Agenda 10/09/2014 po ne
.000Valley®
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
October 9, 2014 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 25, 2014
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
• Public Hearing — Shoreline Master Plan — for review of the
individual pieces of the Shoreline Master Plan please see the Planning
Commission agenda page. Each part is listed individually for easy
access. These are large documents so it may take some time to load.
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
September 25,2014
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 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Christina Carlsen Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Robert McCaslin Martin Palaniuk,Planner
Mike Phillips
Steven Neill
Joe Stoy
Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary
Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the September 25, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed
seven to zero.
Commissioner Neill moved to approve the September 11, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed, six
to zero. Commissioner Carlsen did not vote because she was absent from the September 11, 2014
meeting.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner McCaslin reported he had attended the HUB All-Star
Breakfast and the WSU Spokane 25th Anniversary celebration.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow stated Director Hohman updated the City
Council on the Comprehensive Plan processes at the last Council meeting. The deadline for the annual
Comprehensive Plan amendment process is November 1st. Staff has held three pre-application meetings,
but no actual applications have been submitted. City Council has directed staff to begin the legislative
Comprehensive Plan update which must be completed by 2017.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Findings of Fact — CTA-2014-0003, Code text amendments to sections of Title 19, Title 22 and
Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC):
At the August 28, 2014, meeting the Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
amendments to the SVMC. On September 11, 2014 the Commission continued their deliberations on
the proposed amendments. Planner Marty Palaniuk began by discussing the amended language with
the Commissioners.
• Appendix A changing the Recreational Facility definition specifying indoor gun ranges; this
amendment was passed as proposed.
• Sections 19.40.010, 19.60.010, 19.70.010, and 19.70.020 removing screening requirement for
community facilities and public utilities; this amendment was passed as proposed.
• Section 19.60.010 removing the shared access requirement for new development; this
amendment was passed as proposed.
• Sections 19.60.040, 19.60.060, 19.60.070, 19.60.080, 19.70.010 modifying outdoor storage
requirements, this proposal passed with the change to remove the requirements for front and
flanking yards and add requirements for no storage in drainage easements and for meeting
the requirements of the clearview triangle regulations.
• Section 19.120.050,permitting Outdoor storage as a use, this amendment passed as proposed,
• Section 19.120.050, allowing automobile/truck repair as a permitted use in Corridor Mixed
Use and Community Commercial zones, this amendment passed as proposed.
09-25-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3
• Section 19.40.130 modifying development standards for Manufactured Home Parks; this
amendment passed with a modification to the setback on the carport based on which side the
car would access.
• Section 19.120.050 permitting limited medical and dental clinic use in the MF-1 and MF-2
zones; this amendment was passed with modifications which would allow existing structures
to increase by 10%. New structures would be permitted, but the square footage would be
limited to the same amount of the original structure plus 10%.
• Section 22.50.020 modifying the vehicle parking requirements; this amendment passed as
proposed.
• Section 22.50.030 modifying the off-street loading requirements; this amendment was passed
with the modifications that no limitations as to where the loading dock could be located,
defining the minimum loading space size as 12 feet x 30 feet, no height restriction.
• Section 22.50.040 modifying bicycle parking requirements; this amendment was passed with
the modification of changing bicycle racks to bicycle spaces.
• Table 22.50-2 modifying the table layout and specific activity parking requirements; this
amendment was passed as prososed.
When Mr. Palaniuk discussed the language for the amendment to the medical/dental facilities,
Commissioner Carlsen said she did not feel the wording in the last condition was stated correctly. It
was written: New or remodeled structure may not exceed 10% of the current building footprint.
Commissioner Carlsen felt this meant a new building could only be 10% of the size of the building
which had been on the property. After discussing the subject the language was changed to read New
or remodeled structure may not exceed 110% of the current building footprint.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the Planning Commission fmdings and recommendation as
they had been modified with the change in the language to the medical/dental amendment. This
motion passed seven to zero.
Study Session—Draft Shoreline Master Plan,Formal Adoption Process:
Sr. Planner Lori Barlow gave the Commissioners an overview of the Shoreline Master Plan which is
now ready for formal adoption by the City. The City began its update in 2009, and now the various
components have been complied into the Shoreline Master Plan itself and its appropriate appendices.
The Shoreline Master Plan Contains:
• The Goals and Policies
• The Environmental Designations
• The Development Regulations
• The Critical Areas Regulations
Along with the appendices
o Public Participation Plan
o Shoreline Inventory
o Shoreline Public Access Plan
o Restoration Plan
o Cumulative Impacts Analysis
o No Net Loss Report
The draft Plan will ready for a public hearing on October 9, 2014. After the public hearing, the
Commission will send a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will go through its
adoption process and then forward the Plan to the Dept. of Ecology (DOE). The DOE will begin its
own adoption process. This process will include a review, it could hold its own public hearing, and
then either adopt the Plan or send it back to the City requesting changes to the Plan
Ms. Barlow said the Plan had already been forwarded to the Technical Review Committee. The
Commissioners asked if staff expected any comments at the public hearing. Ms. Barlow said that at
this point she did not expect any comments which had not already have been heard and addressed,but
09-25-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
that the issue of how the City is addressing the docks at Coyote Rock would be one which would
likely come up again.
Commissioners noted the copies they had had some numbering issues which were not completely in
line with the Table of Contents. Ms. Barlow explained staff were still reviewing the documents for
consistency, common language,numbering, etc. since some of the items had not been looked at since
they were first approved by Council resolution. Some of the documents were approved 2009/2010
and differing terms were used in the documents. The task to bring them all together and make them
consistent had not been completed yet. The goal is to have the document polished and refined prior to
sending it on to the City Council for review, but it would not likely happen prior to the public
hearing.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Ms. Horton asked the Commissioners to return their Comprehensive Plan
notebooks to the City for an updated version.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m.
Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
09-25-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: October 9, 2014
Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑ unfinished business ❑ new business ® public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shoreline Master Program Update — Public Hearing — Draft Shoreline Master
Program
BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update team has completed the Draft
Shoreline Master Program. The document concludes the City's Update process and introduces the SMP in
its complete draft form. The document has been developed in phases with each phase previously
reviewed by the public, technical advisory group, Planning Commission and City Council. At this time the
Draft will begin the formal public review process.
The document has been routed to the Technical Advisory Group, and notice of the public hearing placed in
the Spokane Valley News Herald. The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing to take
testimony on the SMP. At this time no written comments have been received. Any comments received
subsequent to this report will be forwarded to the Commission for consideration. The Commission may
begin deliberations on the SMP following the closure of the public hearing. Attorney Tadas Kisielius will be
present to assist with the process.
