal of their
wastewater discharge permit. The County did receive an extension of their current
discharge permit to the Spokane river. The County is required to continue to monitor
PCB levels, and participate in the Regional Toxics Task Force to ensure that these levels
are appropriate. City staff will continue to monitor the County's path forward.
• Implement solid waste alternatives for collection, transport and disposal in the
best interest of the City of Spokane Valley.
— Staff identified and provided two options for solid waste alternatives for transfer,
transport and disposal for Council review. Council selected and executed a contract
with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. to provide an equivalent level of transfer, transport, and
disposal services to what is currently provided, at a reduced rate. Council reviewed and
adopted a Solid Waste Management Plan to manage the solid waste system
implemented through the contract with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. Executed two
contracts with existing collection haulers to extinguish statutory rights and allow the
City flexibility to seek further cost savings and additional services in the future.
*Note: Accomplishments anticipate year-end program not necessarily progress to date.
2014 Budget Goal Accomplishments
• Pursue a legislative capital budget request or other grant/funding for the
Appleway Trail Project, parkland acquisition and the Barker Road grad separation.
— Appleway Trail - Based on Council approval of the use of City funds, staff completed the
design of the Appleway Trail between University Road and Pines Road (Phase 2A). The
design includes a plaza at University Road, trees, future irrigation lines, and trail lighting.
Staff anticipates completing the construction of this portion of the trail this year.
Although unsuccessful at the legislative level, staff applied for federal grant funding for
the Appleway Trail Project and received $1M for that portion between Pines Road and
Evergreen Road (Phase 2B). The Parks & Recreation Department has applied for a trail
grant for Phase 2B through the Washington Recreation Conservation Office.
— Barker Road Overpass - Staff worked with HDR Engineering to prepare and submit a
$15M TIGER VI grant application for the Barker Road Grade Separation Project. Staff
proposed and Council approved a contract with Gordon Thomas Honeywell to assist in
legislative support for the project.
• Continued to expand where possible, an economic development plan, including
review and evaluation of Spokane Valley's development regulations and how they
compared with other jurisdictions; and began looking at options open for an
alternative city hall.
— Staff completed review and evaluation of development regulations and brought forth
several code amendments for Council approval. The 2015 Budget request and business
plan include reorganization of Community Development to strengthen economic
development. Staff ramped up efforts in business recruitment, retention, and expansion
by working both directly with businesses and in partnership with outside economic
development agencies. Staff worked with an architect in developing a conceptual plan
for a new city hall; identified potential properties; and developed a budget and provided
options for the funding a new city hall.
2014 Budget Goal Accomplishments
• Focus on sustainability of Street Preservation program beyond 2016.
— The Street Preservation program is sustainable through 2018. Over the past year, staff
has been looking at ways to further sustain financially the current pavement
preservation program. Staff has applied for and received grant funds equating to
approximately $1.2M per the years 2017-2019 through the Surface Transportation
Program grants.
• Evaluate law enforcement needs based on calls for service, crime rates, business
and population growth and other supporting data.
— Staffing analysis completed with two patrol officers added, a Power Shift created, a new
Spokane Valley dedicated Drug and Property Crimes Unit formed, Corporals eliminated,
and Property Crimes Detectives increased. Staffing levels will now be matched to peak
call load times of day.
2015 DRAFT Budget Goals
• Pursue a legislative capital budget request for possible financial assistance for the
Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation; the Appleway Trail Project; and parkland
acquisition.
• Pursue the Bridging the Valley concept at State and Federal levels, including long
term funding for grade separation.
• Continue and expand, where possible, economic development efforts, including
review and evaluation of Spokane Valley's development regulations and how they
compare with other jurisdictions; and including completion of the City Hall Plan.
• Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preservation
program, to include sustained funding in the City's Street Fund to address
concerns beyond the year 2018.
• Evaluate and discuss increasing costs to public safety, including law enforcement.
Seek long-term solutions to keeping costs in check while better serving the
community.
