SDP-2015-0001 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, for a )
private boat ramp on the Spokane River; ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Applicant: Spencer Harrington ) AND DECISION
File No. SDP-2015-0001 )
)
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Application for a shoreline conditional use permit, to allow construction of a
private boat ramp on the Spokane River.
Summary of Decision: Approve application, subject to conditions.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Information:
1. On August 28, 2015, the applicant submitted complete applications for a shoreline conditional
use permit ("CUP"), and a shoreline substantial development permit ("SDP"), in the above file to the
City Community and Economic Development Department ("Department"), under the edition of the
City Shoreline Master Program in effect at the time; to allow a private community boat ramp to be
constructed in and along the Spokane River.
2. A State Joint Aquatic Resources Permit ("JARPA") was submitted to various state agencies,
and a floodplain development application was submitted to the Department, for the boat ramp
project. See Exhibit 2.
3. The landward portion of the site, referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45063.9030,
abuts the south side of the Spokane River, north of and adjacent to South Riverway Avenue, and 600
feet east of the intersection of South Riverway and Dick Road; in Spokane Valley, Washington. The
water-ward portion of the site extends approximately 25 feet into the river.
4. The applicant is Spencer Harrington; with a mailing address of 1517 W. Broadway Avenue,
Spokane, WA 99201. The site owner is Albert Voltz; with a mailing address of P.O. Box 350,
Chewelah, WA 99109.
5. On October 16, 2015, the Department issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the
various applications submitted for the project, pursuant to Chapter 21.20 (State Environmental
Policy Act) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The DNS was not appealed.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
6. In November 2015, the applicant submitted a revised site plan for the boat ramp project. See
Appendix A of Exhibit 10.
7. On December 11, 2015, the Department administratively approved a SDP for the project;
subject to conditions, including the approval of the current application for a shoreline CUP by the
Hearing Examiner. See Exhibit 9.
8. On December 17, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-024, which repealed the City
Shoreline Master Program codified in former SVMC 21.50.010 and former Appendix 21-H of the
SVMC, and adopted a new Shoreline Master Program under SVMC Chapter 21.50. The shoreline
applications are not subject to the new shoreline master program, since they were submitted as
complete before the new program was adopted. See p. 6 of Staff Report.
9. On December 17, 2015, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the shoreline
CUP application ("application"). The notice requirements for the public hearing under the SVMC
were met. The Examiner conducted a site visit on December 16, 2015.
10. The Hearing Examiner heard the application pursuant to the former City Shoreline Master
Program, referenced above; SVMC Chapter 18.20 (Hearing Examiner); and the Hearing Examiner
Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct, adopted in Appendix B to the SVMC.
11. The following persons testified at the public hearing:
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Adam Jackson, Engineer
City Community Development Department City Community Development Department
11707 E. Sprague, Suite 101 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 101
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Spencer Harrington Gary Edwards
1517 W. Broadway 8218 E. Maringo Drive
Spokane, WA 99201 Spokane, WA 99212
Melissa Fennen John Layman
8109 E. South Riverway Avenue 8620 E. Maringo Drive
Spokane, WA 99212 Spokane, WA 99212
Barton Cook Jeff Hatcher
7512 E. Upriver Drive 8610 E. Maringo Drive
Spokane, WA 99212 Spokane, WA 99212
Jeremy Sikes
Washington State Department of Ecology
4601 N. Monroe
Spokane, WA 99205
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
12. The following exhibits were admitted into the record by the Hearing Examiner:
Exhibit 1: Vicinity map
Exhibit 2: Application submittal
Exhibit 3: Determination of Completeness
Exhibit4: Notice of Application
Exhibit 5: Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
Exhibit 6: Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 7: Agency comments
Exhibit 8: Public comments
Exhibit 9: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Exhibit 10: Habitat Management Plan, dated November 16, 2015
Exhibit 11: Cultural Resources Report#2015E, dated September 22, 2015
Exhibit 12: "Draft" Bylaws of Riverway Private Boat Ramp Association (RPBRA)
Exhibit 13: "Draft" Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservations for RPBRA
Exhibit 14: "Draft" Rules and Regulations of RPBRA
Exhibit 15: Hard copy of power point presentation of Staff Report and Recommendation
Exhibit 16: Trip generation rates for project
Exhibit 17: Map showing location of lots that may access boat ramp
13. Exhibits 1-14 were attached to the Staff Report, which was placed in the file before the hearing.
Exhibit 15 was submitted by the Department at the hearing. Exhibits 16-17 were submitted by the
applicant at the hearing.
