Loading...
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