2021, 06-08 Formal MeetingAGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FORMAL FORMAT
Tuesday, June 8, 2021 6:00 p.m.
Remotely via ZOOM Meeting
10210 E Sprague Avenue
Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting
NOTE: In response to Governor Inslee's March 24, 2020 Proclamation concerning the COVID-19 Emergency, which
waives and suspends the requirement to hold in -person meetings and provides options for the public to attend remotely,
physical public attendance at Spokane Valley Council meetings are suspended until the Governor's order has been
rescinded or amended. Therefore, until further notice, a live feed of the meeting will be available on our website and
on Comcast channel 14. Public comments will only be accepted for those items noted on the agenda as
"public comment opportunity," will be accepted via the following links, and must be received by 4:00
pm the day of the meeting.
• Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling -In
• Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting
• Join the Zoom WEB Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT
PROCLAMATION: June is PTSD Awareness Month
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 111: Use the link above to sign up for oral public
comments and indicate if you want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2]. Citizens
may only speak at one or the other, but not both. If there is no indication of which comment opportunity,
you will be placed in the first. The link will guide you to directions to sign up for oral public comments.
This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items, as public comments
will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of
the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are
welcome but please keep the remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2022-2027 Transportation Improvement Program — Adam Jackson
[public comment opportunity]
2. Resolution 21-002 Adopting 2022-2027 Transportation Improvement Program — Adam Jackson
[no public comment[
NEW BUSINESS:
3. Consent Agenda: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of
Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately.
Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of Claim Vouchers on June 8, 2021, Request for Council Action Form: $3,779,138.37
b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending May 31, 2021: $561,344.68
Council Agenda June 8, 2021 Page 1 of 2
4. First Reading Ordinance 21-007 Adopting Shoreline Master Plan — Chaz Bates [no public comment]
5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Mullan Road Preservation — Bill Helbig
[public comment opportunity]
6. Mayoral Appointments — Mayor Wick [public comment opportunity]
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 121: Use the link above to sign up for oral public
comments and indicate if you want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2]. Citizens
may only speak at one or the other, but not both. If there is no indication of which comment opportunity,
you will be placed in the first. The link will guide you to directions to sign up for oral public comments.
This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items, as public comments
will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of
the City Government. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are
welcome but please keep the remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
7. Boys & Girls Club — Richard Hanlin
8. Union Gospel Mission & Homelessness — Phil Altmeyer
9. Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan (CROP) — Henry Allen, Morgan Koudelka
10. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed):
11. Finance Department Monthly Report
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT
Council Agenda June 8, 2021 Page 2 of 2
Spokane
. Va11ey
P OCAWIATIoN.
City of Spokane )a , Washington
WHEREAS, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder can occur after a person experiences trauma, including but
not limited to the stress of combat, assault, abuse, accidents and natural disasters; the
disorder affects approximately eight million adults in the United States annually; and
WHEREAS, PTSD is associated with chemical changes in the body's hormonal system and autonomic
nervous systems, and is characterized by symptoms including flashbacks, nightmares,
insomnia, avoidance, hypervigilance, anxiety and depression; and
WHEREAS, The brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces who proudly serve the nation
and risk their lives to protect our freedom, deserve the investment of every possible resource
to ensure their lasting physical, mental, and emotional well-being; and
WHEREAS, Combat -related PTSD among our men and women in the Armed Forces is significantly
pronounced given that they are often exposed to highly traumatic events for weeks, months,
and years; and
WHEREAS, Between 10 and 30 percent of service members will develop PTSD within a year of leaving
combat, while others may not develop symptoms until years later; and
WHEREAS, Despite its treatability, many cases of PTSD remain undiagnosed and untreated due to a lack
of awareness of the condition and because of the stigma associated with mental health
conditions; and
WHEREAS, Raising awareness of this condition is necessary to help remove the stigma and to encourage
those suffering to seek proper and timely treatment that may save their lives; and
WHEREAS, Citizens suffering from PTSD deserve our consideration, and those affected by PTSD from
injuries received while protecting our freedom, deserve our respect and special honor.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ben Wick, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City
Council and the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, do hereby proclaim June as
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Awareness Month
in our City and I encourage citizens to actively learn about PTSD and reach out to their fellow citizens to
provide support and thereby help remove any stigma that might be associated with this disorder.
Dated this 8' day of June, 2021.
Ben Wick, Mayor
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Draft 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual advanced six -year plans for
coordinated transportation program expenditures.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Annual adoption of the TIP and its amendments.
BACKGROUND: The TIP is composed of transportation projects intended to be implemented
in the next six years that address the transportation needs within the City of Spokane Valley.
The City is required by RCW 35.77.010 to prepare and, after holding a public hearing, adopt a
comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. This plan must be
submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation by June 30th of each year.
The draft six -year TIP presents an integrated approach to project selection and phasing that has
been aligned with recent master plans, upcoming redevelopment projects, economic
development efforts, land use changes, stormwater and water district plans, and capital projects
by partner agencies.
The six -year TIP is required to be financially constrained. Currently the six -year TIP may exceed
financial expectations; however, it does accurately reflect the City's short-term transportation
needs and provides a prioritized path forward.
OPTIONS: Conduct public hearing.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct public hearing.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The required City match on federal and state funded projects
is typically between 10% and 20%. A review of projected REET funds through 2027 will be
provided to determine if there are sufficient funds to provide the City's match for the
recommended projects.
STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, P.E. — Planning & Grants Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation (See Agenda item #2 for the Resolution and
draft TIP)
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)
June 8, 2021
Adam Jackson, P.E. - Planning & Grants Engineer
Spokane
Valley°
Transportation Improvement Program
ANNINNIMINNW
-1110
.0.016% 1Ie
2022- 2027 Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Purpose:
Required by RCW 35.77.010
Must be referenced in Comp Plan
Required for REET expenditures
Required for grant eligibility
The Program
(66 Total Projects)
An integrated approach that aligns:
Master plans and studies,
Upcoming redevelopment projects,
Economic development efforts,
Land use changes,
Stormwater projects,
Capital projects by partner agencies.
2022 Closeout Projects
.
.-
•
2020 Local Access Streets
2. 2021 Local Access Streets
3. Sullivan Rd. Bridge Deck Resurfacing
4. Citywide Reflective Post Panels
5. Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates
6. Park Rd. Sidewalk
7. Barker Rd. - Spokane River to Euclid
8. Balfour Park Frontage Improvements
9. Mullan Rd. Preservation
10. Appleway Blvd. Stormwater Improvements
(10 Projects)
-. •••-
Bridge & Grade Separation Projects
(5 Projects)
•
1
•
1"
i
25. Barker Rd. / BNSF Grade Separation Project•
28. Mission Ave. Bridge Deck Resurfacing •
•
31. Pines Rd. (SR27) / BNSF Grade Separation •
•
Project •
32. Sullivan Rd. / SR 290 Interchange
i
Reconstruction
i
56. Argonne Rd. & I-90 Interchange Bridge Widening L,
1
i
i
Intersection Improvement Projects
12. Sprague Ave. / Barker Rd. Intersection
15. Pines Rd. / Mission Ave. Intersection
16. Sullivan Rd. / Wellesley Ave. Intersection
26. Park Rd. / Mission Ave. Intersection
41. 8th Ave. / Carnahan Rd. Intersection
42. Barker Rd. Intersections at 4th & 8th
43. Mirabeau / Mansfield Intersection
47. Flora Rd. / SR 290 Intersection
48. Cataldo Ave. Realignment at Barker Rd.
r \ell
52. Pines Rd (SR-27) / 16th Intersection
57. 8th Ave. / Park Rd. Intersection
58. Barker Rd. / Boone Ave. Intersection
60. 4th Ave. / Pines Rd. (SR 27) Intersection
61. Sullivan Rd. / Kiernan Ave. Intersection
62. Sullivan Rd. / Marietta Ave. Intersection
16
47.
. �i:,a.m �3w,.+x . a ".,+.A .'�ko ` ,w.,t... 41 :g` .�FG?r' .va .+S' 4$ 1 ? ' �•. .
(15 Projects)
1
4
128
•
t r—
[•'
,.
Reconstruction/Preservation Projects
11. Evergreen Rd Pres. - Sprague to Mission
14. Barker Rd. at Union Pacific Crossing
17. Broadway Ave. Pres. - Havana to Fancher
18. Broadway Ave. Pres - Fancher to Park
19. Sprague Ave. Pres - Havana to Fancher
21. Sullivan Rd. Pres. - Sprague to 8th
22. Sullivan Rd. Pres. - 8th to 16th
27. 8th Ave. Pres. - Progress to Sullivan
30. Argonne Rd. Concrete - Indiana to Montgomery
36. Mission Ave. Pres. - Mullan to University
37. S. Bowdish Rd. Corridor Improvements
38. Sullivan Rd Pres. - 16th Ave. to City Limit
39. Dishman-Mica Rd. Pres. - Schafer to S. Limit
40. Vera Crest + Rocky Ridge Street Reconst.
44. Barker Rd. Improvements - Appleway to 1-90
45. Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Euclid to Garland
46. Park Rd. Pres. - Sprague to Trent
49. 32nd Ave. Pres. - Pines to SR 27
50. Wellesley Ave. Pres. - Sullivan to Flora
51. Barker Rd. Improvement-Appleway to S. Limit
53. Barker Rd. - Mission to Interstate 90
54. 8th Ave. Pres. - Havana to Park
59. Broadway Ave. Improvements - Flora to Barker
63. Boone Ave. Reconstruction - Flora to Barker
64. Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Sprague to Montgomery
65. Euclid Ave. Preservation - Barker to E. City Limit
66. Sullivan Rd. Improvements- Trent to Wellesley
yie
46 L .~. 30
39
(27 Projects)
501
6645 14
65
64 63 53
21
5944
27 22 _.-; 51
38
.: 40
Citywide Projects
(5 Projects)
ulI
13. Citywide Reflective Post Panels (2020)
20. Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Analysis
33. Local Access Street Improv. - $1.5M Annually
34. Street Preservation Projects - $3M Annually
35. Citywide Safety Projects - Biennial
44-10 I if
II
•
•
r
` ' I r �1f -,
i �I ry�
k
T
•
O. 3 500 7,000 14000 21,003 Feet. '
I i I i I i I
A
1 .151.17pffi
Pr
It —
f� 11 0
F
I
..a
I
1a+If4 Nfiff.r+.r'•..
I Y
13
WOO figi
111111111111igitivis
'54, 111111111111111111111111
111111111110.3
IOU SW
Alt
20
City of Spokarc vaFlty
LOLaf Road Safety Plan
Crash data Time r'e+'iod: 2014.2018
]ate: hgrsh 2. S721:1
,.Malr Ir.O. u� �. 912t N/r1
weha..w.r.wloan YMr, VW'w.hiogerm5,w,w r 1 .rlrrr.A1.
VimpaYFYiAr ird ,.ha FFrdok Safi. ry, hope' .5.4r...riO.fl Fad
Sfaksrt:;W Q{iY•Jwt+Ywaa •: ,- .X.MreOe
eq... Yin Dr..,
eWSDOT
a11=:W.s1SMt ...�t _.