Items in Record:
14. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the SVMC, Comprehensive Plan, other applicable
development regulations, and prior land use decisions in the vicinity.
15. The record includes the documents in the application file at the time of the hearing, the sign-in
sheet for the hearing, Exhibits 1-17, the electronic recording by Hearing Examiner staff of the
testimony submitted at the hearing, and the items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner.
Description of Site:
16. The site includes County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45063.9030 ("parcel"), and the adjoining
portion of the Spokane River where the boat ramp would be constructed.
17. The parcel is approximately .4 acres in size, 200 feet long, and 85 feet wide; and extends
between South Riverway Avenue and the Spokane River.
18. The south end of the parcel is relatively flat in topography, with the remainder of the parcel
sloping down to the river at a moderately steep angle. The overall slope of the parcel from south to
north is approximately 30%, with slopes ranging from 35-50% found near the river. See sheet C1.0
and C1.3 of site plan of record dated 8-15 and submitted on 8-31-15, p. 5 of environmental checklist
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
for project, and p. 2 of Geotechnical Evaluation of Scour Potential report prepared by Budinger &
Associates on 11-16-15.
19. The parcel is undeveloped; and is heavily vegetated with a mix of native and nonnative grasses,
shrubs and trees. An overhead electrical utility line passes over the east edge of the site, neighboring
land and the river in a north-to-south direction.
20. The water-ward portion of the site is not located on State-owned aquatic lands that would
require a lease from the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). See letter dated 10-7-15
from DNR in Exhibit 7.
21. City and FEMA FIRM floodplain maps designate a 100-year floodplain in the north end of the
parcel adjacent to the river. See SVMC Chapter 21.30, and p. 5 of Staff Report.
22. The site is designated in the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, and
is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-2). The Department properly found that the proposed boat
ramp is a permitted use in the R-2 zoning district; based on its similarity to a"park", a permitted use
in such zone. See p. 4 of Staff Report, SVMC 19.120.050 and SVMC 19.120.030.
Critical Areas designated on Site:
23. The City DNR streams and wetlands map designates the Spokane River on the site and in the
area as a DNR Type S stream; which water body has a riparian management zone (RPM) of 200 feet
on the landward portion of the site measured from the river, pursuant to SVMC 21.40.030.D and
WAC Chapter 222-30.
24. The City DNR streams and wetlands map also designates wetlands in the north end of parcel
no. 45063.9030, adjacent to the river.
25. The City Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) map located on the City's website, which states an
effective date of April 26, 2011, illustrates "Urban Natural Open Space" priority wildlife habitat
along the river on the site and neighboring land. The Hearing Examiner takes notice that such map
and the designation of such habitat type is not current, because the City's mapping of PHS is
required to be based on the PHS program of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), and such habitat type is no longer recognized by the WDFW PHS program. Further, the
interactive PHS map on the WDFW website shows no priority wildlife or species habitat on the
landward portion of the site and neighboring land, except for the RPM associated with the Spokane
River as a DNR Type S stream.
26. The current WDFW PHS map designates the Spokane River on the site and in the area as
priority habitat for Rainbow Trout and Westslope Cutthroat trout. See WDFW PHS interactive map,
and p. 13 of Habitat Management/Shoreline Impact Assessment prepared by J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
on 11-16-15.
27. City Critical Areas maps designate the site and the land in the area in a critical aquifer recharge
area of high susceptibility to groundwater contamination.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
28. Significant portions of the site contain slopes of 30% or greater, which slopes are considered a
geo-hazard (critical area)under SVMC 21.40.050.
29. The Staff Report, on page 3, erroneously states that the site does not contain any critical areas;
although it does recognize the RPM located on the site, on page 6.
Surrounding conditions:
30. Neighboring land uses generally consist of single-family dwellings on lots and parcels of
various sizes, along with some vacant land.
31. The lots along the river in the area contain docks that are used for recreational purposes,
including boating. An aerial map survey indicated that there are approximately 76 docks located
along the north or south side of the river between Argonne Road, located one-half(1/2) mile east of
the site, and Upriver Dam, located one (1) mile southwest of the site. See p. 2 of Staff Report.