• Work toward completion of the Comprehensive Plan review.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2014 Department Director Approval: X
Check all that apply: [' consent _❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing
[' information X admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area (TPA)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.101; Interlocal Cooperation Act Agreement for
Establishment of Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area (originally executed March 9, 2004).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Amendments to Interlocal Agreement in 2008 and 2009.
BACKGROUND:
Generally. In 2003, the Washington State Legislature enacted RCW 35.101, authorizing the
creation of tourism promotion areas to assist in funding tourism promotion at the local level. Under
RCW 35.101, cities and counties are authorized to establish a tourism promotion area within their
respective jurisdictions and impose a special assessment on lodging businesses with 40 or more
units, to fund tourism promotion. Cities and counties may create a multi-jurisdictional tourism
promotion area by interlocal agreement.
The maximum charge allowed is $2.00 per night per unit. Charges may differ by classification (i.e.,
number of rooms, room revenue, or location within the area) and there may be up to six different
classifications within a tourism promotion area. The revenue from a tourism promotion area shall
be used for "tourism promotion," which includes:
activities and expenditures designed to increase tourism and convention business,
including but not limited to advertising, publicizing, or otherwise distributing
information for the purpose of attracting and welcoming tourists, and operating
tourism destination marketing organizations.
Tourism promotion areas may only be created by petition of lodging business operators. The
petition shall describe the proposed area, the proposed uses and projects for the assessments, the
estimated rate for the charge, with breakdowns by classification, and shall be signed by the lodging
business operators in the proposed area who would pay 60% or more of the proposed charges.
After a petition is submitted meeting statutory requirements, the approving legislative body conducts
a public hearing and creates the tourism promotion area by ordinance. The ordinance shall specify
the description of the boundaries of the area, the initial rate charges broken down by classification,
and the uses to which the charges shall be put.
After creation of the tourism promotion area and imposition of the charges, the Washington
Department of Revenue administers the funds and deposits the collected charges in a local tourism
promotion account. The local legislative authority imposing the charge has sole discretion as to
how the revenue may be used. The local legislative authority may create an advisory board or
commission to make recommendations on the uses of such funds. The local legislative authority
may contract with tourism destination marketing organizations to administer the operation of the
area.
1
The Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. In March 2004, Spokane County, the City of
Spokane, and the City of Spokane Valley entered into the Interlocal Cooperation Act Agreement for
Establishment of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. It was subsequently amended on
May 29, 2008, and August 27, 2009 (as amended, the "TPA Interlocal"). The TPA Interlocal
authorizes Spokane County to establish the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area (the "TPA")
encompassing the unincorporated area of Spokane County and the incorporated areas within the
boundaries of Spokane and our City. Note that the Cities of Liberty Lake, Millwood, and other local
cities are not included within the TPA. The areas within this location are divided into five different
zones with special assessments of $2.00 per room, per day for all zones except for Zone E, which
has no assessment. The zones are as follows:
Zone A: Lodging businesses within the downtown core of the City of Spokane.
Zone B: The remaining lodging businesses within the City of Spokane and all lodging
businesses within the City of Spokane Valley.
Zone C: Lodging businesses within the unincorporated area of Spokane County.
Zone D: Lodging businesses with room revenue less than $500,000, regardless of location.
Zone E: Lodging businesses other than hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast facilities.
Such businesses include trailer camps and RV parks, college dormitories, guest ranches
and summer camps.
As part of the establishment of the TPA, Spokane County created the Spokane Hotel and Motel
Commission (the "Hotel/Motel Commission") to advise the Board of County Commissioners on the
expenditure of the TPA revenues. The Hotel/Motel Commission consists of 11 members who shall
be operators of lodging businesses. Spokane County selects two members and one non-voting ex
officio member, Spokane selects four members and one non-voting ex officio member, and the City
of Spokane Valley selects two members and one non-voting ex officio member. The TPA is also
managed by contract by the Spokane Regional Convention & Visitors Bureau ("Visit Spokane").