• •M11rw. w.a....A
...anr wrmitesi word •.I - u... i m mr. T i
Sidewalk, Trail, and Stormwater Projects
(4 Projects)
23. Sprague Ave. Stormwater Improvements
24. Wilbur Rd. Sidewalk
29. Spokane Valley - River Loop Trail
55. Appleway Trail - Farr to Dishman Mica
9
Questions?
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 8, 2021
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ❑ admin. report
Department Director Approval:
▪ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 21-002: Approval of Draft 2022-2027 Six -Year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual advanced six -year plans for
coordinated transportation program expenditures.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Annual adoption of the TIP and its amendments.
BACKGROUND: The TIP is composed of transportation projects intended to be implemented
in the next six years that address the transportation needs within the City of Spokane Valley.
The City is required by RCW 35.77.010 to prepare and, after holding a public hearing, adopt a
comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. This plan must be
submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation by June 30th of each year.
The attached draft six -year TIP presents an integrated approach to project selection and
phasing that has been aligned with recent master plans, upcoming redevelopment projects,
economic development efforts, land use changes, stormwater and water district plans, and
capital projects by partner agencies.
The six -year TIP is required to be financially constrained. Currently the six -year TIP may exceed
financial expectations; however, it does accurately reflect the City's short-term transportation
needs and provides a prioritized path forward.
OPTIONS: Adopt the 2022-2027 Six -Year TIP as presented or take other action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 21-002, adopting the
2022-2027 Six -Year TIP as presented.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The required City match on federal and state funded projects
is typically between 10% and 20%. A review of projected REET funds through 2027 will be
provided to determine if there are sufficient funds to provide the City's match for the
recommended projects.
STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, P.E. — Planning & Grants Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 21-002, with attached draft 2022-2027 Six -Year TIP.
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION 21-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2022-2027 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING
THERETO.
WHEREAS, to provide for the proper and necessary development of the street system within the
City of Spokane Valley, the City shall, pursuant to RCW 35.77.010, develop and adopt annually a Six -Year
Transportation Improvement Program (Six -Year TIP) with such program acting as a guide for the
coordinated development of the City's transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Six -Year TIP of the City shall specifically set forth those projects and programs
of both City and regional significance that benefit the transportation system and promote public safety and
efficient vehicle movements; and
WHEREAS, the Six -Year TIP shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and be
adopted following one or more public hearings before the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a draft copy of the Six -Year TIP was submitted to the Washington State Department
of Commerce and has been reviewed and approved prior to the scheduled adoption of the TIP in accordance
with RCW 36.70A.106; and
WHEREAS, following adoption of the Six -Year TIP, the City will forward a copy to the
Washington State Secretary of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 8, 2021 for the purpose of
inviting and receiving public comment on the proposed Six -Year TIP.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washington, as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the attached Six -Year TIP for the City of Spokane
Valley for the purpose of guiding the design, development and construction of local and regional
transportation improvements for the years 2022 through 2027. The City Clerk is directed to file the 2022-
2027 Six -Year TIP with the Washington State Secretary of Transportation before June 30, 2021. The Six -
Year TIP shall be reviewed at least annually for the purpose of determining the work to be accomplished
under the program and the City's transportation requirements.
Projects and timeframes identified in the Six -Year TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change
due to a variety of circumstances, and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or
developers in making development decisions.
In the event a railroad ceases to use rail right-of-way within the City, the City will utilize all reasonable
options available under state or federal law to preserve the right-of-way for future rail purposes pursuant to
RCW 35.77.010(3),
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption.
Resolution 21-002, Adopting Six -Year TIP
DRAFT
Adopted this eighth day of June, 2021.
ATTEST: City of Spokane Valley
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Ben Wick, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Resolution 21-002, Adopting Six -Year TIP
SlioUne� Valley
2022 - 2027 Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
City of Spokane Valley
Community & Public Works Department
2022-2027 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Funding Sources:
• City
• CDBG
• CMAQ
• COM
• DEV
• FHWA
• FMSIB
• FTA
• HSIP
• NHFP
• Other
• RCO
• REET
• RR
• SRTS
• SW
• STA
• STBG
• STBG-SA
• TIB
• WAL
• WSDOT
Glossary & Abbreviations
City Funds
Community Development Block Grant
Congestion Management/Air Quality
Washington Department of Commerce
Private Developer Funds
Federal Highway Administration
Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board
Federal Transit Authority
Highway Safety Improvement Program
National Highway Freight Program
Misc. Unidentified Funding Sources
Washington State Recreation Conservation Office
Real Estate Excise Tax
Railroad
Safe Routes to School
City Stormwater Funds
Spokane Transit Authority
Surface Transportation Block Grant
Surface Transportation Block Grant — Set Aside
Transportation Improvement Board
Washington Legislature
Washington Department of Transportation
Spokane
�� VaHey
Project Phases:
• PE Preliminary Engineering
• RW Right -of -Way
• CN Construction
Zoning
R1
R2
R3
POS
MF
NC
MU
CMU
RC
IMU
S i6kane ��-
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
1 2020 Local Access Streets (Barker Rd. Homes)
Description:
County sewer partnership. City to reimburse County for paving and
stormwater costs.
Status:
2020-2021 CN, 2022 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): 2
Funding Status:
35 City 35 35
Secured PE
RW
Secured CN
35
0
0
35
Total 35 35
2 2021 Local Access Streets (4th & Coleman 24 City 24 24
Neighborhood)
Description:
Pavement Preservation funded with Fund 106.
Status:
2021 CN, 2022 Closeout (2%)
Length (miles): 2
Funding Status:
Secured PE
RW
Secured CN
24
0
0
24
Total 24 24
3 Sullivan Rd. Bridge Deck Resurfacing
Description:
Resurface existing bridge deck for Sullivan Road northbound over UPRR
tracks.
Status:
2021 CN, 2022 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
5 City
Other Fed 5 5
Secured PE
Secured RW
Secured CN
5
0
0
5
Total 5 5
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 1
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
4 Citywide Reflective Post Panels (2018)
Description:
Installation of reflective post panels to stop signs and speed limit signs on
select streets.
Status:
2020-2021 CN, 2022 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): 0
1
Funding Status:
City
HSIP 1 1
Secured PE
RW
Secured CN
0
0
Total 1 1
5 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates (2018)
Description:
Installation of reflective backplate panels at select traffic signals.
Status:
2020-2021 CN, 2022 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
3 City
HSIP 3 3
Secured PE
RW
Secured CN
3
0
0
3
Total 3 3
6 Park Rd. Sidewalk
Description:
New sidewalk on west side from Sharp to Mission with potential marked
crossing at Sharp or Cataldo.
Status:
2020 PE, 2021 CN, 2022 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): 0.2
Funding Status:
13 City 5 5
TIB 8 8
Secured PE
RW
Secured CN
14
0
0
14
Total 13 13
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 2
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
7 Barker Rd. Improvements - Spokane River to Euclid
Description:
Reconstruct and widen to 3-lane urban section to east leg of Euclid.
Status:
2020-2021 CN, 2022 closeout (2%).
Length (miles): 0.5
Funding Status:
56 City
STBG 35 35
FMSIB 18 18
HSIP 3 3
DEV
Secured PE
Secured RW
Secured CN
57
0
0
57
Total 56 56
8 Balfour Park Frontage Improvements
Description:
Pavement preservation, widen paved shoulder, install curb and sidewalk
on Herald, Main and Balfour.
Status:
2021 CN, 2022 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): 0.4
Funding Status:
38 City 38 38
Secured PE
RW
Secured CN
38
0
0
38
Total 38 38
9 Mullan Rd. Preservation - Broadway to Mission
Description:
Preservation project with conduit for future ITS infill, signals improvements
at Mission.
Status:
2021 CN, 2022 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): 0.5
Funding Status:
22 City 3 3
STBG 19 19
Secured PE
Secured RW
Secured CN 22
0
0
22
Total 22 22
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 3
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
10 Appleway Blvd. Stormwater Improvements 25 Other State 19 19
City 6 6
Description:
Improve stormwater facilities between University and Farr. Funded by
Dept. of Ecology.
Status:
2020 PE, 2021 CN, 2022 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): 0.6
Funding Status:
Secured PE
Secured RW
Secured CN
25
0
0
25
Total 25 25
11 Evergreen Rd. Preservation - Sprague to Mission
Description:
Pavement preservation project with ITS and signal upgrades at Broadway.
Status:
Sprague to Broadway 2021 CN, Broadway to Mission 2022 CN
Length (miles): 0.9
Funding Status:
1,045 Other 836 836
City 209 209
Secured PE 30
RW
Partial CN 1,015
30
0
1,015
Total 1,045 1,045
12 Sprague Ave. / Barker Rd. Intersection Improvement 1,889 City
CMAQ 117 117
Description: DEV 7 7
Provide new roundabout and with sidewalks and bike accommodations. HSIP 1,765 1,765
Status:
2021 PE + RW, 2022 CN
Length (miles): Intersection
Funding Status:
Secured PE 0
Secured RW 54 54
Secured CN 1,835 1,835
Total 1,889 1,889
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 4
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
13 Citywide Reflective Post Panels (2020)
Description:
Installation of reflective post panels to stop signs and speed limit signs on
select streets.
Status:
2021 PE, 2022 CN, 2023 Closeout (2%)
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
157 HSIP 154 3 157
City
Secured PE 7
RW
Secured CN 147 3
7
0
150
Total 154 3 157
14 Barker Rd. at Union Pacific Crossing
Description:
Reconstruct and widen to 3-lane urban section between Euclid intersection
legs and install shared -use path from river to Trent.
Status:
2021 PE + RW, 2022 CN, 2023 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
1,298 City 751 15 766
FMSIB 261 5 266
STBG 102 2 104
HSIP 159 3 162
Secured PE
Secured RW
Secured CN 1,273 26
0
0
1,299
Total 1,273 25 1,298
15 Pines Rd. / Mission Ave. Intersection Improvement
Description:
Signal and channelization upgrades to improve capacity and additional turn
lane on southbound Pines.
Status:
2020-2022 PE + ROW, 2022-2023 CN, 2024 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): Intersection
Funding Status:
1,830 City 142 106 248
CMAQ 908 674 1,582
Secured PE
Secured RW
Secured CN
200
70
780 780
200
70
1,560
Total 1,050 780 1,830
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 5
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
16 Sullivan Rd. / Wellesley Ave. Intersection Improvement
Description:
Traffic signal and intersection improvement project, partnership with
Spokane County.
Status:
2019-2021 PE & ROW, 2022 CN, 2023 Closeout (2%).
Length (miles): Intersection
Funding Status:
1,999 City 132 3 135
CMAQ 847 17 864
Spo. Co. 980 20 1,000
Secured PE
Secured RW
Secured CN 1,960 40
0
0
2,000
Total 1,959 40 1,999
17 Broadway Ave. - Havana to Fancher
Description:
Pavement preservation & reconstruction, including stormwater
improvements.