32. The owners of lots along the river in the area have historically accessed boat launch facilities
along the river to put their boats into the river, dock boats adjacent to their lots and use the boats for
recreation on the river. Such access has been limited by the availability of launch facilities over the
past few years, and is problematic in the future without construction of the proposed boat ramp on
the site. See p. 2 of Staff Report, letters submitted by area residents in Exhibit 8, testimony
submitted at public hearing, and application materials.
33. The land lying east of the site is located in the City of Millwood. The land lying north of the
centerline of the Spokane River in the area is located in the unincorporated area of Spokane County.
34. South Riverway Avenue in the area is a relatively narrow paved road that lacks curb and
sidewalk.
35. Navigation on the river in the area is limited to small motorized and non-motorized pleasure
craft; including ski and platform pontoon boats, canoes, kayaks, 1-2 person pontoon boats and tubes.
Description of Project:
36. The boat ramp project is well-described and illustrated on the site plan of record submitted in
November 2015, the JARPA application, the environmental checklist, the Staff Report, and the SDP
issued for the project; and by the Department and applicant at the public hearing.
37. The proposed boat ramp would be constructed of concrete, approximately 230 feet long and 12
feet wide; extend approximately 25 feet into the river at the bottom, have an approach to the street at
the top, and have a total elevation drop of approximately 35 feet; have a ramp grade of 8% at the top,
20% in the center, and 17% at the bottom; consist of pre-cast concrete boat ramp panels, placed on a
prepared substrate surface, where it extends into the river; and be constructed entirely below grade.
The project would include construction of a 3-foot high boulder wall along both sides of the ramp.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
38. A chain link fence would be erected around the landward portion of the site, to limit access to
those permitted to use the boat ramp. A small shed, housing a hazardous waste response/mitigation
material and associated equipment, would be built near the entrance to the boat ramp from the road.
39. The project would require the removal of soils and native and nonnative vegetation, including
some trees and other woody debris; require the replacement of native and normative vegetation in
accordance with the habitat management plan (HMP) prepared for the project, in specific ratios;
include the establishment of a root wad in the river to enhance fish habitat; dispose of soils removed
from the river at a hazardous waste site; and implement detailed short-term and long-term "Best
Management Practices (BMP)" to provide for stormwater control, minimize construction impacts
and assure the long-term success of mitigation measures.
40. A corporation without stock called the "Riverway Private Boat Ramp Association" has been
formed by the applicant for the project; with its members consisting of the owners of lots along the
river between the Argonne Bridge and Upriver Dam who desire access to the river for their
watercraft, and who are willing to contribute financially to the boat ramp project, now or in the
future.
41. The covenants, and the rules and regulations, prepared for the association by the applicant limit
access to the boat ramp to the members of the corporation, and long-term tenants or occupants of
member lots; do not allow public access to the boat ramp; limit the hours of operation to daylight
hours, except for emergencies; do not allow the power loading of boats, or the launching of vessels
longer than 30 feet; prohibit the blocking of the public street, except for the limited time required to
align the vehicle/trailer for launching a vessel; require one (1) person to remain in control of the tow
vehicle, in the driver's seat, at all times during the launch/retrieval of vessel; allow only one (1)
member to use the ramp to launch a vessel at a time; require training on spill mitigation for all
individuals utilizing the boat ramp; and prohibit nuisance and offensive activities on the site. Access
to the launch by emergency responders, and for some official governmental and quasi-governmental
activities, would be provided through a separate agreement with the corporation.
42. The applicant estimated that 90-110 families would participate in the project. See Exhibit 9.
43. At the time of the hearing, the Department was in the process of forwarding the SDP approved
for the boat ramp project on December 11, 2015 to the State Department of Ecology ("Ecology").
Requirement for Shoreline CUP:
44. The Department in the Staff Report properly found that the proposed boat ramp is not included
in the regulated uses identified in Section 5 of the former City Shoreline Master Program (hereafter
referred to as the "SMP"); and that pursuant to WAC 173-27-160(3), the boat ramp may be
authorized as a conditional use, provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the
requirements for conditional uses contained in the SDP and the State Shoreline Management Act
(SMA). See p. 7 of Staff Report.
45. Paragraph 18 of Section VI of the SMP contains regulations for "piers and docks". The
proposed boat ramp provides recreational opportunities for watercraft, similar to a pier or dock.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
46. Paragraph 14 of Section VI of the SMP contains regulations for "recreation", which apply to
the proposed boat ramp.