The Draft SMP was provided for your review previously, with the exception of the Cumulative Impacts
Analysis (CIA). The CIA Report was being modified to reflect the final changes associated with the
Development Regulations. Noah Herrlocher, Senior Biologist with URS, has completed the update and has
submitted the final draft CIA. This document is provided at this time and should be added to the Draft SMP
previously provided. Your final document will be provided once deliberations are complete, and prior to
forwarding to Council. Please bear in mind, that while formatting, references, and other inconsistencies
will be corrected as appropriate - no substantive changes will occur.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Numerous discussions regarding SMP Update.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 define the process for approval of an SMP and require
that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: The Planning Commission should conduct the public hearing and
take testimony on the draft Shoreline Master Program. Deliberations may begin subsequent to closing the
public hearing.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACH MENTS:
Draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis (Note: Please add this document to the Draft SMP previously provided at the
September 25, 2014 meeting)
1 of 1
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
(REVISED DRAFT)
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program Update
September 26, 2014
OMR
Prepared for:
City of Spokane Valley
Community Development Department
Spokane Valley City Hall
11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
Prepared by:
URS Corporation
111 S.W. Columbia, Suite 1500
Portland, Oregon 97201-5814
URS Project Number 36298174
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Updates to Initial Draft 1
Section 2 Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions 2
2.1 Natural Processes and Shoreline Functions 3
2.2 External Factors Affecting Shorelines 3
2.3 Internal Factors Affecting Shorelines 4
2.4 Summary of Ecological Functions at Risk 4
Section 3 Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses 6
3.1 Review of Past and Current Shoreline Developments 6
3.1.1 Past Shoreline Uses 6
3.1.2 Current Shoreline Uses 7
3.2 Expectations of Growth 7
3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Uses 7
Section 4 Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities 11
4.1 Protective Provisions of Proposed SMP 11
4.1.1 Shoreline Environmental Designations 11
4.1.2 Buffers and Setbacks 14
4.1.3 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Measures 14
4.1.4 Shoreline Hardening Restrictions 15
4.1.5 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing Standards 16
4.1.6 Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations 17
4.1.7 Additional Approval Criteria for Specific Modifications 17
4.2 State and Federal Regulatory Protections 18
4.3 Spokane Valley Boating Restrictions 19
4.4 Other Activities that May Protect or Restore Shoreline Functions 19
Section 5 Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation 21
Section 6 References 33
Tables
Table 2-1: Summary of Local Shoreline Ecological Functions 3
Table 2-2: Summary of Potential Impairments to Shoreline Ecological Functions 5
Table 3-1: Summary of Shoreline Permits since Incorporation 6
Table 3-2: Summary of Zoning Categories within SMP Jurisdiction 7
Table 3-3: Anticipated Development by Zoning Designation 8
Table 4-1: Shoreline Development Allowances by Environmental Designation 12
Table 5-1: Findings 23
Figures
Figure 1: Spokane River Segments 9
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26,2014 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 2: Shoreline Environmental Designations 31
Figure 3: Shoreline Buffers 32
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26,2014 11
SECTION ONE Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Guidelines under Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 173-26-186(8)(d) state that, "To ensure no net loss of ecological functions and
protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain policies,
programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the
burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities". Cumulative
impacts are not specifically defined in the SMA; however, they generally describe the impact of
an action or project in conjunction with other similar,reasonable foreseeable actions.
This Cumulative Impacts Analysis is intended to develop a model of cumulative impacts on
shoreline ecological functions within the City of Spokane Valley (City). The intent of this
analysis is to ensure that shoreline environmental designations and proposed Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) regulations will be protective of shoreline functions even when considering
incremental actions that cumulatively have the potential to negatively impact those functions.
Per the SMA Guidelines, the evaluation of such cumulative impacts should consider:
(i) Current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes;
(ii) Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline; and
(iii) Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state,
and federal laws.
Findings of this model may result in modifications to the draft SMP regulations if it is
determined that cumulative impacts could result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions
over time. If such changes are made to the SMP regulations as a result of this report, a brief
addendum will be prepared for this report that documents those changes and updates the model
results accordingly.
The results of this analysis are based on a variety of inputs filtered through the draft
environmental designations and their applicable level of land use restrictions. The inputs
include anticipated growth, development estimates, and existing shoreline functions with
particular emphasis on those that are most at risk. These are then analyzed based on the
proposed protections in the updated SMP, other regulatory protections, and estimates of non-
regulatory shoreline restoration.
1.2 Updates to Initial Draft
Since the first Cumulative Impacts Analysis (CIA) report was drafted in 2013, the draft
shoreline regulations have been amended to reflect input from the Spokane Valley Planning
Commission, public comments, and the findings of the draft CIA report. As a result, this report
includes an updated description of the shoreline regulations, including a new section for
additional approval criteria found in the current draft of the shoreline regulations (see 4.1.7
below). Also, the findings of this report have been updated to reflect changes to the estimated
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 1
SECTION ONE Introduction
cumulative affects based on the updated regulations. Note that references to sections of the
current draft of the shoreline regulations refer to the document dated September 9, 2014.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 2
SECTIONTWO Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions
2.1 Natural Processes and Shoreline Functions
As described in the shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010), the shoreline
zone within the City provides several ecological functions that the SMA seeks to protect.
Influenced by watershed processes, such as erosion and deposition, the hydrologic cycle, and
nutrient transport and uptake, these functions provide ecological services that are less available
outside of the shoreline zone. Shoreline functions are often separated into three general
functional categories for ease of assessment and description. These functional categories
include habitat functions, water quantity (hydraulic) functions, and water quality functions.
Table 2-1 provides an overview of commonly assessed shoreline functions provided by the
Spokane River and Shelley Lake (including associated wetlands).
Table 2-1: Summary of Local Shoreline Ecological Functions
Habitat functions Hydrologic functions Water quality functions
• Aquatic habitat for • Flow attenuation/ • Nutrient cycling
invertebrates,native fish, regulation • Sediment filtering and
and amphibians • Water storage stabilization
• Terrestrial(riparian) • Base flow support • Cover for contaminated
habitat for mammals, • Transport of water and aquatic sediment
birds,invertebrates materials,including wood • Shade/thermoregulation
• Support for native • Creation and maintenance • Aquifer recharge
biodiversity of in-stream habitat • Toxicant removal
• Production of organic complexity(pools,riffles,
material gravel bars,etc.)
• Creation of conditions for
breeding and
nesting/rearing
2.2 External Processes Affecting Shorelines
There are several processes affecting shoreline ecological functions within the City that are
beyond the City's ability to control. Habitat functions are affected by the spread of invasive
weeds along the shoreline zone by wind, foot traffic, water flow, animal droppings, and other
means. Aquatic habitat is affected by hydroelectric project management, which controls the
amount of water flow moving through the City. During periods of low flow, temperatures rise
and dissolved oxygen, which fish require, decreases. Water quality is affected by upstream
agricultural runoff, urban runoff, limited erosion, temperature, and 303(d) contaminants
associated with historical and current industry upriver. Water quantity/hydrologic functions are
highly affected by upstream and downstream hydroelectric dams; natural aquifer inputs and
recharge locations; and, to a lesser extent, upstream agricultural diversions.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26. 2014 3
SECTIONTWO Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions
2.3 Internal Factors Affecting Shorelines
Within the City, several land use activities and natural processes affect shoreline ecological
functions. Unlike the external processes listed in Section 2.2, many of these land use activities
and processes can be controlled by the City, in coordination with the Washington Parks and
Recreation Commission (State Parks), through a combination of regulations and land
management activities.
Within the City, habitat, water quality, and hydrologic functions are primarily affected by
development, recreation, industry, and vegetation management. Riparian habitats are affected
by unmitigated land clearing and development, after which they can become especially
susceptible to invasive plant species establishment and erosion, which lowers the riparian
habitat value for most species. Riparian areas are also be affected by recreational uses, including
foot traffic, fire, and litter as well as natural processes like infrequent flooding and slope failure.
Water quality within the City is largely affected by external processes but degradation can be
exacerbated by erosion from concentrated surface runoff, contamination from localized
discharge of untreated stormwater, motorboat pollution, and general aquifer contamination
throughout the City. Erosion from runoff into the river and lake also affects water quality and
aquatic habitat. Too much runoff can result in turbid water, which is harmful for fish.
Water quantity/flow management within the river and lake is primarily affected by external
factors but impervious development has the potential to increase "flashy" flows and decrease
summer base flows through rapid discharge of stormwater that would otherwise infiltrate and
recharge the aquifer over a longer period.