Status:
2020-2022 PE. 2023 CN.
Length (miles): 1
Funding Status:
2,960 City 60 580 640
Other 2,320 2,320
Secured PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
60
2,900
60
0
2,900
Total 60 2,900 2,960
18 Broadway Preservation - Fancher to Park
Description:
Pavement preservation project.
Status:
Planned project.
Length (miles): 1
Funding Status:
2,000 City 75 925 1,000
STP 75 925 1,000
Planned PE
RW
Planned CN
150
1,850
150
0
1,850
Total 150 1,850 2,000
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 6
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
19 Sprague Preservation - Havana to Fancher
Description:
Pavement Preservation Project
Status:
Planned project.
Length (miles): 1
Funding Status:
150 City 75 75
STP 75 75
PE 150
RW
CN
1,850
150
0
1,850
Total 150 150
20 Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Analysis
Description:
Evaluate crash history of vehicle versus pedestrian/bicyclists on City
streets, as identified in the 2020 Local Road Safety Plan.
Status:
PE only. May be staff -led with support from consultant team. Sprague, SR
27, and Sullivan have majority of sever pedestrian crashes.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
50 City 25 25 50
Planned PE 25 25
RW
50
0
CN 0
Total 25 25 50
21 Sullivan Rd. Preservation - Sprague to 8th
Description:
Pavement preservation with signal, sidewalks and stormwater
improvements as necessary.
Status:
Seeking funds, candidate for TIB or STBG preservation funding. Assumes
20% City match for CN.
Length (miles): 0.3
Funding Status:
2,990 City 90 580 670
Other 2,320 2,320
Secured PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
90
400
90
400
2,900 2,900
Total 90 2,900 2,990
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 7
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
22 Sullivan Rd. Preservation - 8th to 16th
Description:
Pavement preservation with signal, sidewalks and stormwater
improvements as necessary.
Status:
Seeking funds, candidate for TIB or STBG preservation funding. Assumes
20% City match for CN.
Length (miles): 0.3
Funding Status:
1,380 City 80 260 340
Other 1,040 1,040
Planned PE 80
RW
Planned CN
80
0
1,300 1,300
Total 80
1,300 1,380
23 Sprague Ave. Stormwater Improvements
Description:
Drywell retrofits between University and Park. Funded by Dept. of Ecology.
Status:
2021 PE, 2022 CN, 2023 Closeout. 25% Local match.
Length (miles): 2
Funding Status:
1,902 Other State 1,398 28 1,426
City 466 10 476
Secured PE 2
RW
Secured CN 1,862 38
2
0
1,900
Total 1,864 38 1,902
24 Wilbur Rd. Sidewalk - Boone to Mission 581 City 134 3 137
STBG-SA 435 9 444
Description:
Install sidewalk from Boone to Mission on one side of road.
Status:
2021 PE, 2022 CN.
Length (miles): 0.3
Funding Status:
Secured PE
Secured RW
Secured CN
12
4
553 11
12
4
564
Total 569 12 581
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 8
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
25 Barker Rd. / BNSF Grade Separation Project
Description:
Construct Grade Separation at Barker/BNSF RR/Trent (SR290).
Status:
WSDOT administers CN 2021-2023.
Length (miles): Intersection
Funding Status:
13,670 City 1,997 363 2,360
NHFP 3,300 600 3,900
TIGER 3,356 610 3,966
FMSIB 2,750 500 3,250
WAL
Other 164 30 194
Secured PE
Secured RW
Secured CN
11,567 2,103
0
0
13,670
Total 11,567 2,103 13,670
26 Park Rd. / Mission Ave. Intersection Improvement
Description:
Improve channelization and signal operations.
Status:
2021 PE + RW, 2022 CN.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
1,500 City 20 128 1,352 1,500
Planned PE 20 80
Planned RW 48 12
Planned CN 1,340
100
60
1,340
Total 20 128 1,352 1,500
27 8th Ave. Preservation - Progress to Sullivan
Description:
Potential partnership with Vera Water & Power for sidewalk extension on
south side along frontage of Vera's property.
Status:
2020 PE with City funds, potential Fund 311 project in future CN years.
Length (miles): 0.2
Funding Status:
700 City 25 25 585 635
Other 65 65
Planned PE 25 25
RW
Planned CN
650
50
0
650
Total 25 25 650 700
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 9
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
28 Mission Ave. Bridge Resurfacing
Description:
Surface preservation of concrete bridge deck over Evergreen Road.
Status:
2022 PE, 2023 CN
Length (miles): 0.0
Funding Status:
264 City 2 2
Other Fed 20 237 5 262
PE 22 3 25
RW 0
CN 235 5 240
Total 22 237 5 264
29 Spokane Valley River Loop Trail
Description:
Paved shared -use path on north bank of Spokane River between Plante's
Ferry and Flora Parks, including two pedestrian bridges at each end.
Status:
PE planned for 2022 local budget, pursue RW/CN funding.
Length (miles): 4
Funding Status:
999 City 333 333 333 999
Other
Planned pE 333 333 333
RW
Planned CN
1,000
0
0
Total 333 333 333 999
30 Argonne Rd. Concrete Pavement- Indiana to 2,150 City 4 10 441 455
Montgomery TIB 9 27 798 834
Description: Other 861 861
Reconstruct with concrete and improve signal timing at Montgomery.
Status:
Phased project: TIB funds Montgomery intersection in 2021. Indiana to
Montgomery pending funds, CN 2024.
Length (miles): 0.3
Funding Status:
Secured PE 12 37
Secured RW
Partial CN
50
0
2,100 2,100
Total 13 37 2,100 2,150
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 10
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
31 Pines Rd. (SR27) / BNSF Grade Separation Project
Description:
Construct Grade Separation at Pines/BNSF RR/Trent (SR290).
Status:
2020 PE Start. "Other" assumes 20% City match.
Length (miles): Intersection
Funding Status:
25,152 City 830 561 2,180 1,744 5,315
STBG 1,894 1,894
Other Fed 374 125 499
Other 1,744 8,722 6,978 17,444
Secured pE 748 249
Secured RW 2,350
Partial CN 2,181 10,903 8,722
998
2,350
21,806
Total 3,098 2,430 10,902 8,722 25,152
32 Sullivan Rd. / SR 290 Interchange Reconstruction
Description:
Reconstruct interchange to improve safety and capacity.
Status:
City secured $500,000 for 2021-2022 initiatial PE, pursuing addietional PE,
RW, CN funding by 2026.CN Start 2027.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
10,958 City 424 848 424 221 55 1,492 3,464
Other 106 212 106 883 221 5,966 7,494
Partial pE 530 1,060 530 2,120
Planned RW 1,104 276 1,380
Planned CN 7,458 7,458
Total 530 1,060 530 1,104 276 7,458 10,958
33 Local Access Street Improvements - $1.5M Annually
Description:
Funded by Street Wear Fee. Project type varies (surface treatments,
grind/inlays, reconstruction
Status:
Site selection is on -going. Actual locations to be determined.
Length (miles):
Funding Status:
9,000 City 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 9,000
Secured pE 100 100 100 100 100 100 600
Secured RW 0
Secured CN 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 8,400
Total 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 9,000
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 11
Spokane
1 - Va11ey
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
34 Street Preservation Projects - $3M Annually
Description:
Preservation projects, typically arterials or collectors, or used as matching
funds for grants.
Status:
Specified projects in TIP my duplicate this annual placeholder. Projects
may include storm and sidewalk upgrades as applicable.
Length (miles): Varies
Funding Status:
18,000 City 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 18,000
Planned PE 100 100 100 100 100 500
RW 0
Planned CN
3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 17,500
Total 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 18,000
35 Citywide Safety Projects - Biennial
Description:
Projects are consistent with the City's Local Road Safety Plan. Awarded
projects specified in TIP.
Status:
Costs assume project implementation in odd -number years and
design/close-out in even -numbered years. 10% local match.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
1,749 HSIP 86 433 86 433 86 449 1,573
City 10 48 10 48 10 50 176
Planned PE 22 11 22 11 22 12 100
RW 0
Planned CN 85 476 85 476 85 493 1,700
Total 96 481 96 481 96 499 1,749
36 Mission Ave. Preservation - Mullan to University
Description:
Pavement preservation and possible widening project with stormwater
improvements as necessary.
Status:
Assumes 100% City funded (Fund 311).
Length (miles): 0
1,880 City 50 77 1,718 35 1,880
Funding Status:
Planned PE 50 50 100
Planned RW 135 15 150
Planned CN 1,715 35 1,750
Total 50 77 1,718 35 1,880
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 12
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
37 South Bowdish Rd. - Phased Corridor Improvements
Description:
Reconstruct Sprague to Dishman Mica as 2-lane section w/ curb, sidewalk,
bike lanes and new stormwater facilities. Also included are intersection
improvements at 32nd Ave and a new signal or roundabout at 16th Ave.
Status:
Phased improvements to align with available funding opportunities.
Potential sources include TIB, SRTC, Local.
Length (miles): 3
Funding Status:
4,863 City 12 8 460 12 8 472 972
Other 49 32 1,840 49 32 1,889 3,891
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
200 200 200 600
100 100 200
2,300 2,300 4,600
Total 61 40 2,300 61 40 2,361 4,863
38 Sullivan Rd. Preservation - 16th to S. City Limit
Description:
Pavement preservation with signal, sidewalks and stormwater
improvements as necessary.
Status:
Seeking funds, candidate for TIB or STBG preservation funding. Assumes
20% City match for CN.
Length (miles): 0.8
Funding Status:
2,200 City 80 1,700 1,780
Other 420 420
Planned PE 80 20
Planned RW
Planned CN
100
0
2,100 2,100
Total
80 2,120 2,200
39 Dishman-Mica Rd. Preservation - Schafer to S. City
Limit
Description:
Pavement preservation project.
Status:
Assumes 100% City funded (Fund 311).
Length (miles): 1
1,300 City 50 1,250 1,300
Funding Status:
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
50
1,250
50
0
1,250
Total
50 1,250 1,300
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 13
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
40 Vera Crest + Rocky Ridge Street Reconstruction 150 City 75 75 150
Projects
Description:
Stormwater and road reconstruction projects including multiple
neighborhoods: Kahuna Hills (Carnahan/Kahuna/15th), Heather Park (16th
at Rocky Ridge, Koren), Ridgemont Estates (Vera Crest, Conklin).
Status:
Multi -year, phased project.PE required to define scope and CN cost.
Possible CN funding by Ecology.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
Planned PE 75 75
RW
150
0
CN 0
Total
75 75 150
41 8th Ave. / Carnahan Rd. Intersection Improvement
Description:
Add intersection control (turn lanes, potential signal).
Status:
Assumes 20% City match. OTHER may be TIB, DEV or City.
Length (miles): Intersection
Funding Status:
2,000 City 35 50 315 400
Other 140 200 1,260 1,600
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
175
250
1,575
175
250
1,575
Total
175 250 1,575 2,000
42 Barker Rd. Intersection Improvements at 4th & 8th
Description:
Provide new traffic signal or roundabout, per S. Barker Corridor Study.