The manager administers the activities and programs and prepares the annual budget for the TPA,
which is approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
TPA Revenues. Under the TPA Interlocal, revenue from the special assessments is allocated by
the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County based on recommendations made by the
Hotel/Motel Commission. Revenues from assessments collected within the TPA may be used for
(1) funding activities designed to increase tourism promotion and convention business within
Spokane County;
(2) marketing of convention and business that benefit local tourism and the lodging business
within Spokane County;
(3) marketing of Spokane County to the travel industry to benefit local tourism and the
lodging businesses within the TPA; and
(4) marketing of Spokane County to recruit major sporting events in order to promote local
tourism and to benefit lodging businesses within the TPA.
Revenues received for the years 2009 through 2013 are detailed below:
2
SPOKANE COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA
ALL ZONES
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Spokane
Zone A 1,005,174.00 1,095,426.00 1,114,700.00 1,163,554.00 1,206,076.00
IZone B 261,561.50 335,732.00 362,142.00 599,980.00 603,984.00
Zone D 4,355.50 6,308.00 2,750.50 1,437.00 654.50
1,271,091.00 1,437,466.00 1,479,592.50 1,764,971.00 1,810,714.50
Spokane County
Zone C 348,382.00 364,246.00 361,754.00 130,376.00 139,026.00
1 Zone D 1,652.00 1,116.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
350,034.00 365,362.50 361,754.00 130,376.00 139,026.00
Spokane Valley
Zone B 356,854.00 493,270.00 473,168.00 509,864.00 460,814.00
Zone D 988.00 7,077.00 1,166.50 882.00 921.00
357,842.00 500,347.00 474,334.50 510,746.00 461,735.00
Grand Total 1,978,967.00 2,303,175.50 2,315,681.00 2,406,093.00 2,411,475.50
Fee Per Room Night of Stay
Zones A, B, C Zone D
Prior to 10/1/2009 $1.25 $0.50
Beginning 10/1/2009 $2.00 $0.50
Zone B = Cities of Spokane Valley and Spokane that are not located in downtown
Spokane. Lodging revenues during the preceding calendar> $500,000.
Zone D = Anywhere in the Spokane County TPA with revenues<$500,000.
TPA Fund Uses. The TPA, through the management of Visit Spokane, uses TPA revenues for a
variety of purposes, including distributions to Visit Spokane and other agencies. Visit Spokane
meets regularly to discuss regional destination packages, on-going promotions, and social media
content to promote tourism. This promotion includes the City of Spokane Valley. Such promotion
and services have included assistance with the redesign of our City's mobile application and
promotion on Visit Spokane's website, advertisements for Valleyfest and Cycle Celebration, maps
highlighting the Sullivan Road retail corridor and Auto Row, and advertisement in the "Spokane
Regional Visitors Guide" and seasonal e-magazines, amongst others.
3
Modification to TPA. Originally, the TPA Interlocal provided for a termination date of 2008 with the
option of three-year extensions by resolution of each of the governing bodies. However, in 2008,
the TPA Interlocal was amended so that it is perpetual. The TPA may be modified by request of the
lodging businesses that pay 40% or more of the assessments levied within the TPA.