2.4 Summary of Ecological Functions at Risk
Much of the City's shoreline jurisdiction along the Spokane River is managed by State Parks, as
part of the Riverside State Park. As a result, river shoreline functions are largely protected from
development within the City relative to other cities. However, recreational uses are common,
encouraged by the SMA, and provided for by the Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT) and
various public parks along the shoreline. Heavy recreational use has the potential to degrade
shoreline functions as noted in Section 2.3 above. In addition, shoreline areas above the State
Park lands and adjacent areas outside of the SMP jurisdiction, particularly on the south side of
the river, have the potential for development and or redevelopment/infill based upon the land
use analysis in Section 6 of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010).
The majority of Shelley Lake is currently developed, making the potential for incremental
current and future shoreline development impacts low around the lake. Table 2-2 below
provides a list of potential impairments to shoreline ecological functions based on conditions
within the City.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 4
SECTIONTWO Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions
Table 2-2: Summary of Potential Impairments to Shoreline Ecological Functions
Habitat functions Water quantity functions Water quality functions
• Loss of riparian cover from • Lower stream flow due to • Increased turbidity due to
development and recreation increased aquifer use erosion from foot traffic,
• Degraded habitat functions from • Increased short-term flow construction
spread of noxious weeds velocity after rain events • Degraded water quality
• Degraded fish habitat due to due to increased impervious due to increased
turbidity from erosion/sediment area/runoff contamination/nutrient
loading • Lower summer base flow loading from vehicles,
• Degraded aquatic habitat due to support due to lack of lawn chemicals,pet waste,
untreated stormwater runoff infiltration associated with etc.
• Degraded wildlife habitat due to new impervious • Warmer water
edge effects(noise,light, development temperatures due to loss of
human/pet presence)from new riparian cover
development
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 5
SECTION THREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses
This section discusses the estimated developments and other uses that are reasonably expected
within the shoreline zone over a 20-year period.
3.1 Review of Past and Current Shoreline Developments
3.1.1 Past Shoreline Uses
In an effort to understand past shoreline impacts for the purpose of determining cumulative
impacts of shoreline development, the preceding 9 years of shoreline permits issued within the
City was researched, reviewed, and summarized. Table 3-1 provides a snapshot of shoreline
development over the past 8 years since the city incorporated in 2003. When combined with
estimates of growth, as described in Section 3.2, this provides a reasonable tool for estimating
future growth as well.
Table 3-1: Summary of Shoreline Permits since Incorporation
Development Type COSV Permit Type
No.
Year In-water Grading/ Upland Pathway Subst. Cond. Permits
Dock Exempt Var.
Fill Utilities Structure w/Reveg. Devel. Use
2004 2 2 2 2 2
2005 0
2006 1 1 1
2007 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 7
2008 0
2009 0
2010 2 1 2 1 1 2
2011 4 4 1 6 3 9
2012 1 2 1 1 3 4
Avg./yr. 0.67 0.22 11.0 11.22 0.44 1.22 11.56 10.00 10.00 12.78
Although the short period of time since incorporation makes the City's permit history short for
the purposes of prediction, there are certain trends that are clear, even with the large standard
deviation between values year to year. Based on Table 3-1, upland structures appear to be the
most common type of development requiring a shoreline permit. They are also the type of
development most likely to require a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit under the
existing SMP. Docks are allowed as an exempt shoreline development at a rate of less than one
per year, which indicates that, unless regulated differently by the SMP update, several more
docks are likely over the future SMP planning period of 20 years within areas zoned for
residential uses. The table also indicates that infrequent in-water fill occurs, generally associated
with bank stabilization following a flood. Both in-water fill projects were allowed as an
exemption. Under the current SMP, conditional uses and variances have never been used to
permit a shoreline development.
COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26. 2014 6
SECTION THREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses
3.1.2 Current Shoreline Uses
Within the City, there are approximately 511 acres under the jurisdiction of the SMA. This
accounts for approximately 3 percent of the 24,464 acres within City limits. Per Table 3-2,
below, the majority of the shoreline zone is held in parks/open space. This is followed by
Industrial zoning, which is associated with the gravel pits and Kaiser Aluminum. Low-density
residential zoning is the third-largest shoreline zone. A combination of other zoning categories,
including Mixed Use, Commercial, and Public ROW account for less than 10 percent of the
shoreline zone, combined. Shoreline areas lacking a zoning designation include 287.46 acres of
open water and 20 acres of public right-of-way.
Table 3-2: Summary of Zoning Categories within SMP Jurisdiction
Zoning Category Acreage °!o
Parks/Open Space 201 42.4
Industrial 153 32.3
Low Density
Residential 76 16.0
Mixed Use 29 6.1
Railroad ROW 8 1.7
Commercial 7 1.5
The Spokane River currently receives moderate to high in-water recreational use due to the
hydraulics of the Spokane River, which provide prized floating conditions for non-motorized
boats, rafts, and kayaks. Due to an abundance of public park land and access provided by the
SRCT and parking at Mirabeau Park, the southern shoreland areas receive a good deal of
recreational use, primarily by bicyclists and pedestrians. The northern shoreland areas receive
moderate hiking and angling uses at specific, publicly accessible areas, particularly around
Sullivan Park.
3.2 Expectations of Growth
Per the Shoreline Use Analysis in Section 6 of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
Report, the City expects an annual growth rate of approximately 1.5 percent. Developable lands
that are currently listed as "vacant" in the City Assessor's tax parcel database were quantified
for the City by Planning Department staff in 2009 to update their comprehensive plan. Based
on this effort, it was determined that there are currently 48.95 acres of developable land
categorized as "Vacant"within the City's shoreline zones.
3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Uses
In general, shoreline areas with development potential are limited to dispersed fragments of
parcels with industrial, residential, or mixed use zoning designations. Many of these lack
adequate access, utilities, or are otherwise constrained in a manner that limits development
URSI COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26,2014 7
SECTION THREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses
potential (such as by utility or railroad easements). The majority of areas under SMA
jurisdiction within the City are either not developable (e.g., park land) or have already been
developed. Some minor redevelopment and infill are expected within residential shoreland
areas, particularly within River Segment (SR)-1 (Figure 1); however, this would be restricted
from infringing upon park lands and, as such, would have little direct effect on the current state
of shoreline ecosystem functions.
Planners often estimate a region's ability to support additional growth by quantifying
developable lands that are currently listed as "vacant"in the City Assessor's tax parcel database.
Such a land quantity analysis (LQA) was conducted by the City of Spokane Valley Planning
Department staff in 2009 to update their comprehensive plan. Using the LQA data, there are
currently 48.95 acres of land categorized as "Vacant" within the City's shoreline jurisdiction.
Table 3-3 provides a summary of anticipated development within currently vacant lands, which
fall into three zoning designations within SMP jurisdiction. This list is based upon
conversations with City planning staff, State Parks, and Avista Corporation, a utility company
with natural gas and electrical transmission within the SMP zone.