Status:
Assume City funded, but may be eligible for grant funds.
Length (miles): 0 Intersection
Funding Status:
3,500 City 45 45 72 2,988 3,150
DEV 5 5 8 332 350
Planned PE 50 50 100
Planned RW 80 20 100
Planned CN 3,300 3,300
Total
50 50 80 3,320 3,500
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 14
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
43 Mirabeau Parkway / Mansfield Ave. Intersection 1,252 City 135 172 307
Improvement CMAQ 50 895 945
Description:
Intersection capacity improvements.
Status:
Potential for Developer funds via Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study.
Length (miles): Intersection
Funding Status:
Partial PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
135
50
1,067
135
50
1,067
Total
135 50 1,067 1,252
44 Barker Rd. Improvement Project - 1-90 to Appleway
Description:
Reconstruct 5-lane urban section with alignment/channelization
improvements at Appleway & Broadway.
Status:
Anticipated to follow 1-90 interchange improvements.
Length (miles): 0.3
Funding Status:
6,501 City 135 270 473 878
Other 865 1,730 3,028 5,623
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
1,000
2,000
3,500
1,000
2,000
3,500
Total
1,000 2,000 3,501 6,501
45 Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Euclid to Garland
Description:
Reconstruct to an urban arterial section in partnership with Spokane
County Sewer Extension
Status:
Seeking funding, assume 20% City match.
Length (miles): 0.6
Funding Status:
2,200 City 20 20 400 440
Other 80 80 1,600 1,760
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
100
100
2,000
100
100
2,000
Total
100 100 2,000 2,200
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 15
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
46 Park Rd. Preservation - Sprague to Trent
Description:
Pavement preservation project.
Status:
Assumes 100% City funded (Fund 311).
Length (miles): 0.8
Funding Status:
1,360 City 100 60 1,200 1,360
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
70
30
1,200
70
30
1,200
Total
100 60 1,200 1,360
47 Flora Rd. / SR 290 Intersection Improvement
Description:
Provide new signal or roundabout, per adopted Planned Action Ordinance.
Assume ROW & CN after 2026.
Status:
Planned project. Assume PAO contributions from Developers in the
amount of 10%, City 40%, grants 50%.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
200 City 20 20 20 20 80
DEV 5 5 5 5 20
Other 25 25 25 25 100
Planned PE
Planned RW
50 50 100
50 50 100
Planned CN 0
Total
50 50 50 50 200
48 Cataldo Ave. Realignment at Barker Rd.
Description:
Realign Cataldo east of Barker to intersect Boone Ave., per adopted
Planned Action Ordinance.
Status:
Planned project. Assume PAO contributions from Developers in the
amount of 10%, City 40%, grants 50%. CN after 2025.
Length (miles): 0.2
Funding Status:
600 City 36 104 100 240
DEV 9 26 25 60
Other 45 130 125 300
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
90 10 100
250 250 500
0
Total
90 260 250 600
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 16
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
49 32nd Ave. Preservation - Pines to SR 27
Description:
Pavement preservation project.
Status:
2024 PE, 2025 CN
Length (miles): 0.8
Funding Status:
1,000 City 54 946 1,000
Planned PE
RW
Planned CN
54 6 60
0
940 940
Total
54 946 1,000
50 Wellesley Ave. Preservation - Sullivan to Flora
Description:
Pavement preservation project.
Status:
2024 PE 2025 CN
Length (miles): 1
Funding Status:
1,000 City 54 946 1,000
Planned PE
RW
Planned CN
54 6 60
0
940 940
Total
54 946 1,000
51 Barker Rd. Improvement-Appleway to S. City Limits
Description:
Reconstruct to 3-lane urban section from Appleway to Sprague including
signal/channelization improvements at Appleway, and a 2-lane urban
section south of Sprague.
Status:
Identified in S. Barker Corridor Study.
Length (miles): 0.8
Funding Status:
300 City 36 14 10 60
TIB 144 56 40 240
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
180 20 200
50 50 100
0
Total
180 70 50 300
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 17
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
52 Pines Rd. (SR-27) / 16th Ave. Intersection Improvement
Description:
Add traffic control at five -leg intersecton.
Status:
$5M est. total. Pending funding to improve five -leg intersection.
Length (miles): Intersection
Funding Status:
300 City 50 75 25 150
DEV 50 75 25 150
Other
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
100 100 200
50 50 100
0
Total
100 150 50 300
53 Barker Rd. - Mission to Interstate 90
Description:
Reconstruct to 5-lane urban section. Improvements at Boone intersection
are identified separately.
Status:
Planned project for 2025 PE. Assume PAO contributions from Developers
in the amount of 10%, City 40%, grants 50%.
Length (miles): 0.3
Funding Status:
3,000 City 80 200 920 1,200
DEV 20 50 230 300
Other 100 250 1,150 1,500
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
200
500
200
500
2,300 2,300
Total
200 500 2,300 3,000
54 8th Ave. Preservation - Havana to Park
Description:
Pavement preservation project with select locations of sidewalk and road
widening.
Status:
2024 PE, 2025 ROW, 2026 CN
Length (miles): 1
Funding Status:
160 City 54 106 160
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
54 6 60
100 100
0
Total
54 106 160
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 18
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
55 Appleway Trail - Farr to Dishman Mica
Description:
Extend Shared Use pathway to Dishman Mica (incl. Dishman Hills area)
Status:
Potential funding sources: TIB, SRTC, RCO, LDA, City
Length (miles): 1
Funding Status:
100 City 10 10 20
Other 40 40 80
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
50 50 100
0
0
Total
50 50 100
56 Argonne Rd. & 1-90 Interchange Bridge Widening
Description:
Widen Argonne Road bridge to 3 lanes southbound and improve sidewalks.
Status:
$15 M total assumes bridge reconstruction, rechannelization, adjacent
signal rework. 20% City match, and CN after 2025.
Length (miles): 0.1
Funding Status:
500 City 50 50 100
FMSIB 75 75 150
STBG 100 100 200
WSDOT 25 25 50
Planned PE
RW
Planned CN
250 250 500
0
0
Total
250 250 500
57 8th Ave. / Park Rd. Intersection Improvement
Description:
Provide new traffic signal or roundabout.
Status:
Assume 2025 PE, 2026 ROW, 2027 CN.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
340 City 16 52 68
DEV
Other 64 208 272
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
80 20 100
240 240
0
Total
80 260 340
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 19
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
58 Barker Rd. / Boone Ave. Intersection Improvement
Description:
Provide new signal or roundabout, per adopted Planned Action Ordinance.
Assume ROW & CN after 2025.
Status:
$2.8 est. total. Assume PAO contributions from Developers in the amount
of 10%, City 40%, grants 50%.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
50 City 20 20
DEV 5 5
Other 25 25
Planned PE
Planned RW
50 50
0
Planned CN 0
Total
50 50
59 Broadway Ave. Improvements - Flora to Barker
Description:
Extend 3-lane urban section to Barker Rd and realign connection east of
Barker.
Status:
Possible partnership with WSDOT.
Length (miles): 5E
Funding Status:
80 City 16 16
Other 64 64
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
80 80
0
0
Total
80 80
60 4th Ave. / Pines Rd. (SR 27) Intersection Improvements
Description:
Install new intersection control.
Status:
Est. $1M total cost. 2025 PE, 2026 ROW, 2027 CN.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
100 City 100 100
Planned PE
Planned RW
Planned CN
100 100
0
0
Total
100 100
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 20
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
61 Sullivan Rd. / Kiernan Ave. Intersection Improvement
Description:
Improve channelization and signal operations at intersection and
reconstruct intersection with concrete.
Status:
$2M est. total. Planned PE in 2026. Assume 20% City match.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
80 City 16 16
Other 64 64
Planned PE 80 80
Planned RW 0
Planned CN 0
Total
80 80
62 Sullivan Rd. / Marietta Ave. Intersection Improvement
Description:
Improve channelization and signal operations at intersection and
reconstruct intersection with concrete.
Status:
$2M est. total. Planned PE in 2026. Assume 20% City match.
Length (miles): 0
Funding Status:
80 City 16 16
Other 64 64
Planned PE 80 80
Planned RW 0
Planned CN 0
Total
80 80
63 Boone Ave. Reconstruction - Flora to Barker
Description:
Reconstruct corridor to city standards.
Status:
Est. $4M total cost. 2025 City -funded PE, 2026 ROW, 2027 CN.
Length (miles): 1
Funding Status:
75 City 75 75
Other
PE 75 75
RW 0
CN 0
Total
75 75
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 21
Spiokane
Walley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
64 Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Sprague to Montgomery
Description:
Reconstruct to city standards, including a shared -use pathway connecting
Appleway & Centennial Trails.
Status:
Assume 20% City match. Possible funding from SRTC, RCO, TIB, WA Leg.
Length (miles): 2
Funding Status:
75 City 15 15
Other 60 60
PE 75 75
RW 0
CN 0
Total
75 75
65 Euclid Ave. Preservation - Barker to E. City Limit
Description:
Pavement preservation project. City may consider increasing scope of
project to improve road section to meet City standards.
Status:
2026 PE
Length (miles): 0.5
Funding Status:
50 City 50 50
Planned PE
RW
Planned CN
50 50
0
0
Total
50 50
66 Sullivan Rd. Improvements - Trent to Wellesley
Description:
Widen to add center turn lane, improved corridor access management,
improved lighting, and addition of shared -use path.
Status:
Est. $3M total cost. Scope based on updated to Sullivan Corridor Study.
Assume 20% City match.
Length (miles): 0.3
Funding Status:
100 City 20 20
Other 80 80
PE 100 100
RW 0
CN 0
Total
100 100
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 22
Spiokane
Valley
2022-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Project / Description / Current Status / Length Total
Funding
Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total
Totals: 11,323 8,838 122,733 142,894 27,895 21,054 31,516 20,096 19,956 19,474 139,991
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances.