47. The site and neighboring lots located along the river in the City are designated in the Shoreline
Residential-Waterfront environment of the new SMP. A boat ramp is a permitted use in such
environment, subject to various conditions and restrictions, under the new SMP. The new SMP does
not apply to the project. See Table 21.50-1 in SVMC 21.50.190.
Consistency of Boat Ramp Project with Requirement for Shoreline CUP Requirements:
48. Paragraph 7.05 of Section VII of the SMP sets forth criteria for the approval of a shoreline
CUP. The Staff Report, on pages 7-8, analyzed the consistency of the shoreline CUP application
with the requirements set forth in such paragraph, and properly found the application to be
consistent with such criteria subject to certain conditions of approval.
49. WAC 173-27-160(1)(a-e) sets forth review criteria for shoreline CUPS approved by local
governments; which criteria is substantially similar to the criteria set forth in paragraph 7.05 (a-e)
of Section VII of the SMP.
50. WAC 173-27-160(2) requires that consideration be given to the cumulative impact of
additional requests for similar applications for shoreline CUPs in the area; citing as an example
"...if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar
circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall remain consistent with the policies of
RCW 90.58.020 and not produce adverse effects to the shoreline environment." This criteria does
not appear in Section VI of the SMP, but must be met for the proposed shoreline CUP.
51. Comments regarding the project were submitted by Ecology, WDFW, DNR, the Spokane
Tribe, and the City of Millwood; the Spokane Riverkeeper, a private/nonprofit organization which
expressed some concerns regarding the project; several owners of lots located along the river, all
of whom expressed support for the project; and Chuck and Judy Hines, who reside three (3) lots
southwest of the site, along the south side of South Riverway Avenue, and expressed opposition to
the project in an email dated November 29, 2015. See Exhibits 5-6, and testimony submitted at
hearing.
52. The updated HMP submitted by the applicant on November 16, 2015, the Geotechnical
Evaluation of Scour Potential Report prepared by Budinger & Associates on November 16, 2015,
and the revised site plan dated November 15, 2015 adequately addressed the concerns that public
agencies and the Spokane Riverkeeper expressed regarding the impacts of stormwater generated by
the project and the removal of vegetation for the project on the river and the riparian habitat on the
site. The Budinger report, prepared by professional engineers, found the scour potential of the
river on the proposed ramp not to be great.
53. The Department properly accepted the HMP, after consultation with the WDFW. Also see
letter dated 11-16-15 submitted by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., regarding update to HMP; and testimony
of Spencer Harrington.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
54. Jeremy Sikes, Shorelines Specialist for Ecology, testified at the hearing and indicated that he
did not have any substantial concerns regarding the project, and mainly wanted to ensure that the
Hearing Examiner's decision specifically addressed the review criteria for the shoreline CUP set
forth in WAC 173-27-160(1-2). DOE has review authority over the Hearing Examiner's decision
on the shoreline CUP, and the state hydraulics permit required for the project.
55. DNR, in its October 7, 2015 letter, expressed concern about the excessive grades for the
proposed ramp, and the safety of the driver/operator of a car and boat on the ramp; especially if
launched by one person. The draft rules and regulations of the association require two (2) persons
to be involved in the launching and retrieval of vessels, including one person remaining in the
control of the tow vehicle, in the driver's seat, at all times during such operations.
56. The SDP requires implementation of the short-term and long-term BMP set forth in the
HMP. The long-term BMP require the adoption of a set of rules for the boat ramp that minimize
potential impacts to the site while maximizing the life of the structure. Such rules must require a
minimum of two (2) adults to launch a boat, one of whom must remain in the launch vehicle at all
times; and must prohibit the power-loading of boats at the ramp to minimize scour at the end of the
ramp.
57. The long-term BMP require closure of the boat ramp during the winter, between November 1
and March 15, of each year to minimize the potential of accidents due to ice or snow. The draft rules
and regulations conflict with such restriction, and should be revised to be consistent with the BMP.
58. The requirement in the long-term BMP that a minimum of two (2) adults to launch a boat, one
of whom must remain in the launch vehicle at all times, is somewhat inconsistent with the draft rules
and regulations for the association, which use the term "person" instead of"adult", but address both
the launching and retrieval of vessels.