Table 3-3: Anticipated Development by Zoning Designation
Zoning Developable °
Designation Acreage in SMP �O Anticipated Development River Segment
Coyote Rocks Residential SR-3
Development
Trailside Residential SR-3
Development
Likely short plat applications SR-1, SR-2
Residential 4.15 8 that will break large lots into
smaller lots for development(not
specific—estimated based on past
development trends)
Residential redevelopment(not SR-1, SR-2, SR-
specific—estimated based on past 4, Shelley Lake
development trends)
Flora Road gravel pit will SR-2
Heavy Industrial 16.72 34 eventually transition into other
land uses
Pinecroft business and SR-2
commercial area
Mixed Use Center 28.08 57
Centennial Properties mixed use SR-2
development
'Refer to Figure 1 below for river segment reference.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26,2014 8
SECTION THREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses
In addition to the private and commercial developments noted in Table 3-3, there are public
developments that are likely to occur, which are not specific to one zoning designation. The
City Parks Plan is currently being updated. The update is in the early stages but future
improvements at Sullivan or Mirabeau Park may include shoreline developments associated
with improved access, as per the Public Access Plan (URS 2012). State Parks has no plans for
park improvements within the foreseeable future. However, they would like to see the riprap
revetment in SR-1 improved to provide enhanced visual benefits and ecological functions.
r Legend
a City Limits
Spokane River Study Segment Boundary
®SMA Boundary
Centennial Trail
Segment 4
Segment-3 , - _
Z
-
on,o0,0 - \I. ,1 M Segment 1
'-' Kaiser -.
Alumirtu t; ,
Millwood Mirabeau 4
,1 -
•
Sullivan
_ - Park Park
, YS Segment,2
1}r "-I'_ - - 'ire 447(11 I1
Spokane '
N Figure 1:Spokane River Segments
- �
City of Spokane Valley
: . _- .. _ s ITS
0 05 1 Miles URS
Also, the City intends to replace the aging Sullivan Bridge. The bridge replacement will be
similar in scale to the Barker Road Bridge Replacement. Access improvements in conjunction
with the Sullivan Bridge Project are expected, including an improved pathway to the water.
Additionally, Avista conducts maintenance projects and upgrade projects routinely. These
include access road maintenance and repair, periodic pole replacement, tower upgrades, and
buried natural gas line maintenance,repair, and replacement.
Lastly, the Barker South metals cleanup site is expected to occur in the near future. This
cleanup site was planned for 2012, but delays in the Barker Road Bridge project made the
associated river access restrictions that would be associated with the cleanup activity
unfavorable to the public. As a result, the cleanup activity is currently being re-evaluated.
Much of the effect on Spokane River's shorelines is expected to come from increased
recreation. Due to the presence of the SRCT and widespread public park land throughout the
river corridor, increased populations within the region have direct access to the majority of the
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26,2014 9
SECTION THREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses
river's shorelines through the City, particularly along the southern shoreline due to the SRCT.
Future recreational use may increase with the establishment of the proposed Spokane River
Water Trail, which is being discussed by members of the local Spokane River Forum. As
currently envisioned, the Water Trail would formalize and provide improved direct river access
at many of the existing access points identified in the Inventory and Characterization Report
(URS 2010).
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26. 2014 10
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
4.1 Protective Provisions of Proposed SMP
Based upon the actions described in Section 3 above, certain shoreline uses appear to have the
greatest potential to result in losses of ecological shoreline functions due to incremental actions
over time. These uses are analyzed by shoreline environmental designation (SED) in Table 4-1,
below, to determine whether they would be allowed outright through an exemption, allowed with
a shoreline substantial development application, potentially allowed as a conditional use, or
outright prohibited. In addition to the general allowances and prohibitions associated with each
SED, there are several additional shoreline regulations that further protect shoreline
environmental functions. These are described in Sections 4.1.2 through 4.1.6. Following this,
Section 4.2 describes other state and federal regulatory programs that function to protect
shoreline ecological functions. Lastly, Section 4.3 describes other activities that are expected to
enhance shoreline ecological functions and, as such, should be considered together with
potentially detrimental anticipated development and recreation effects to assess the potential for
a net loss or gain of shoreline ecological functions.
4.1.1 Shoreline Environmental Designations
The SMP currently includes five SEDs. Based on data gathered during the shoreline inventory,
shoreline areas with similar characteristics are assigned a common SED that reflects unique land
management goals and policies that are appropriate for the area. The SED is used during the
shoreline planning review process as a zoning overlay, which provides additional land use
approval considerations above those associated with the underlying zoning category.
The five SED categories are Urban-Conservancy-High Quality (UC-HQ), Urban Conservancy
(UC), Shoreline Residential—Waterfront (SR-W), Shoreline Residential-Upland (SR-U), and
Aquatic (AQ). The AQ SED applies to those areas below the ordinary high water mark for
Waters of the State. Most of the Spokane River shoreline is designated as UC, including State
Park lands. The UC designation allows for conservation of near-shore habitat while allowing
limited commercial and mixed use development within the outer portion of the SMP jurisdiction.
Areas specifically identified as proposed conservation areas in the 2010 inventory were
designated as UC-HQ. The AQ and UC-HQ designations allow for the least amount of habitat
alteration and generally focus on preservation and management of existing, high-quality riparian
and aquatic habitat. There are two Shoreline Residential designations. Each was developed to
provide a means for allowing appropriate residential uses with regard to the proximity of the
residential area to the waterline. For areas directly adjacent to the water, the SR-W designation
addresses land uses along the water line that are not applicable to upland residential areas (SR-
U). Further descriptions of each SED are provided in City Resolution 12-007, which was passed
on November 13, 2012.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26. 2014 11
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
Table 4-1: Shoreline Development Allowances by Environmental Designation
i
Shoreline Development I I >, >,
U U
with Potential to Degrade �a �3 -w c c
Shoreline Ecological
c c c o Notes
i i i U
Functions "0 c -0 ' w' w a
w re n Tiu c m O m OO 2 <
Agriculture X X X X X
Aquaculture X X X X X
Boating Facilities N/A P C X P/C/X See note below.'
Commercial Development
Water-dependent X P P X C Commercial uses are allowed in the
Shoreline Residential and Urban
Water-related and p p p X C Conservancy Environments only if
water-enjoyment the underlying zoning of the property
Non water-oriented X X P X X is"Mixed Use Center."
Non water-oriented uses only
allowed if part of a mixed-use project
Industrial Uses that includes water—dependent uses
and development is separated from
X X P X X river by intervening parcel or ROW.
In-stream Development
Fish Habitat Habitat enhancement encouraged.
Enhancement N/A P P P P
Dredging and Fill C C C X P/C/X See note below.'
Other uses(flood
protections,groins, N/A C C X C
weirs)
Piers and Docks P P P X P/C/X See note below.'
Mining X X X X X No new gravel mines will be allowed
in the SMP zone.
Parking as a primary use prohibited
in all SEDs.Accessory parking for
Parking Facilities P P P C X mixed use/residential/recreational
developments permitted in most non-
aquatic areas.
Public Facilities and Utilities
Public facilities Includes bridge repairs,park
C C C X C improvements.
Utilities C C C C C
Routine maintenance of A A A P A A Letter of Exemption is required if
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26,2014 12
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
Shoreline Development I I >, >,
c) oZ
with Potential to Degrade �a �a +. c c
Shoreline Ecological
c c c o c as ca Notes
L L L V
Functions v-0 aa w a y a
ce 72.
re 0 0-
UUnu n 0 2 <
existing infrastructure the maintenance activity involves
any ground disturbing activity;
always required in UC-HQ.
Recreational Development
Water-dependent/related P P P P P No recreational development is
Non-water-oriented P P P C C prohibited outright and none is
Trails and walkways P P P C P exempted outright.
Residential Development/Redevelopment
Single-family,including Residential structures are subject to
accessory uses and A A A A X underlying zoning requirements only
structures outside of Aquatic SED.
Multi-family P P P X X
Private docks servingN/A P P P X Private docks serving 4+residences
one to three residences covered through"boating facilities."
Accessory Dwelling P P P P X Includes small exterior apartments.
Units
Shoreline Habitat Enhancements that do not modify the
Enhancements P P P P P shoreline dimensions(e.g.,plantings)
(Modifications) may be allowed.