5/27/2021 Page 23
1. 2020 Local Access Streets (Barker Spokane
Valley
Rd. Homes)
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
County sewer partnership. City to reimburse County for paving and stormwater costs.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2019
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
1,750
2020-2021
Total Cost: 1,800
2. 2021 Local Access Streets (4th & Spokane
Valley
Coleman Area)
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Local access streets pavement preservation project funded by Fund 106.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2020-2021
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
1,200
2021-2022
Total Cost: 1,250
3. Sullivan Rd. Bridge Deck
Resurfacing
Project Type: Bridge
Project Description:
Resurface existing bridge deck on northbound bridge over UPRR tracks.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 68 2019-2020
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 270
2021
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 338
4. Citywide Reflective Post Panels
(2018)
Project Type: Safety
Project Description:
Installation of reflective post panels to stop signs and speed limit signs on select streets.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 6 2019
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 72
2020-2021
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 78
5. Citywide Reflective Signal
Backplates (2018)
Project Type: Safety
Project Description:
Installation of reflective backplate panels at select traffic signals.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 15 2019
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 165
2020-2021
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 180
6. Park Rd. Sidewalk
Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
New sidewalk on west side from Sharp to Mission with potential marked crossing at Sharp or Cataldo.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2020
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 683
2021
Total Cost: 733
7. Barker Rd. Improvements -
Spokane River to Euclid
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Project Description:
Reconstruct and widen to 3-lane urban section to east leg of Euclid.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 165 2019
Right of Way (RW): 195 2020
Construction (CN): 2,831 2020-2021
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 3,191
8. Balfour Park Frontage
Improvements
Project Type: Street Preservation
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Pavement preservation, widen paved shoulder, install curb and sidewalk on Herald, Main and Balfour.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2020
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
1,900
2021
Total Cost: 2,000
9. Mullan Rd. Preservation -
Broadway to Mission
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Preservation project with conduit for future ITS infill, signals improvements at Mission.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 149 2020
Right of Way (RW): 160 2020
Construction (CN): 1,091 2021
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 1,400
10. Appleway Blvd. Stormwater
Improvements
Project Type: Stormwater
Project Description:
Improve stormwater facilities between University and Farr. Funded by Dept. of Ecology.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2020-2021
Right of Way (RW): 100 2020-2021
Construction (CN): 1,250 2021
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 1,450
11. Evergreen Rd Preservation -
Sprague to Mission
Project Type: Street Preservation
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Signal and channelization upgrades to improve capacity and additional turn lane on southbound Pines.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2020-2021
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
2,900
2021-2022
Total Cost: 3,000
12. Sprague Ave. / Barker Rd.
Intersection Improvement
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Provide new roundabout and with sidewalks and bike accomodations.
Funding Status: Partial
Project Phase(s): Partial
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 165 2019-2021
Right of Way (RW): 270 2021-2022
Construction (CN): 1,835 2022
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 2,270
13. Citywide Reflective Post Panels spokane�
y Valley
(2020)
Project Type: Safety
Project Description:
Installation of reflective post panels to stop signs and speed limit signs on select streets.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 14 2021
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 150
2022-2023
Total Cost: 164
14. Barker Rd. at Union Pacific
Crossing
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Project Description:
Recnstruct and widen to 3-lane urban section at UPRR and E. Euclid Ave.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 85 2020-2021
Right of Way (RW): 50 2021
Construction (CN): 1,299 2022
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 1,434
15. Pines Rd. / Mission Ave.
Intersection Improvement
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Signal and channelization upgrades to improve capacity and additional turn lane on southbound Pines.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 400 2020-2022
Right of Way (RW): 140 2021-2022
Construction (CN): 1,560 2022-2023
Total Cost: 2,100
16. Sullivan Rd. / Wellesley Ave.
Intersection Improv.
Spokane
Valley
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Traffic signal and intersection improvement project, partnership with Spokane County.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 225 2019-2021
Right of Way (RW): 185 2020-2021
Construction (CN): 2,000 2022
Total Cost: 2,410
17. Broadway Ave. Preservation -
Havana to Fancher
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Pavement preservation, including stormwater improvements as necessary.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2019-2022
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
2,900
2023
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 3,000
18. Broadway Ave. Preservation -
Fancher to Park
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Pavement Preservation Project
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150 2022
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
1,850
2023
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 2,000
19. Sprague Ave. Preservation -
Havana to Fancher
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Pavement preservation project.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150 2022
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0 -
1,850
2023
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 2,000
20. Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety
Analysis
Project Type: Safety
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Evaluate vehicle vs. pedestrian/bicycist crashes, as identified in the Local Road Safety Plan.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2022-2023
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 0
Total Cost: 50
21. Sullivan Rd. Preservation -
Sprague to 8th
Project Type: Street Preservation
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Pavement preservation with signal, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2021-2022
Right of Way (RW): 400 2022
Construction (CN): 2,900 2023
Total Cost: 3,400
22. Sullivan Rd. Preservation - 8th to *wane
16th
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Pavement preservation with signal, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2021-2022
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
1,300
2024
Total Cost: 1,400
23. Sprague Ave. Stormwater
Improvements
Project Type: Stormwater
Project Description:
Drywell retrofits between University and Park. Funded by Dept. of Ecology.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2021
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
1,900
2022
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 2,000
24. Wilbur Rd. Sidewalk - Boone to Spokane
Valley
Mission
Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement
Project Description:
Install sidewalk from Boone to Mission on one side of road.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60 2021-2022
Right of Way (RW): 20 2021-2022
Construction (CN): 564 2022
Total Cost: 644
25. Barker Rd. / BNSF Grade
Separation Project
Project Type: Bridge
Project Description:
Construct Grade Separation at Barker/BNSF RR/Trent (SR290).
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate
(in $1,000)
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 2,595
Right of Way (RW): 2,545
Construction (CN): 21,030
Estimated Project
Schedule
2019
2020
2020-2023
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 26,170
26. Park Rd. / Mission Ave.
Intersection Improvement
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Improve channelization and signal operations.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2022-2023
Right of Way (RW): 60 2023-2024
Construction (CN): 1,340 2024
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 1,500
27. 8th Ave. Preservation - Progress Spokane
g Valley
to Sullivan
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Street preservation with potential sidewalk extension and partnership with Vera Water & Power.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2022-2023
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 650
2024
Total Cost: 700
28. Mission Ave. Bridge Resurfacingspokane�
Valley
Project Type: Bridge
Project Description:
Surface preservation of concrete bridge deck over Evergreen Rd.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 25 2022
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 240
2023
Total Cost: 265
29. Spokane Valley- River LoopTrail spokane�
p Valley
Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement
Project Description:
5-mile shared -use path on north bank of Spokane River, including two pedestrian bridges.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 1,000 2022-2024
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 15,000
Total Cost: 16,000
30. Argonne Rd. Concrete Pave. -
Indiana to Montgomery
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Project Description:
Reconstruct with concrete and improve signal timing at Montgomery.
Funding Status: Secured
Project Phase(s): Secured
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 125 2020-2023
Right of Way (RW): 40 2020-2021
Construction (CN): 5,000 2021, 2024
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 5,165
31. Pines Rd. (SR27) / BNSF Grade spokane�
Valley
Separation Project
Project Type: Bridge
Project Description:
Construct Grade Separation at Pines/BNSF RR/Trent (SR290).
Funding Status: Partial
Project Phase(s): Partial
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 2,494 2020-2023
Right of Way (RW): 4,700 2021-2022
Construction (CN): 21,806 2023-2025
Total Cost: 29,000
32. Sullivan Rd. / SR 290 Interchange *Wane
Valley
Reconstruction
rjo et4.4
v,.
Project Type: Bridge
Project Description:
Reconstruct interchange to improve safety and capacity.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 2,650 2021-2024
Right of Way (RW): 1,380 2025-2026
Construction (CN): 22,600 2027-2028
Total Cost: 26,630
33. Local Access Street
Improvements - $1.5M Annually
Project Type: Street Preservation
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Funded by Street Wear Fee. Project type varies (surface treatments, grind/inlays, reconstruction).
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 600 Annually
Right of Way (RW): 0 Annually
Construction (CN): 8,400 Annually
Total Cost: 9,000
34. Street Preservation Projects -
$3M Annually
Project Type: Street Preservation
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Preservation projects, typically arterials or collectors, or used as matching funds for grants.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 500 Annually
Right of Way (RW): 0 Annually
Construction (CN): 17,500 Annually
Total Cost: 18,000
35. Citywide Safety Projects -
Biennial
Project Type: Safety
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Projects are consistent with the City's Local Road Safety Plan. Awarded projects specified in TIP.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 Annually
Right of Way (RW): 0 Annually
Construction (CN): 1,700 Annually
Total Cost: 1,800
36. Mission Ave. Preservation -
Mullan to University
Project Type: Street Preservation
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Pavement preservation and possible widening project with stormwater improvements as necessary.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate
(in $1,000)
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
Right of Way (RW): 150
Construction (CN): 1,750
Estimated Project
Schedule
2022-2023
2023-2024
2024
Total Cost: 2,000
37. South Bowdish Rd. -Phased
Corridor Improvements
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Reconstruct Sprague to Dishman Mica as a modified urban street with improvements at 16th/32nd.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 1,000 2022-
Right of Way (RW): 500 2023-
Construction (CN): 11,500 2024-
Total Cost: 13,000
38. Sullivan Rd Preservation - 16th
Ave. to City Limit
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Pavement preservation with signal, sidewalks and stormwater improvements as necessary.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2023-2024
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
2,100
2024
CITY
Valley
Total Cost:
2,200
39. Dishman-Mica Rd. Pres. - Schafer Spokane
j Valley
to S. City Limit
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Pavement preservation project.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2023
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
1,250
2024
Total Cost: 1,300
40. Vera Crest + RockyRidgeStreet *Wane
Valley
Reconstruction
•
k1 c: • LA, LA traykd,R.. m77.si£u . b iv' 'L.
minwitais
ors■ •=
1>.:,:..
. ■.peso .awri_ y.:
'm on owl
�lii ®■ $ ^�a,*� Pik ?aisi
1•11sip.
il Ell Ell IPM it ®41
10
4140.4041151
1 — — —
•
Project Type: Street Reconstruction Project
Project Description:
Stormwater/road reconstruction in mulltiple areas: Kahuna Hills, Heather Park, Ridgemont Estates.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150 2023-2024
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 0
Total Cost: 150
41. 8th Ave. / Carnahan Rd.
Intersection Improvement
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Add intersection control (turn lanes, potential signal).
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 175 2023
Right of Way (RW): 250 2024
Construction (CN): 1,575 2025
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 2,000
42. Barker Rd. Intersection
Improvements at 4th & 8th
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Provide new traffic signal or roundabout, per S. Barker Corridor Study.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2023-2024
Right of Way (RW): 100 2025-2026
Construction (CN): 3,300 2026
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 3,500
43. Mirabeau / Mansfield Intersection spokne�
Valley
Improvements
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Intersection capacity improvements.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 135 2024
Right of Way (RW): 50 2025
Construction (CN): 1,067 2026
Total Cost: 1,252
44. Barker Rd. Improvements -
A p p l eway to 1-90
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Reconstruct 5-lane urban section with alignment/channelization improvements at Appleway & Broadway.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 1,000 2024
Right of Way (RW): 2,000 2025
Construction (CN): 3,500 2026
Total Cost: 6,500
45. Flora Rd. Reconstruction - Euclid *wane
to Garland
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Project Description:
Reconstruct to an urban arterial section in partnership with Spokane County Sewer Extension
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2024
Right of Way (RW): 100 2025
Construction (CN): 2,000 2026
Total Cost: 2,200
46. Park Rd. Preservation - Sprague *wane
Valley
to Trent
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Pavement preservation project with potential sidewalks at select locations.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 70 2024
Right of Way (RW): 30 2025
Construction (CN): 1,200 2026
Total Cost: 1,300
47. Flora Rd. / SR 290 Intersection
Improvement
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Provide new signal or roundabout, per adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Assume ROW & CN after 2026.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2024-2025
Right of Way (RW): 100 2026-2027
Construction (CN): 3,800 2028
Total Cost: 4,000
48. Cataldo Ave. Realignment at
Barker Rd.