59. The term "licensed driver" and "qualified boat operator" appear to be better terms to use than
"adult" or "person", regarding the personnel need to launch or retrieve a boat on the ramp. Further,
the requirement for both a boat operator and a driver of the vehicle should apply to both the
launching and the retrieval of vessels on the ramp. Washington state law establishes minimum ages
and boat education requirements for boat operators, subject to certain exemptions; and establishes
licensing requirements for the drivers of motor vehicles.
60. The City of Millwood, and Chuck and Judy Hines, expressed concern regarding increased
traffic,traffic congestion and parking issues.
61. Vehicle parking is prohibited by both the SDP and the draft rules and regulations of the
association. Enough area exists within the City street right of way to allow a boat to be pulled off
the paving on South Riverway Avenue, and to prepare the boat for launch. The fence on the site
would be located 20 feet from the asphalt surface of the street. Most association members would
use the ramp only to put a boat in at the beginning of the boating season, and take it out at the end
of the season.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
62. Members of the association would live near the ramp, and can return to their residences if the
ramp is in use at a particular time rather than wait in the street. The average traffic generated by
the project is similar to the traffic generated by the development of a single-family home on the
site, and would appear to be sufficiently random during the beginning and ending of the boating
season to prevent traffic congestion along South Riverway near the ramp area. City Engineering
expressed no concerns regarding the traffic generated by the project; and determined that the
project would provide access during non-peak hours of the traveled roadways, and is exempt from
transportation concurrency requirements pursuant to SVMC 22.20.020(C)(3). See testimony of
Spencer Herrington, Exhibits 16-17, traffic analysis in SDP, and p. 9 of Staff Report.
63. The City of Millwood recommended, based on traffic concerns, that use of the private boat
ramp be limited to the owners of shoreline properties along the river, and use not be allowed by the
general public or relatives or friends of such owners; recommended that access be limited to two
(2) times (spring/fall) per year; and commented that the portion of the river where the ramp is
proposed is narrow and not suitable for power boats, and that waves caused by power boats have
already caused damage to the shoreline.
64. The Spokane Riverkeeper expressed concern that no public access for public non-motorized
access is available in this section of the river, recreational boats that are non-motorized are
vulnerable to motor boats traveling on this very narrow section of the reservoir behind Upriver
Dam, safety concerns may become a problem in the long term as the public use of the reservoir
continues to develop, and the wake created by motor boats on the river is not healthy for aquatic
systems.
65. The WDFW in its comments advised that if the project was properly designed and constructed,
the consolidation of the needs for a boat launch facilities into one location on the site will serve to
reduce impacts to the river. The record indicates that the lack of adequate boat launch facilities on
the river has led to the launching of boats at unapproved locations along the river, and the
associated destruction of riparian habitat. See Exhibit 8, and testimony submitted at hearing.
66. The DNR commented that while the proposed boat ramp would not serve the general public,
it would serve more than 100 residents. See Exhibit 8. The proposed launch should be considered
"quasi-public" in nature.
67. There is no evidence in the record that the project will significantly increase the use of the
river in the area by power boats, which usage already exists along the river.
68. The proposed boat ramp is not appropriate for general public use, considering its location
along a relatively narrow public street in a quiet, established area of single-family homes.
69. The project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on the base flood elevation of the river
in the area, and issuance of a floodplain permit will satisfy the floodplain development
requirements in SVMC Chapter 21.30.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
70. The project, as conditioned, adequately mitigates its impacts on critical areas. The cultural
resources survey report prepared for the project, by a qualified archaeologist, indicates that the
project will not affect any pre-contact archaeological sites or isolates, or any resources eligible for
inclusion in the national or state historic registers; because no such resources were found to exist
on the site. The report was found acceptable by the Spokane Tribe. See Exhibits 7 and 10.
71. The proposed use is consistent with applicable policies of the SMP and complies with the use
regulations of the SMP, as set forth in the Staff Report and in the analysis contained in the SDP.
72. The project is generally consistent with the analogous policies and use regulations of the SDP
for "piers and docks" in the Urban Area; including the joint use of facilities, non-interference with
navigation, the protection of water quality and aquatic life and habitat, protection of the natural and
visual quality of the shoreline area, improving public access to the waterfront area or not impairing
it to the extent feasible, limitation of the scope and size of the project to what is actually needed to
fulfill its purpose, and compliance with federal and state approvals for navigation and fish habitat.