In UC-HQ structural modifications
Shoreline/Slope are prohibited but non-structural
X P P P/X P/C/X
Stabilization activities such as soil bioengineering
are permitted. See note below.'
Transportation Facilities
New circulation routes
related to permitted P P C C X
shoreline activities
Expansion of existing All new transportation projects will
P P P P X require permits or letters of
circulation systems
New,reconstructed,or exemption.
maintenance of bridges, P P P P P
trail,or rail crossings
KEY: A=Allowed/Exempt. P=Permitted. C=Conditional Use. X=Prohibited. N/A=Not Applicable.
'Note: For these uses within the Aquatic Environment,the adjacent upland environment per the City of Spokane
Valley Environment Designation Map shall govern.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 13
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
4.1.2 Buffers and Setbacks
Shoreline buffers and building setbacks protect the shoreline environment by limiting
development and use within a reasonable distance from the water edge and associated sensitive
shoreline habitats, ensuring no further degradation of the existing shoreline environment.
Shoreline buffers generally follow the vegetation conservation boundary identified in the
shoreline inventory and can be seen on Figure 3 (page 32). Buffers occupy the majority of the
shorelands. Buffer reductions in all SEDs may be granted by Shoreline Variance Permit;
however, sites which have had buffer widths reduced or modified by any prior action are not
eligible for buffer reduction.
Development setbacks from the outer edge of the buffer are required within Urban Conservancy
(10-foot) and Urban Conservancy-High Quality (15-foot) SEDs. In residential SEDs, 15-foot
setbacks are required for new subdivisions, binding site plans, and planned residential
developments, but no setbacks are proposed for individual private developments. The existing
Spokane Valley Zoning Code (SMC 19.40) requires a 20-foot setback from the property line.
For most properties in the Residential Upland SED, this zoning setback provides a full 20-foot
setback from the shoreline buffer. There are ten residential lots, only one of which is currently
vacant, where the zoning setback would allow development along the edge of the shoreline
buffer. The developable portion of parcels in the Residential-Waterfront SED are very narrow as
approved under the current SMP. To protect use of these properties, buffer setbacks are not
currently proposed in this SED.
The SMP allows the following developments within the building setback area when accessory to
a primary structure:
• Landscaping
• Uncovered decks or patios
• Paths, walkways, or stairs
• Building overhangs, if not extending more than 18 inches into the setback area
4.1.3 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Measures
The Inventory and Characterization Report identifies the loss of riparian cover from development
and recreation as a threat to shoreline habitat function (URS 2010). Shoreline vegetation plays a
number of functional roles by providing bank stability, habitat and wildlife corridors, shade and
cover, and wood and organic debris recruitment. Vegetation conservation measures ensure that
vegetation within the shoreline jurisdiction is protected and/or restored when damaged or
removed by development activities. Vegetation conservation also improves the aesthetic
qualities of the shoreline.
The proposed SMP requires vegetation conservation measures for all projects proposing
vegetation removal within the shoreline jurisdiction. For new development, expansion, or
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26,2014 14
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
redevelopment, all clearing and grading activities must also comply with Spokane Valley Code
Chapter 24.50 (Land Disturbing Activities). A vegetation management plan, describing the
vegetative conditions of the site and summarizing functions provided by existing vegetation, is
required for all projects that propose removal of mature native trees or >10 square feet of native
shrubs or herbaceous vegetation. Mitigation, in the form of native vegetation replacement, may
be required. If the proposed vegetation removal is within the shoreline buffer area, the applicant
will also need to demonstrate that the removal is consistent with No Net Loss standards and
mitigation sequencing standards. The City may also require a performance surety as a condition
of shoreline permit approval to ensure compliance with the SMP.
Exceptions to proposed shoreline conservation measures include activities related to maintenance
of existing yards or gardens, noxious weed removal, and dead or hazardous tree removal.
Pruning and thinning of trees for maintenance, safety, forest health, and view protection are also
exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Permit, if a letter of exemption is issued, and
if conducted on/or within the following areas:
• Public land
• Utility corridors
• Private residential land buffer areas
Pruning and thinning for view maintenance on public and private lands are subject to conditions
to ensure that pruning activities are conducted in a way that ensures the continued health and
vigor of shoreline vegetation.
Adherence with the Shoreline Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) regarding the application of
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals is required for all vegetation removal
activities.
4.1.4 Shoreline Hardening Restrictions
Bulkheads and other hard shoreline stabilization structures can disrupt natural shoreline
processes and destroy shoreline habitats. The proposed SMP encourages the use of nonstructural
methods (e.g., building setbacks, relocation of the threatened structure, soil bioengineering with
vegetation, groundwater management, and planning and regulatory measures to avoid the need
for structural stabilization) instead of shoreline hardening measures. New structural stabilization
methods require a Shoreline Conditional Permit and will be permitted only under the following
conditions:
• Evidence shows that an existing primary structure is in danger from shoreline
erosion caused by wave action and river currents.
• Nonstructural measures are not feasible or not sufficient.
• An engineering or scientific analysis shows that damage is caused by natural
processes.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26. 2014 15
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
• Structural stabilization will incorporate native vegetation and comply with the
mitigation sequencing in Section 4.1.5.
The SMP also includes provisions allowing for repair, maintenance, and replacement of existing
shoreline stabilization structures, so long as the location and footprint of the replacement
structure remain similar.
New or replaced shoreline stabilization structures must comply with the requirements of the
Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 24.50 (Land Disturbing Activities) and with Section
4.1.3 (Shoreline Vegetation Conservation), and require the submittal of design plans, a design
narrative, and engineering or scientific reports prepared by a qualified professional.
4.1.5 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing Standards
To achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, applicants proposing shoreline
modifications or developments must demonstrate that the proposed project meets the City's No
Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing standards (21.50.210). These standards require the
applicant to first seek opportunities to avoid impacts to sensitive shoreline areas, including the
Riparian Habitat Area and shoreline CAOs. Where impacts cannot be avoided, they must be
minimized to the extent practicable and remaining impacts must be mitigated. Mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to sensitive shoreline areas typically includes shoreline restoration.
Mitigation measures will be applied in the following order of priority:
i. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
ii. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to
avoid or reduce impacts;
iii. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
iv. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations;
v. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments; and
vi. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate
corrective measures.
Mitigation sequencing is required for all proposed shoreline uses and development, including
uses that are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26. 2014 16
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
4.1.6 Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations
The City's shoreline CAO provides regulations for development within critical areas located
within SMP jurisdiction. Designated critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction include
wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, and critical
aquifer recharge areas. Development is generally restricted from occurring within a critical area
without a site-specific analysis of potential impacts to the critical area and proposed mitigation.
Regulation of critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction will be administered as part of the
CAO guidelines that are being developed specifically for the SMP update. All use, modification,
or development proposed within the shoreline jurisdiction must comply with the CAO.
4.1.7 Additional Approval Criteria for Specific Modifications
The initial cumulative analysis found that losses of shoreline ecological functions were possible
based on the fact that docks and associated shoreline developments had the potential to
cumulatively degrade ecological functions over time. Some of the public comments voiced
similar concerns over the effects of docks on aquatic habitat and flow characteristics. To address
the potential for cumulative degradation of shoreline ecological functions, aesthetics, and shared
use of the river, the Planning Commission advised City planning staff to craft regulations that
would require additional approval criteria for specific shoreline modifications, including docks.
Their intent was to allow private property uses so long as an applicant could demonstrate that
their proposed development would not result in a loss of ecological functions.