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Realign Cataldo Ave east of Barker to Intersect Boone Ave., per adopted Planned Action Ordinance.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2025-2026
Right of Way (RW): 500 2026-2027
Construction (CN): 1,400 2028
Total Cost: 2,000
49. 32nd Ave. Preservation - Pines to *wane
Valley
SR 27
z at -
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Pavement preservation project.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60 2025
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
940
2026
Total Cost: 1,000
50. Wellesley Ave. Preservation -
Sullivan to Flora
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Pavement preservation project.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60 2025
Right of Way (RW):
Construction (CN):
0
940
2026
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 1,000
51. Barker Rd. Improvement -
Appleway to S. City Limit
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Reconstruct 3-lane urban section from Appleway to Sprague and 2-lane urban section south of Sprague.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200 2025
Right of Way (RW): 100 2026-2027
Construction (CN): 3,200 2028-2029
Total Cost: 3,500
52. Pines Rd (SR-27) / 16th
Intersection Improvement
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Add traffic control at five -leg intersecton.
Funding Status: Partial
Project Phase(s): Partial
Cost Estimate
(in $1,000)
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200
Right of Way (RW): 100
Construction (CN): 4,700
Estimated Project
Schedule
2025-2026
2026-2027
2028
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 5,000
53. Barker Rd. - Mission to Interstate Spokane
Valley
90
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Project Description:
Reconstruct to 5-lane urban section. Improvements at Boone intersection are identified separately.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200 2025
Right of Way (RW): 500 2026
Construction (CN): 2,300 2027
Total Cost: 3,000
54. 8th Ave. Preservation - Havana to Spokane
Valley
Park
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Project Description:
Pavement preservation project with select locations of sidewalk and road widening.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 60 2026
Right of Way (RW): 100 2027
Construction (CN): 1,840 2028
Total Cost: 2,000
55. Appleway Trail - Farr to Dishman spokai
p p Y Valley
Mica
Project Type: Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement
Project Description:
Extend Shared Use pathway to Dishman Mica with north connections to City Hall and Balfour Park.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2026-2027
Right of Way (RW): 100 2028-2029
Construction (CN): 1,000 2029-2030
Total Cost: 1,200
56. Argonne Rd. & 1-90 Interchange spokane�
g g Valley
Bridge Widening
Project Type: Bridge
Project Description:
Widen Argonne Road bridge to 3 lanes southbound and improve sidewalks.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 500 2026-2027
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 14,500
2028-2029
Total Cost: 15,000
57. 8th Ave. / Park Rd. Intersection
Improvement
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Provide new traffic signal or roundabout.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate
(in $1,000)
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
Right of Way (RW): 300
Construction (CN): 2,600
Estimated Project
Schedule
2026-2027
2027-2028
2028
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 3,000
58. Barker Rd. / Boone Ave.
Intersection Improvement
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Provide new signal or roundabout, per adopted Planned Action Ordinance. Assume ROW & CN after 2025.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2027-2028
Right of Way (RW): 200 2028-2029
Construction (CN): 2,500 2030
Total Cost: 2,800
59. BroadwayAve. Improvements - spokai
p Valley
Flora to Barker
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Project Description:
Extend 3-lane urban section to Barker Rd and realign connection east of Barker.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate
(in $1,000)
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100
Right of Way (RW): 500
Construction (CN): 4,400
Estimated Project
Schedule
2027-2028
2028
2029
Total Cost: 5,000
60. 4th Ave. / Pines Rd. (SR 27)
Intersection Improv.
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Install new intersection control. Price assumes new signal and channelization.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2027
Right of Way (RW): 200 2028
Construction (CN): 700 2029
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 1,000
61. Sullivan Rd. / Kiernan Ave.
Intersection Improv.
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Improve channelization and signal operations and reconstruct intersection with concrete.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2027-2028
Right of Way (RW): 100 2028-2029
Construction (CN): 1,800 2029
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 2,000
62. Sullivan Rd. / Marietta Ave.
Intersection Improv.
Project Type: Intersection Improvement
Project Description:
Improve channelization and signal operations and reconstruct intersection with concrete.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 100 2027-2028
Right of Way (RW): 100 2028-2029
Construction (CN): 1,800 2029
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 2,000
63. Boone Ave. Reconstruction -
Flora to Barker
Project Type: Street Reconstruction Project
Project Description:
Reconstruct corridor to city standards.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate
(in $1,000)
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150
Right of Way (RW): 350
Construction (CN): 3,500
Estimated Project
Schedule
2027-2028
2029-2030
2031
Spokane
Valley
Total Cost: 4,000
64. Flora Rd. Reconstruction -
Sprague to Montgomery
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
Reconstruct to city standards, including a shared -use path connecting Appleway & Centennial Trails.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 150 2027-2028
Right of Way (RW): 250 2029-2030
Construction (CN): 3,600 2031
Total Cost: 4,000
65. Euclid Ave. Preservation - Barker spokane�
Valley
to E. City Limit
Project Type: Street Preservation
Project Description:
Pavement preservation project. City may elect to improve road section to meet City standards.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 50 2027
Right of Way (RW): 0
Construction (CN): 450
2028
Total Cost: 500
66. Sullivan Rd. Improvements -
Trent to Wellesley
Project Type: Arterial Improvement
CITY
Valley
Project Description:
Widen for center turn lane, improved access management, lighting, and addition of shared -use path.
Funding Status: Planned
Project Phase(s): Planned
Cost Estimate Estimated Project
(in $1,000) Schedule
Preliminary Engineering (PE): 200 2027-2028
Right of Way (RW): 300 2028-2029
Construction (CN): 2,500 2030
Total Cost: 3,000
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Department Director Approval: El
Check all that apply: 1�! consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers:
VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS
5/18/2021 53725-53750 (less 53738)
5/18/2021 53751
5/18/2021 53752-53758, wires 12955545, 12955633
5/19/2021 53759-53768
5/19/2021 53 769
5/20/2021 53770-53810 (less 53785)
5/21/2021 53811
5/24/2021 53 812-53 828
5/26/2021 53829-53834
5/26/2021 53835-53846
5/27/2021 53847-53865, wires 1305005, 13049907
5/27/2021 8856-8864 (Park Refunds)
6/01/2021 53 866-53 870
GRAND TOTAL:
TOTAL AMOUNT
165,523.53
341.91
710,961.19
48,066.43
9,268.75
136,823.89
45.74
147,607.77
187,617.28
306,217.50
2,051,667.38
759.00
14,238.00
$3,779,138.37
Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists
1001 - General Fund
001.011.000.511. City Council
001.013.000.513. City Manager
001.013.015.515. Legal
001.016.000. Public Safety
001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager
001.018.014.514. Finance
001.018.016.518. Human Resources
001.040.041. Engineering
001.040.042. Economic Development
001.040.043. Building
001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration
001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance
001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation
001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics
001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center
001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace
001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related
001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related
001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply
001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Serv.
001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services
001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation
001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Eco.
001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services
001.090.000.594 General Gov't -Capital Outlay
001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preser.
Other Funds:
101 — Street Fund
103 — Paths & Trails
105 — Hotel/Motel Tax
106 — Solid Waste
107 — PEG Fund
108 — Affordable & Supplemental Housing Sales Tax
120 — CenterPlace Operating Reserve
121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve
122 — Winter Weather Reserve
204 — Debt Service
301 — REET 1 Capital Projects
302 — REET 2 Capital Projects
303 — Street Capital Projects
309 — Parks Capital Grants
310 — Civic Bldg. Capital Projects
311 — Pavement Preservation
312 — Capital Reserve
314 — Railroad Grade Separation Projects
402 — Stormwater Management
403 — Aquifer Protection Area
501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement
502 — Risk Management
632 Passthrough Fees & Taxes
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers.
[Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.]
STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists
vehlist
05/1812021 10:16:03AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice FundlDept
53725 5/18/2021 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC
53726 5/18/2021 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES
53727 5/18/2021 007718 APPLETREE
53728 5/18/2021 000841 BC! CREATIVE INC
53729 511812021 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC
53730 5/18/2021 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC.
53731 5118/2021 005046 FASTSIGNS
53732 5118/2021 001983 GLOBAL EQUIP COMPANY
53733 5/18/2021 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES
53734 5/18/2021 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC.
53735 5/18/2021 003231 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY
1LKR-JWX6-QG6T 001.076.305.575
1YTN-W1-17K-6MMQ 001.076.305.575
406985
000020-959-041
15119
0257846
0259731
S0263674
S0263729
366360
INV-1860
117545314
1531035
10679998
0197-8
2172-1
2385-9
001.076.300.576
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.301.571
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.300.576
• 001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
Description/Account Amount
SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT
SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT
Total:
CLEANING SERVICE: CONSTRUCTION
Total:
ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENTERP
Total :
CP WEB HOSTING PKG: ANNUALAGRE
Total :
LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT CENT
LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT CENT
LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT CENT
LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT CENT
Total :
RECYCLING COLLECTION AT CENTER
Total :
SIGNAGE FOR CENTERPLACE
Total :
WASTE RECEPTACLES FOR OUTSIDE
Total:
APRIL 2021 MONTHLY CLEANING AT CI
Total:
895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE
SUPPLIES FOR PARKS
SUPPLIES FOR PARKS
SUPPLIES FOR PARKS
Total :
30.44
287.88
318.32
279.00
279.00
41.49
41.49
19.79
19.79
69.81
69.81
271.98
136.31
547.91
20.00
20.00
352.84
352.84
3,943.28
3,943.28
8,085.09
8,085.09
64,898.17
64,898.17
84.73
447.80
85.22
Page: 1
vchlist
05/18/2021 10:16:03AM
Voucher List Page: 2
Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53735 5/18/2021 003231 003231 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY (Continued) Total : 617.75
53736 5/18/2021 001444 UNITED LABORATORIES
53737 5/18/2021 007984 ZIPLINE INTERACTIVE
INV315824 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 563.66
Total: 563.66
28656 001.076.305.575 ANNUAL SHARED WEBSITE HOSTING 200.00
Total : 200.00
m1€/202a 090065 crn ni cc nnvnnrrn 347-4956544 001.010.043.558 nFRGE—S PR!ZE8 53,1-
Voided - incorrect amount
Q47-6446543 90-1,040 04$558 Q IG_ c. �E-S4ce :ooi_c1 S 169.25
3476446b47 001.018.013.55E OFFICE SUPPLIES 4246
3176116518 001.010.013.55E OFFICE S1 inoi iee tocri iRN3 —14249
3476416510 001.040.013.55E OFFICE SUPPLIES 249.19
Total: 341.92
53739 5/18/2021 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 69664 001.013.000.513 ELECTRONIC CODE UPDATE 220.45
Total: 220.45
53740 5/18/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 601456 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 60.83
601459 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION-- 82.95
601461 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 18.17
601462 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 84.53
602241 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 57.75
602246 001.040.042.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 79.79
602248 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 82.95
602249 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 107.44
Total : 574.41
53741 5/18/2021 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 51855 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 93.50
51856 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 69.70
51857 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 94.35
51858 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 69.70
51873 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 94.35
51875 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 95.20
Total: 516.80
53742 5/18/2021 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0073876-1518-5 402.402.000.531 WASTE MGMT: VACTORING WASTEAF 407.46
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
05/18/2021 10:16:03AM Spokane Valley
Hank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53742 5/18/2021 000038 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE (Continued) Total : 407.46
53743 5/18/2021 008079 YORK, JOY 1 101.042.000.542 PMP MEETINGS 6,412.50
Total : 6,412.50
53744 5/18/2021 005734 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSN. 134254-2144 001.040.043.558 APA MEMBERSHIP / CHAPT/WA 355.00
Total : 355.00
53745 5/18/2021 001104 MCCAIN 1NC. INV0258210 101.042.000.542 BACKPLATES 460.65
Total : 460.65
53746 5/18/2021 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS INC 0000046699 101.042.000.594 SIGNAL CABINET - 8TH & DISHMAN-MI 17,439.21
Total : 17,439.21
53747 5/18/2021 000683 DAVID EVANS &ASSOCIATES 483148 101.042.000.542 ON CALL TRAFFIC SERVICES 1/17/202 8,989.70
484705 101.042.000.542 ON CALL TRAFFIC SERVICES 2/14/202 12,989.99
486360 101.042.000.542 ON CALL TRAFFIC SERVICES 3/14/202 6,439.90
Total : 28,419.59
53748 5/18/2021 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 0141132 101.042.000.542 ON -CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SVC 910.00
0142716 101.042.000.542 ON -CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SVC 3,823.80
Total : 4,733.80
53749 5/18/2021 003261 FEHR & PEERS 145220 001.090.000.513 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,671.80
145322 001.040.041.543 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,644.40
Total : 12,316.20
53750 5/18/2021 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB10413058 101.042.000.542 REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS 3,509.02
RE-313-ATB10413067 101.042.000.542 REIMBURSE ROADWAY MAINTENANCI 10,271.14
Total : 13,780.16
26 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
26 Vouchers in this report
Bank total : 166,866,46
165,523.53
Total vouchers : 466,865,4-5
165,523.53
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
05/18/2021 1:13:37PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53751 5/18/2021 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3474056514 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES 53.71
3476416543 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES 169.25
3476416547 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.96
3476416548 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES (RETURN) -143.49
3476416549 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES 249.48
Total: 341.91
1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 341.91
1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 341.91
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid
obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that
am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim.