Other TPAs. At least one local jurisdiction has formed its own TPA. Liberty Lake formed its tourism
promotion area in 2004. In 2011, Liberty Lake entered into an agreement with Visit Spokane to
manage the Liberty Lake tourism promotion area, much like is done through the Spokane County
TPA and TPA Interlocal. As part of the management, Visit Spokane prepares the budget for Liberty
Lake approval and then receives and expends the revenues from the Liberty Lake tourism
promotion area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No direct financial impact to City revenues or expenditures.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun and Erik Lamb
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
4
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of August 13,2014; 11:45 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
August 26,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 18]
Proclamation:Diaper Need Awareness Week
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-010 Amending Setbacks—Micki Harnois (10 minutes)
3.Admin Report: Potential Projects for PFD—Mike Stone (15 minutes)
4.Admin Report: Street Maintenance Contract—Eric Guth (15 minutes)
5.Admin Report: Thierman Traffic Analysis—Sean Messner (20 minutes)
6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
7. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 70 minutes]
September 2,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Aug 25]
1. Outside Agencies Presentations [5 min each]: (a)Economic Development, (b) Social Service) (—90 min)
2.Admin Report: Estimated Revenues and Expenditures 2015 budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 110 minutes]
Friday, September 5, 2014: 10 a.m. 12:30 p.m. Spokane Regional Council of Governments Meeting
Spokane County Fair&Expo Center, Conference Facility in Expo Complex,404 N Havana Street
September 9,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tues,Sept 2]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget Revenues—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes, set budget hearing for Oct 14) (5 minutes)
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-010 Amending Setbacks—Micki Harnois (10 minutes)
4.Motion Consideration: Sidewalk Infill Project Phase 2 Bid Award—Eric Guth (10 minutes)
5.Admin Report: Community Development Block Grant Proposed Projects—John Hohman (20 minutes)
6.Admin Report: Comp Plan Docket—Lori Barlow (20 minutes)
7.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 85 minutes]
September 16,2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 8]
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Motion Consideration: Appleway Trail Construction Award—Eric Guth (10 minutes)
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
2. Care of Stormwater Swales—Eric Guth (20 minutes)
3. Draft Legislative Agenda—Mike Jackson (15 minutes)
4 Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 50 minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 8/14/2014 11:57:11 AM Page 1 of 3
September 23,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 15]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG Proposed Projects—John Hohman (15 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
3.Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Allocations for 2015—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
4.Motion Consideration: Street Maintenance Contract—Eric Guth (10 minutes)
5.Admin Report Proposed 2015 Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes)
6.Motion Consideration: CDBG Proposed Projects—John Hohman (10 minutes)
7.Admin Report: Batch Code Amendments—Marty Palaniuk, Christina Janssen(see **) (30 minutes)
8.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
9. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 100 minutes]
September 30,2014—no meeting
October 7,2014,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 29]
1.Admin Report: City Manager presentation of 2015 Preliminary Budget (30 minutes)
2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
October 14,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 6]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
3.First Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes)
4.Admin Report: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes)
5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 55 minutes]
October 21,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 13]
1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
October 28,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 20]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
3. Second Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes)
4.First Reading Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes)
5.First Reading Proposed 2015 Budget Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes)
6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
7. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes]
November 4,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 27]
1.Admin Report: 2015 Fee Resolution—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
November 11,2014—no meeting—Veteran's Day
November 18,2014,Formal meeting 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 10]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes)
3. Second Reading Proposed 2015 Budget Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes)
4. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution for 2015—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
5.Admin Report: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes)
6.Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 60 minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 8/14/2014 11:57:11 AM Page 2 of 3
November 25,2014—no meeting—Thanksgiving week
December 2,2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 24]
1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
December 9,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 1]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2.Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2015 (20 minutes)
3.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
December 16,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 8]
1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
December 23,2014 no meeting
December 30,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 22]
1.Advance Agenda
2. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports
*time for public or Council comments not included
(** Batch amendments include the following proposed amendments:
Change the Recreational Facility Definition;
Remove the screening requirements for community facilities and public utilities;
Delete shared access requirements for new development;
Allow limited medical and dental clinic use in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones;
Modify the development standards for Manufactured Home Parks;
Modify the outdoor storage requirements.
Modify the Vehicle Parking requirements
Modify the Off-street Loading requirements
Modify the Bicycle Parking requirements)
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
ADA Transition Plan
Beekeeping
Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement
Drug Education/Information
Economic Incentives
Governance Manual Updates
SEPA/NEPA Process—Eric Guth
Street Vacation/Connectivity Process
Draft Advance Agenda 8/14/2014 11:57:11 AM Page 3 of 3