As a result, the City has updated their shoreline regulations to require additional approval criteria
for specific shoreline modifications. Under 21.50.410 of the draft City shoreline regulations,
additional approval criteria are required for the following activities: shoreline stabilization
projects; piers and docks; dredging and fill; and shoreline habitat and natural systems
enhancement projects. Prior to receiving approval from the City, applicants seeking to modify
shorelines in one of these ways will be required to submit a:
a. Site suitability analysis that justifies the project on fish and wildlife habitat and migration
areas.
b. Habitat Management Plan prepared by a Qualified Professional that describes:
i. 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:
i. The stability of the structure for the required design frequency;
ii. Changes in base flood elevation, floodplain width, and flow velocity;
iii. The potential for blocking or redirecting the flow which could lead to erosion of
other shoreline properties or create an adverse impact to shoreline resources and
uses;
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26. 2014 17
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
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.
Under Section 21.50.430, there are additional added approval criteria specific to piers and docks.
For applicants seeking to develop piers and docks on the Spokane River east of the City of
Millwood, these additional approval criteria require the following:
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.
Also, per 21.50.430(B)(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.
4.2 State and Federal Regulatory Protections
Federal and state regulations also provide mechanisms that aim to avoid adverse impacts to
shoreline ecological functions. In addition to local regulations, several state and federal agencies
have regulatory authority over resources within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. These
regulations help manage potential cumulative impacts to shorelines. The following state and
federal regulations may apply to activities and uses within the City's shoreline jurisdiction to
avoid impacts.
• Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit: Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for authorizing fill activities.
• Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit: Applicants receiving a Section 404 permit from the
Corps are required to obtain a Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) permit from
Ecology. Water quality certification helps protect water quality by providing the state
with the opportunity to evaluate aquatic impacts from federally permitted projects.
• Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA): All projects with the potential to directly or
indirectly affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA are subject to
the review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries).
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 18
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
• National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): The Flood Insurance and Mitigation
Administration (FIMA) administers NFIP, which provides flood insurance, floodplain
management, and flood hazard mapping. Participants in the NFIP adopt and enforce
floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage.
• State Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA): Any work that will use, divert, obstruct, or
change the natural flow or bed of any of the salt or fresh waters of the state requires a
HPA permit from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Project
applicants must show that construction will not adversely affect fish, shellfish, and their
habitats.
• Washington State Water Pollution Control Act(WPCA): The WPCA prohibits the
discharge of pollutants into any water of the state. Any discharge of pollutants from point
sources to surface waters of the state requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).
• Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: Planning projects at Washington
State Parks require completion of the Classification and Management Plan (CAMP)
process. The process reflects the standards set out in the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and information collected through the planning effort is used to satisfy SEPA
requirements.
4.3 Spokane Valley Boating Restrictions
SVMC 7.25 describes the City's Water Safety Regulations, which are enforced by the Spokane
County Sherriff's Department. Under section 7.25.040(B), power boat traffic is limited to a no-
wake speed (5 miles per hour) within 100 feet of either shoreline. The width of the river through
the City east of Millwood ranges between 220 feet and 300 feet. This gives it an average width
within the City limits of 260 feet, which allows only a narrow 60-foot-wide path for motor
boating above the no-wake speed in the City.
4.4 Other Activities that May Protect or Restore Shoreline Functions
As noted in Table 5-1, opportunities for the restoration of shoreline ecological functions have
been identified throughout the City's SMP jurisdiction. These restoration opportunities are
described in the City Shoreline Restoration Plan prepared for the SMP update (URS 2012b).
Implementation of these restoration projects is coordinated through the City but is dependent
upon volunteer interest or mitigation obligations associated with a shoreline permit application.
Local environmental advocacy groups periodically work on tree planting and weed removal
activities. Two such activities occurred over the last 2 years, including weed and trash removal
combined with tree planting at Mirabeau Park and a separate tree planting effort near Barker
Road Bridge. Based on this, volunteer restoration activities are reasonably foreseeable.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 19
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
Future developments requiring a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit are likely to require
mitigation if they involve habitat impacts that cannot be avoided. Where located near an
identified shoreline restoration opportunity, the City is expected to work with applicants to
include an identified restoration opportunity as part of the permit approval.
Other activities that are likely to protect or restore shoreline functions include ongoing weed
management activities carried out by State Parks and the City as part of their routine park
maintenance, which includes areas along the SRCT. Also, ongoing metals cleanup projects in
and upstream of the city will improve water quality functions.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26. 2014 20
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
As summarized in Table 5-1 below, this SMP is generally expected to maintain existing
shoreline net ecological functions through a combination of City regulations, state and federal
regulations, current land ownership, land uses, and anticipated ecological restoration activities.
The current shoreline regulations would closely review uses likely to have a detrimental impact
on ecological functions. They establish standards to ensure compensatory mitigation of impacts
to vegetation conservation areas, critical areas, and associated buffers, and they encourage
restoration activities. They require building setbacks where appropriate. Additionally, since the
first draft of this report was prepared, the City has included additional approval criteria for
shoreline uses/modifications that were determined to have the potential for cumulative impacts
that could degrade shoreline ecological functions, namely docks and associated access
developments in an area with a high potential for multiple individual new residential
developments.
Public comments and prior lawsuits have alleged that allowing for multiple docks between the
Centennial Trail Bridge and the city of Millwood have the potential to cumulatively affect native
redband trout and their habitat. While the current regulations still allow docks in the Shoreline
Residential-Waterfront SED, the potential is low for there to be numerous docks that would
cumulatively degrade net shoreline ecological functions. The potential for such cumulative
impacts is limited by the additional approval criteria. These additional criteria require that
applicants wishing to construct docks demonstrate site suitability,prepare a Habitat Management
Plan, and provide an engineering analysis report that evaluates the stability of the structure with
regard to the river conditions.
Additionally, specific to piers and docks, the site suitability report required for all shoreline
modifications must demonstrate that the river conditions in the proposed location of the dock,
including depth and flow conditions, will accommodate the proposed dock and its use; and that
any design to address river conditions will not interfere with or adversely affect navigability.
The Habitat Management Plan for any such docks must demonstrate that the proposed dock will
not result in a net loss of ecological functions. Approval criteria added to specifically limit the
potential for multiple docks is found in 21.50.430(B)(9). This regulation requires that new
residential development of two or more dwellings within the shoreline jurisdiction located east of
the City of Millwood and west of the Centennial Trail Pedestrian Bridge must provide joint use
or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allowing individual docks for each
residence.
What would enhance the intent of this "joint use" requirement is a means to ensure that
applicants consider this joint use of docks as part of their application process. It is recommended
that the regulations be slightly amended under 21.50.430 (B)(9) to include a provision that
applicants document their efforts coordinate with neighbors regarding joint use, and have
neighbors sign their applications to indicate interest in docks. If neighbors are interested then the
City can require the applicant to demonstrate joint or community use. If uninterested, the City
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 21
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
will have a clear record to limit future applications (and associated cumulative impacts). While it
is unclear that an applicant could demonstrate site suitability for even one dock, this additional
approval step would further "prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal
development" (RCW 90.58.020) of the shoreline in SR-3.
Concentrated losses to shoreline ecological functions from cumulative effects are anticipated to
be relatively small in area and limited to a small portion of the City's shoreline jurisdiction
where up to 31 new residential developments are anticipated between the Centennial Trail
Bridge and the City of Millwood. In contrast, the majority of the SMP jurisdiction is made up by
the Urban Conservancy SED, which appears likely to achieve a net increase in shoreline
functions over the planning period as a result of public interest in volunteering for shoreline
restoration projects, availability of shoreline restoration opportunities, and anticipated mitigation
activities associated with likely shoreline developments. As a result, the overall, or net, status of
shoreline ecological functions is expected to improve or at least remain at its current state within
the City.