Finance Director Date
Council member reviewed:
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
Page: �'
vchlist Voucher List Page:
05118/2021 3:46:07PM Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53752 5/18/2021 007973 BARTLETT & WEST INC T5292 314.000.223.595 CIP 0223 225.00
Total : 225.00
53753 5/18/2021 007940 DW EXCAVATING INC PAY APP 7 303.000.275.595 DW EXCAVATING BARKER ROAD PRO, 342,621.85
Total : 342,621.85
53754 5/18/2021 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER DECEMBER 2020 632.000.000.589 STATE REMITTANCE 36,010.30
Total : 36,010.30
53755 5/18/2021 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 2020 Retainage 001.223.40.00 RETAINAGE RELEASE: 2020 PARK MAI 36,744.96
Total : 36,744.96
53756 5/18/2021 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY DECEMBER 2020 632.000.000.589 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION REM 194.33
Total : 194.33
53757 5/18/2021 000420 SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DIST 2021 001.076.302.576 PERMIT FEES FOR WATER REC FACIL 2,930.00
Total : 2,930.00
53758 5/1812021 007625 T LARIVIERE INC PAYAPP 1 REV 1 309.000.315.594 0315 BROWNS PARK 2020 IMPROVEM1 87,809.75
Total : 87,809.75
12955545 5/27/2021 005314 US BANK 1752231 204.204.000.592 LTGO REFUNDING BONDS 2014 88,675.00
Total : 88,675.00
12955633 5/27/2021 005314 US BANK 1752243 204.000.000.592 LTGO BONDS 2016 115,750.00
Total : 115,750.00
9 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 710,961.19
9 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 710,961.19
Page:
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
05/1912021 9:41:52AM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept DescriptionlAccount Amount
53759 5/19/2021 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1GXY-LTG9-RPLM 001.076.302.594 BARCODE SCANNERS 192.69
Total : 192.69
53760 5/19/2021 007465 ELEVATIONS: A CHILDREN'S 2021 #3 001.090.000.560 2021 SOC SER ECO DEV GRANT REIM 2,042.00
Total : 2,042.00
53761 5/19/2021 007157 MAST ERGRAPHICS AEC, LLC 008820 001.040.043.558 BLUEBEAM RENEWAL 2,920.70
Total : 2,920.70
53762 5/19/2021 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 462 4-30-2021 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 874.00
480 4-30-2021 314.000.143.595 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,111.52
492 4-30-2021 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,132.08
Total : 9,117.60
53763 5/19/2021 004829 OSI HARDWARE INV-US55514 001.090.000.518 POE INJECTOR FOR PARK POOL RADI 86.51
Total: 86.51
53764 5/19/2021 003264 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B13439787 001.090.000.518 MICROSOFT 0365 SUBSCRIPTION 31,539.18
Total : 31,539.18
53765 5/19/2021 008062 SPITZER, HUGH April 2021 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 665.00
Total : 665.00
53766 5/19/2021 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 May 2021 #1 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR MAY 2021 #1 437.92
Total : 437.92
53767 5/19/2021 004740 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 844295363 001.013.015.515 WEST INFORMATION CHARGES 855.19
Total : 855.19
53768 5/19/2021 006178 WALTER E NELSON CO 441333 001.018.014.514 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE 209.64
Total: 209.64
10 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 48,066.43
10 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 48,066.43
Page:
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
05119/2021 1:18:45PM Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53769 5/19/2021 008029 MCKINSTRY CO LLC 10142288 001.000.322.518 HVAC REPAIRS 9,268.75
Total :
1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total :
1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers :
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, cr the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid
obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that
I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim.
Finance Director Date
Council member reviewed:
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
9,268.75
9,268.75
9,268.75
Page: �1.17
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
05/20/2021 10:22:58AM Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53770 5/20/2021 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1F77-11XT-OK3J 001.040.042.558 SUPPLIES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPP 62.08
Total: 62.08
53771 5/20/2021 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 131878 001.040.042.558 MEMBERSHIP DUES (RENEWALS) 854.17
Total : 854.17
53772 5/20/2021 002810 INLAND NW PARTNERS ASSOC 2021 SPRING WEB1NAR 001.040.042.558 2021 SPRING WEBINAR 60.00
Total : 60.00
53773 5/20/2021 006328 KREM-TV 04-2021 SUMMARY BILL 001.040.042.558 ADVERTISING 5,500.00
Total : 5,500.00
53774 5/20/2021 007941 THE WATERSHED COMPANY 2021-0667 001.040.324.558 0324 SMP REVIEW 849.75
Total : 849.75
53775 5/20/2021 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 70273 402.402.000.531 STREET SWEEPING APR 2021 58,477.48
70279 402.402.000.531 STORM DRAIN CLEANING 15,069.65
Total : 73,547.13
53776 5/20/2021 007240 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 71184497 101.000.000.542 EMPLOYEE DOT PHYSICAL 208.00
Total: 208.00
53777 5/20/2021 002920 DIRECTV INC 051738547X210505 101.042.000.543 CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENANCE : 74.99
Total : 74.99
53778 5/20/2021 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 4312995 001.040.041.543 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 1,192.95
Total : 1,192.95
53779 5/20/2021 007740 EVERGREEN STATE TOWING LLC 59059 101.042.000.542 TOWING SERVICE: CHEVROLET SILVE 381.15
Total : 381.15
53780 5/20/2021 000007 GRAINGER 9899768098 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES 28.51
9901250226 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES 24.48
Total: 52.99
53781 5/20/2021 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD 553196 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 418.11
vchlist
05120/2021 10:22:5 8 AM
Voucher List Page: 2
Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53781 5/20/2021 000692 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD (Continued)
Total : 418.11
53782 5/20/2021 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE & FITTINGS 1066116 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 140.67
Total : 140.67
53783 5/20/2021 002203 NAPAAUTO PARTS 0538-042589 101.042.000.543 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 9.96
0538-042941 001.040.041.558 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 24.02
0538-044120 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 21.31
0538-044246 001.040.041.558 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 34.15
0538-044275 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 62.02
0538-044464 001.033.000.518 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 531.95
0538-045563 101.000.006.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 16.53
Total : 699.94
53784 5/20/2021 000662 NAIL BARRICADE & SIGN CO 207473 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES 217.80
Total : 217.80
53785 5 291292 994 9 NORTHWEST RADIATOR PC001612604:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 45.71-
Incorrect vendor 464
53786 5/20/2021 005049 PEDERSON, MICHAEL ROY APRIL 2021 101.042.000.542 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 1,200.00
Total : 1,200.00
53787 5/20/2021 005968 PRECISE MRM LLC 200-1030754 101.000.000.542 DATA PLAN 272.25
Total : 272.25
53788 5/20/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51505859 101.042.000.542 APRIL 2021 WORK CREW 1,494.30
Total : 1,494.30
53789 5/20/2021 004099 SPOKANE VALLEY ACE HARDWARE 27957 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES 98.01
Total : 98.01
53790 5/20/2021 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 1747995 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION CPW APRIL 2021 367.78
Total : 367.78
53791 5/20/2021 003318 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 24189388 101.042.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 139.83
Total : 139.83
Page:
vchlist
05/20/2021 10:22:58AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 3
Bank code ; aphank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice Fund/Dept
53792 5/20/2021 001660 TITAN TRUCK EQUIP CO INC 1265798
1293050
53793 5/20/2021 006846 US LINEN & UNIFORM INC
53794 5/20/2021 006329 VESTIGE GPS
53795 5/20/2021 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO
53796 5/20/2021 007970 WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
53797 5/20/2021 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING
53798 5/20/2021 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL
53799 5/20/2021 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
53800 5/20/2021 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC
53801 5/20/2021 007965 ARGUS JANITORIAL
53802 5/20/2021 002891 BASIN SOD INCORPORATED
2719475
2723159
2726806
2730478
CINV-005441
CINV-005442
IN001638875
8685105
61262
905168
166769451002
119J-QKMQ-JNT4
INV10672
50176
50195
402.402.000.531
402.402.000.531
101.042.000.543
101.042.000.543
101.042.000.543
101.042.000.543
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
101.000.000.542
001.040.041.558
001.013.015.515
001.013.015.515
001.033.000.518
001.033.040.518
001.033.000.518
001.033.000.518
Description/Account Amount
VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SU
VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SU
Total :
SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP
SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP
SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP
SUPPLIES: MAINTENANCE SHOP
Total
TRACKING SOLUTION - ANNUAL SERV
TRACKING SOLUTION - ANNUAL SERV
Total :
VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES
Total:
MOBILE OFFICE RENTAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total :
Total :
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERE?