73. The proposed use is consistent with the statewide policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020; in
altering the natural condition of the shoreline for the beneficial purpose of serving single-family
residences and their appurtenant and recreational uses; preserving recreational access to the
shoreline for a large number of residents; and being designed and conducted in a manner to
minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the
shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water.
74. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not interfere with the "normal public use of public
shorelines", within the meaning of WAC 173-27-160(1)(b); considering it is intended to preserve
the existing recreational use of the river in the vicinity and area by pleasure boats.
75. The proposed use of the site and the design of the project is compatible with the single-family
dwellings, docks and other authorized uses within the area; and with uses planned for the area
under the Comprehensive Plan and the SDP.
76. The proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in
which it is to be located, and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
77. It appears unlikely that additional requests for similar shoreline CUPs would be received for
the construction of a boat ramp in the area; considering the lack of other good sites in the area for
construction of a boat ramp, the need for boating access that the proposed ramp would largely fill
in the area, and the obvious expense and difficulty of constructing a boat ramp by private parties.
Some area residents, or members of the public, may be able to negotiate an agreement with Felts
Field to launch boats there, subject to signing a release of liability; but the intent of the project is to
preserve pleasure boat access to the river, rather than expand it over historical levels. See
discussion of alternative boat launch sites on p. 2-3 of Staff Report.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The application for a shoreline CUP for the proposed boat ramp is subject to the version of the
City SMP in effect on August 28, 2015 ("SMP"), when the application was submitted as complete.
2. The application should be made subject to the conditions of approval attached by the
Department to the SDP issued for the project. A condition of approval should be added that requires
the rules and regulations adopted by the corporation for operation of the boat ramp to be consistent
with such conditions, including the short-term and long-term BMPs.
3. A condition of approval should be added that requires a licensed motor vehicle driver and a
qualified boat operator to launch or retrieve a boat on the ramp, with the licensed driver remaining
in control of the tow vehicle, in the driver's seat, at all times during the launch/retrieval of vessel;
and that such condition be included in the rules and regulations adopted by the corporation.
4. The proposed boat ramp project, as conditioned, meets the criteria for issuance of a shoreline
conditional use permit under paragraph 7.05 of Section VII of the SMP, and the review criteria for
shoreline CUPs set forth in WAC 173-27-160(1-2).
5. The application, as conditioned, complies with the version of the SVMC in effect on August
28, 2015, and all applicable development regulations.
6. Approval of the application, as conditioned, is appropriate under SVMC 17.80.130.
IV. DECISION
Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions, a shoreline conditional use permit for the
project is hereby approved, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval imposed by the
City Community and Economic Development Department ("Department") on the shoreline
substantial development permit ("SDP") issued for the project on December 11, 2015; and subject to
the following additional conditions of approval:
1. The rules and regulations adopted by the corporation for operation of the boat ramp shall be
consistent with the conditions of approval imposed by the Department on the SDP issued
for the project, and with the short-term and long-term BMPs set forth in the Habitat
Management Plan approved for the application.
2. Two (2) persons, a licensed motor vehicle driver and a qualified boat operator, are required
to launch or retrieve a boat on the ramp; with the licensed driver remaining in control of
the tow vehicle, in the driver's seat, at all times during the launch/retrieval of vessel, and
the qualified boat operator being in control of the vessel. This condition shall be included
in the rules and regulations adopted by the corporation.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5
DATED this 27th day of January, 2016
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Michadi C. Dempsey, WSBA #8V5
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
On January 27, 2016, a copy of this decision approving a shoreline conditional use permit
("shoreline CUP") will be sent by certified mail to the applicant, the Washington State Attorney
General's Office and the Washington State Department of Ecology ("Ecology"); and by regular
mail to other parties of record.
RCW 90.58.140(10) requires that any shoreline CUP issued by local government be
submitted to Ecology for approval or disapproval.
Pursuant to RCW 90.58.180(1) and Section 17.90.010 of the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC), a petition for review of Ecology's decision on the shoreline CUP by the
Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board must be submitted within 21 days of the date
Ecology transmitted the decision to the City of Spokane Valley Community and Economic
Development Department.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file with the City of
Spokane Valley Department of Community Development-Planning Division, 11707 E. Sprague
Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA, 99206; by contacting Martin Palaniuk at (509) 921-1000.
Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by the City of
Spokane Valley.
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in
valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-2015-0001 Page 5