As noted in Table 5-1, where ecological functions may be affected by foreseeable cumulative
impacts, recommendations for minimizing functional losses are provided that may help achieve
no change over the planning period. It should be noted that some of the factors that may degrade
shoreline ecological factors are largely beyond the scope of the SMP, including managed flows
on the river and increased recreational use of the State Parks.
URSCOSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26. 2014 22
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Table 5-1. Findings
Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to
Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended
Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions
Ecological Rating Enhancement years
Commercial and
industrial uses,
Native riparian forest/
significant vegetation
Habitat for terrestrial removal,prohibited.
wildlife, shade;bank No growth expected; Non-water-oriented Area located away from
Urban stabilization;native area recommended recreational recreation hot spots and Conserve/protect
for conservation None planned;
SR-1 Conservancy biodiversity;woody development requires no developments existing native
none needed
(HQ) material provision,base Ongoing shoreline conditional use planned. Result is No riparian functions
flow support erosion likely review.Requires loss.
Ecological Rating:Fair- setbacks from RHAs.
Good Mitigation
requirements apply to
any development.
Primarily State Park
land near shoreline/ Protects existing
Native riparian forest Increased water- vegetation and limits
habitat for terrestrial dependent uses floodplain
development. Riparian habitat
wildlife, shade;bank Minor soil,water, Vegetation restoration Encourage
Requires setbacks restoration/tree
Urban stabilization;native and vegetation should balance increased restoration
SR-1 from RHAs. Allows planting associated
Conservancy biodiversity;woody disturbance from foot traffic impacts to opportunities 30-
for restoration. with voluntary
material provision, increased off-trail result in no loss. 38
flood protection,base pedestrian traffic Mitigation efforts
flow support/ requirements apply to
most development in
Ecological Rating:Fair- this SED.
Good
COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 23
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to
Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended
Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions
Ecological Rating Enhancement years
Small amount of new Development may result
Single family residential Maintains buffers, in potential localized
residential development, limits development in minor loss due to
buffers,conserves increased runoff, Look for ways to
development,low to subdivisions and
vegetation,protects increased shoreline limit piecemeal
medium density,on redevelopment
Shoreline terrace above river/ expected/Increased
critical areas,imposes Riparian plantings, access,docks,and edge stormwater and
SR-1 Residential runoff from new building setbacks, slope stability/ effects. Functional losses habitat impacts.
Habitat for terrestrial provides public erosion control in are minimized by
(Upland) impervious, Restoration
wildlife,bank access. Underlying nearby UC SED. building setbacks,
vegetation alteration, opportunity 36
stabilization, shade/ zoning requires 20- vegetation conservation pp y
habitat loss,edge (-0.06 acre)
Ecological Rating:Fair- effects on wildlife foot development and buffer standards,use
Good (light and noise setback from property restrictions, mitigation,
lines. and possible restoration
impacts)
activities
Native riparian forest or
shrub areas with high Expected increase in Commercial and
biological diversity, recreational use as industrial uses, Most areas located
mature vegetation,or population increases significant vegetation within a RHA and access Conserve/protect
uncommon species and access removal,prohibited. improvements designed existing forest
assemblages/ improvements Non-water-oriented
p to direct recreation use areas;Place new
Urban recreational
Habitat for terrestrial facilitate greater use/ outside of HQ areas. park develop-
SR-2 Conservancy development requires None planned
wildlife, shade;bank Potential for Restoration activities menu in other
(HQ) conditional use
stabilization;native increased noxiouselsewhere assumed to SEDs;Restoration
review.Requires
biodiversity;woody weeds,fire, setbacks from buffers.
balance minor effects of opportunity 29
material provision,base vegetation Mitigation increased recreation (0.3 acre)
flow support/ disturbance from footresulting in no loss.
requirements apply to
Ecological Rating:Fair- traffic. any development.
Good
COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 24
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to
Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended
Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions
Ecological Rating Enhancement years
Increased recreational
uses and new
Primarily State Parkcommercial and SMP protects existing
land near shoreline with mixed-use vegetation and limits
limited mixed-use, development south of floodplain
commercial,and State Park lands/ development.
industrial areas at outer Requires setbacks Mitigation standards
edge of SMP zone/ Minor soil,water, from buffers.For large Riparian habitat should limit loss of
and vegetation developments, restoration/tree functions and large area
Native riparian forest disturbance from requires Habitat planting associated of potential vegetation Restoration
Urban habitat for increased off-trail with voluntaryopportunities 8-
SR-2 Conservancy terrestrial/aquatic Management Plan and restoration should 24,26-28(-27.6
pedestrian traffic; mitigation for habitat efforts increase shoreline
wildlife, shade;bank increased runoff from acres)
stabilization;native impacts.Dimensional Ongoing noxious functions to result in no
new impervious standards limit size of weed control net loss; potential net
biodiversity;woody areas;minor increase new developments. increase.
material provision, in edge effects on City code and NPDES
flood protection/ wildlife(light and requires stormwater
Ecological Rating:Fair- noise impacts) treatment for all new
Good development
COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 25
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to
Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended
Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions
Ecological Rating Enhancement years
Development may result
Maintains buffers, in potential localized
Small area of single Small amount of new limits development in minor loss due to
family residential residential buffers,conserves increased runoff,
development,low development and vegetation,protects increased shoreline
density,on terrace redevelopment critical areas,imposes Riparian plantings, access,and edge effects.
Shoreline above river/ Restoration
expected/Increased building setbacks, slope stability/ Functional losses are
SR-2 Residentialopportunity 25,26
Habitat for terrestrial runoff from new provides public erosion control in minimized by building
(Upland) wildlife,bank impervious, access. Underlying nearby UC SED. setbacks,vegetation ( 0.8 acres)
stabilization, shade/ vegetation alteration, zoning requires 20- conservation and buffer
Ecological Rating:Fair- habitat loss,edge foot development standards,use
Good effects on wildlife setback from property restrictions, mitigation,
lines. and possible restoration
activities
Native riparian shrub
areas with high
biological diversity and Commercial and
unique riparian physical industrial uses,
environment near significant vegetation Restoration
Coyote Rock river Expected increase in removal,prohibited. opportunity 6
formations/ adjacent recreational Non-water-oriented Areas located within a would expand the
Urban use as population recreational RHA and no HQ habitat to
SR-3 Conservancy Habitat for terrestrial increases/ development requires None planned development is provide a net
wildlife, shade,bank
(HQ) Potential for conditional use anticipated in area increase in
stabilization,native
biodiversity,flood increased noxious review.Requires resulting in no loss. shoreline
attenuation woody weeds,fire setbacks from buffers. habitat/water
material provision,base Mitigation quality functions.
flow support/ requirements apply to
any development.
Ecological Rating:Fair-
Good
COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 26
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to
Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended
Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions
Ecological Rating Enhancement years
Small area with
Primarily State Park potential for
land(Myrtle Point increased recreational SMP protects existing
Natural Area and uses and possible vegetation and limits
SRCT)near shoreline new subdivision floodplain
and/or commercial
with limited mixed-use, development/ development.
commercial,and Requires setbacks Mitigation standards
industrial areas at outer Minor soil,water, from buffers.For large should limit loss of
edge of SMP zone/ and vegetation developments, functions and large area
Urban Native riparian forest disturbance from requires Habitat Riparian plantings, of potential vegetation Restoration
SR-3 increased off-trail Management Plan and passive restoration, restoration should opportunities 5-7
Conservancy habitat for
terrestrial/aquatic pedestrian traffic; mitigation for habitat erosion control increase shoreline (6.0 acres)
wildlife, shade;bank
increased runoff from impacts.Dimensional functions to result in no
new impervious standards limit size of loss; potential
stabilization;flood
areas;minor increase new developments. increases.
attenuation, native
in edge effects on City code and NPDES
biodiversity;woody
material provision/ wildlife from new requires stormwater
residential treatment for all new
Ecological Rating:Fair- community(incl. development
Good pets)
COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 27
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to
Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended
Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions
Ecological Rating Enhancement years
Approval of multiple
Thirty-one new SMP maintains shoreline modifications Add a formal
residential buffers,limits may result in potential process to the
Area currently vacant developments development in localized minor loss due approval criteria
but cleared and platted expected. buffers,conserves to increased runoff, to ensure that
for new single family, Applications for new vegetation,and increased shoreline nearby residents
waterfront development homes,dock protects critical areas. access/habitat that may want
behind a 75-foot developments and Docks costing<$20K Riparian fragmentation,dock docks in the
Shoreline vegetated shoreline associated pathways allowed by letter of enhancement on- access,and edge effects. future are
SR-3 Residential setback/ anticipated/ exemption;larger site or in nearby Functional losses are considered in the
(Waterfront)
Habitat for terrestrial Increased runoff from docks require UC SED. minimized by building approval process
wildlife,bank new impervious, shoreline permit. setbacks,vegetation for individual
stabilization, shade/ change to stream Either way applicant conservation and buffer private dock
Ecological Rating:Fair- flow,vegetation must prepare a site standards,use applications.
Good alteration,habitat suitability analysis, restrictions, additional Restoration
loss,edge effects on HMP,and engineering approval criteria, opportunities 1-4
wildlife analysis.No setbacks. mitigation,and possible (1.0 acre)
restoration activities.
Development may result
Small area platted for Maintains buffers, in potential localized
single-family residential limits development in minor loss due to
development but New single family RHA,conserves increased runoff, Look for ways to
currently vacant and residential vegetation,protects increased shoreline limit piecemeal
Shoreline covered with young development/ critical areas,imposes Riparian plantings, access,docks,and edge stormwater and
SR 3 Residential pine trees/ Increased runoff from building setbacks, slope stability/ effects. Functional losses habitat impacts.
new impervious, provides public erosion control in are minimized by
(Upland) Habitat for terrestrial Hotential for
wildlife bank vegetation alteration, access. Underlying nearby UC SED. building setbacks,
habitat loss,edge zoning requires 20- vegetation conservation passive
stabilization, shade/ restoration.
effects on wildlife foot development and buffer standards,use
Ecological Rating:Fair- setback from property restrictions, mitigation,
Good lines and possible restoration
activities.
COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 28
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to
Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended
Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions
Ecological Rating Enhancement years
Fully developed
residential area along
slack water waterfront Standards for density,
behind upriver dam.No lot coverage limits, Require native
shoreline stabilization,
public access.Many Residential landscaping as
Shoreline vegetation No change to
docks; shoreline heavily development, partial mitigation
SR-4 Residential conservation,critical current ecological No change anticipated.
(Waterfront) armored/ recreational uses, area protection,and condition expected for any new
Shade from public access water quality to assure substantial
landscaping/ no net loss of developments.
ecological function.
Ecological Condition:
Poor-Fair
Spokane River below
the ordinary high water Barker south
metals cleanup site
line/
Prevents most will reduce metals
Aquatic habitat for development, contamination. Prohibit/limit
native fish,amphibians, facilitates in-stream Increased motorboats,
benthic invertebrates; habitat restoration, stormwater Decreased flows likely. design docks to
support for sensitive Increased recreation TMDL&NPDES treatment standards allow light
SR(All) Aquatic pp , Reduced trout through decks,
aquatic species';aquifer and additional docks restrict pollution and likely to limit water populations likely with
recharge;transport of provide for cleanup quality increase human use. post signs
river use limit
during
materials;nutrient plan, state/federal degradation. peak trout
cycling;contaminated permits required for Riparian
spawning periods
sediment cover most in-water work. enhancements will
provide shade,
Ecological Condition:
Fair-Goodorganic matter.
1 Aquatic environment contains Priority Species.
COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 29
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Existing Conditions/ Expected Net Impact to
Shoreline Environmental Expected Growth/ Effect of SMP& Recommended
Segment Designation Functions Provided/ Impacts Other Regulations Ecological Functions over Next 20 Actions
Ecological Rating Enhancement years
Large private lot
containing native
riparian habitat and
used by local
Limited growth in
community as a nature adjacent residential SMP Establishes RHA Possible noxious No change likely. With Restoration
Shelley Urban trail/
areas will bring with limited weed control and restoration, may see a opportunities 39,
Lake Conservancy Habitat for terrestrial additional foot traffic development allowed. revegetation slight increase. 40(2.6 acres)
wildlife, shade,organic along existing trail
material for lake/
Ecological condition:
good
Single-and multifamily
residential development Most of lake is already
New le-and SMP Maintains developed along
single-above an existing pavedg
multi-familybuffers and setbacks, Work with local shoreline in this zone.
trail around majority of g
Shoreline lake/ residential conserves vegetation, conservation Efforts to provide native
Shelley protects critical areas, district to establish plants along shoreline
Residential development/
Lake Minor shade for lake, limits lot coverage. vegetation along expected to maintain
(Upland) roosting habitat for Additional water use, State and federal lake's draw-down existing functions as
birds/ lawn chemicals,and permits regulate in- zone recreational use
runoff. water work increases resulting in no
Ecological condition: change.
poor-fair
COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 30
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Shoreline Environmental designation
category
Srtoreline Residential-Upland
i Shoreline Residenliai-Viaterrroret
- c Urksan Conservancy
i Urban Cutserda nay HQ
•
140 ribor.. .. •
L
'- -
t,+}r5:_. _ - f o - .-..
%
ir i ri... .
T =A •
iliell .. . <
r _
Pot T s- - k y`' Y
•
•
. .1011.101016 f- ; ,'" L .
P.
r+.IYce Sc},..rac.fl 4 I.?}c.i .,tt d 9 `
til
Mai Features .- _ _. Figure 2
4 Ti Spokane Valley Cly Limas 'A411:1111 I Shnrehtne E'rnvirranrrrerataf Des' nations
City CMT Spr_A8-ne VUUILy
I I I Cumulative ImpalctsAnalysis Report
CI 1 horelarDe Ma51er Pr rank Update
0. Miles 14a)240
COS V Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 31
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
_,
I
1ol•
°; , I _ lis I
1
i
■ I
Mr _
• ,�'i 111)Kf. I. _�
•
------------`--•-----L411,1%1:;I , _ __________11111 1 r="1:..II':i _,_ __ ._.,... . ,.__:._ . .,___16 .,,, ,,,i, „..114:11_ "1:—. —:- -
M i
( ai, II' C
to �f ++�—_ NI
"" l r
_,
$ • .` 1
Map Features N Figure 3
L.J Spokane Valley City Limits wE Shoreline Buffers
Shoreline Jurisdiction(SMP) s City of Spokane Valley
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report
MI
Shoreline Buffer 0 0.5 Shoreline Master Program Update
Miles May 2013 URS
COSV Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 32
SECTION SIX References
URS Corporation. 2010. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization Report. Spokane Valley, WA.
URS Corporation. 2012. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Public
Access Plan. Spokane Valley,WA.
URS Corporation. 2012b. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Restoration
Plan. Portland, OR
COSY Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Revised September 26, 2014 33