Total :
OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total :
Total :
JANITORIAL SVCS: CITY HALL, PRECIP
Total :
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
244.77
207.62
452.39
18.49
18.49
18.49
18.49
73.96
1,279.92
559.98
1,839.90
112.24
112.24
75.60
75.60
2,665.00
2,665.00
3,975.00
3,975.00
1.49
1.49
53.55
53.55
10,054.86
10,054.86
54.45
108.90
Page:
)0
vchlist
05/20/2021 10:22:58A1V1
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 4
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice Fund/Dept
53802 5120/2021 002891 002891 BASIN SOD INCORPORATED
53803 5/20/2021 000007 GRAINGER
53804 5/20/2021 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO
53805 5/20/2021 008067 TK LANDSCAPE & LAWN SVCS LLC
53806 5/20/2021 007231 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY
53807 5/20/2021 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO
53808 5/20/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC
53809 5/20/2021 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC
53810 5/20/2021 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC
41 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
41 Vouchers in this report
(Continued)
9893982778
614619633
1896
7770354
7770355
IN001635076
IN001638398
602245
51889
1200342420
001.000.322.518
001.033.000.518
001.033.000.518
001.016.016.521
001.033.000.518
001.033.000.518
001.016.016.521
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
001.090.000.513
DescriptionlAccount Amount
Total : 163.35
SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT
Total:
SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL
TK LAWN SERVICE
Total:
Total :
PEST MGMT SERVICES AT PRECINCT
PEST MGMT SERVICES AT CITY HALL
Total :
FUEL POLISHING/LOAD BANK TESTING
LOAD BANK TESTING
LEGAL PUBLICATION
LEGAL PUBLICATION
2021 INFRA GRANT
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Bank total :
Total vouchers :
355.29
355.29
13.51
13.51
1,146.72
1,146.72
189.49
161.17
350.66
1,745.53
964.51
2,710.04
17.25
17.25
38.40
38.40
24,892.78
24,892.78
136;568:63
136,823.89
443646e s3
136,823.89
Page:
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
05/2112021 9:26:46AM Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53811 5/21/2021 005474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST PC001513604:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. SUPPLIES 45.74
Total : 45.74
1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 45.74
1 Vouchers in this report
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid
obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that
I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim.
Finance Director Date
Council member reviewed:
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
Total vouchers : 45.74
Page: ``9•
vchlist
05/24/2021 9:14:30AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice Fund/Dept
53812 5/24/2021 007705 CT NORTHWEST KI042111
KI042112
53813 5/24/2021 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS
53814 5/24/2021 002288 SARGENT ENGINEERS INC.
53815 5/24/2021 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS
53816 5/24/2021 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING
53817 5/24/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC
53818 5/24/2021 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED
53819 5/24/2021 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC
53820 5/24/2021 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
53821 5/24/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC
122889
33728
122758
61263
602244
SP2110096-IN
CSROW 21093
RE-313-ATB10315109
RE-313-ATB10413123
601458
602243
53822 5/24/2021 003261 FEHR & PEERS 143319
145195
303.000.292.595
303.000.299.595
303.000.310.595
303.000.310.595
403.000.317.595
403.000.317.595
403.000.317.595
309.000.315.594
303.000.313.595
314.000.143.595
314.000.143.595
311.000.323.595
311.000.323.595
314.000.311.595
314.000.311.595
Description/Account Amount
0292-MULLAN PRESERVATION NEMA<
0299ARGONNE RD NEMACONTROLLE
Total:
CIP 0310: PRINT SERVICE
Total :
310 SULLIVAN RD UP RR DECK REPAIF
Total:
CIP 0317: PRINT SERVICE
Total :
0317-APPLEWAY ROW AQUISITIONS
Total :
CIP 0317: ADVERTISING
0315- MATIERALS TESTING
Total:
Total :
0275/0313-RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES
Total :
C1P 0143: CONSULTANT/LAG PS&E RE'
CIP 0143: GENII_ PROJECT MGMT
Total :
CIP 0323:ADVERTISING
CIP 0323: ADVERTISING
0311-DESIGN ENGINEERING
0311-DESIGN ENGINEERING
Total :
Total:
2,607.13
2,607.13
5,214.26
551.25
551.25
185.00
185.00
142.90
142.90
575.00
575.00
80.25
80.25
1,557.50
1,557.50
297.12
297.12
50,302.54
10,513.39
60,815.93
74.26
70.50
144.76
6,765.20
2,012.40
8,777.60
Page: 't
/3
vchlist
0512412021 9:14:30AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 2
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice Fund/Dept
53823 5/24/2021 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED
53824 5/24/2021 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS INC
53825 5/24/2021 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC
53826 5/2412021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC
53827 5/29/2021 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC
53828 5/24/2021 003238 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
17 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
17 Vouchers in this report
SP210089-N 303.000.275.595
0000046727
0000046772
CSROW 21096
601457
602242
1200341435
1200344848
370585
303.000.292.595
303.000.299.595
303.000.299.595
303.000.299.595
303.000.299.595
314.000.223.595
314.000.223.595
403.000.308.589
Description/Account Amount
0275-MATERIALS TESTING 5,126.25
Total : 5,126.25
0292- MULLAN PRESERVATION SIGNAI
299 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY BACKF
Total:
REAL ESTATE SERVICES FOR 0299 AR
Total:
CIP 0299: ADVERTISING
CIP 0299: ADVERTISING
Total :
0223-FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN
0223-FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN
Total :
PROJECT 308 CONSTRUCTION SERVIV
Total:
Bank total :
18,273,45
1,139.90
19,413.35
1,350.00
1,350.00
80.58
76.50
157.08
22,847.43
18,356.26
41,203.69
2,015.83
2,015.83
147,607.77
Total vouchers : 147,607.77
Page:
vchlist
05126/2021 3:49:10PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoke Fund/Dept
53829 5/26/2021 000796 BUDINGER &ASSOCIATES INC
53830 5/26/2021 004898 ETTER, MCMAHON, LAMBERSON,
53831 5/26/2021 002134 FIRSTAMERICAN TITLE
531332 5/26/2021 007678 RANDALL DANSKIN PS
53833 5/26/2021 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS
53834 5/26/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
6 Vouchers in this report
X21225-1 312.004.000.594
STATEMENT NO. 6
STATEMENT NO. 8
861-425971871
138338
50320553
42000887
51505848
314.000.143.595
303.000.249.595
312.000.000.594
001.000.322.518
001.040.043.558
001.016.000.554
001.016.000.523
Description/Account Amount
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,499.28
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TITLE POLICY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total :
Total:
Total :
Total :
COUNTY IT SUPPORT: APRIL 2021
Total :
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES FOR JUP
MAY 2021 INMATE HOUSING
3,499.28
406.90
1,105.64
1,512.54
4,110.98
4,110.98
5,126.20
5,126.20
11,937.20
11,937.20
22,716.93
138,714.15
Total : 161,431.08
Hank total : 187,617.28
Total vouchers : 187,617.28
Page:
/5
vchlist
05/26/2021 4:18:34PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice Fund/Dept
53835 5/26/2021 007808 AMENTO GROUP INC 042155
042156
53836 5/26/2021 000796 BUDINGER &ASSOCIATES INC
53837 5/26/2021 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC.
53838 5/26/2021 002510 POHL SPRING WORKS INC
53839 5/26/2021 002520 RWC GROUP
53840 5/26/2021 007742 WHALEN TIRE SPOKANE INC
53841 5/26/2021 002501 WHITE BLOCK COMPANY
53842 5/26/2021 007114 CARDINAL INFRASTRUCTURE LLC
53843 5/26/2021 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC
53844 5/26/2021 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
M201106-2
46724
46725
46726
46727
184286
XA106010018:01
855682
0285300-IN
1974
1X36-R31Y-F46F
173600265001
173607048001
173607049001
174146389001
001.000.322.518
001.000.322.518
001.000.322.518
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
402.402.000.531
101.000.000.542
101.000.000.542
101.000.000.542
402.402.000.531
001.011.000.511
001.040.041.543
001.040.041.543
001.040.041.543
001.040.041.543
001.040.041.543
Description/Account Amount
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CITY HALL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: CITY HALL
Total :
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total:
STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENAN
STREET & STORMWATER MALNTENAN
STREET & STORMWATER MALNTENAN
STREET & STORMWATER MALNTENAN
Total
SNOWPLOW REPAIR
SNOW PLOW REPAIR PARTS
SNOW FLEET - NEW TIRES #204
SUPPLIES: STORMWATER
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total:
Total:
OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING/DE%
Total:
OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING/DE\
OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERINGIDEI
OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERING/DE\
OFFICE SUPPLIES: ENGINEERINGIDE\
Total :
912.00
10,659.53
11,571.53
618.00
618.00
76,123.09
139,858.62
23,706.27
41,592.34
281,280.32
1,605.19
1,605.19
1,445.26
1,445.26
1,989.13
1,989.13
439.73
439.73
4,875.00
4,875.00
72.34
72.34
77.90
74.69
14.14
9.37
176.10
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
05/2612021 4:18:34PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53845 5/19/2021 000429 COFFMAN ENGINEERS 21043488 001.090.000.513 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 716.40
Total: 716.40
53846 5/26/2021 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE APRIL2021 001.040.043.558 RECORDING FEES 1,428.50
Total: 1,428.50
12 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 306,217.50
12 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 306,217.50
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid
obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that
I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim.
Finance Director Date
Council member reviewed:
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
Page: f
vchlist
05/27/2021 12:52:40PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code: apb8nk
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice Fund/Dept
53847 5/27/2021 008090 COLOMBO, DAVE
53848 5/27/2021 008080 HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES NW LLC
53849 5/27/2021 008091 JOSEPH, NATALIE
53850 5/27/2021 005931 LOCHMILLER, ROBERT
53851 5/27/2021 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT
53852 5/27/2021 008093 MCKERVEY, JOHN
53653 5/27/2021 008059 POLICE BIKE STORE
53854 5/27/2021 008092 SMITH, COLBY
53855 5/27/2021 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT
53856 5/27/2021 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT
53857 5/27/2021 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT
53858 5/27/2021 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT
BLD-2021-1988
PARCEL 45074.0138
BLD-2021-1743
EXPENSES
MAY 2021
MAY 2021 -1
PRE-LU-2021-0039
114298
PRE-LU-2021-0025
14612 E 8th
18505 E Courtiand Av
4216 N Best
7918 E Utah
001.040.043.345
303.000.299.595
001.040.043.345
001.040.041.543
001.076.305.575
001.090.000.518
001.040.043.345
001.016.099.521
001.040.043.345
001.013.015.515
001.013.015.515
001.013.015.515
001.013.015.515
Description/Account Amount
PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2021-1988 27.70
Total : 27.70
CIP 0299: TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIC
Total :
PERMIT REFUND: BLD-2021-1743
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total:
SUPPLIES: CITY HALL. PARKS, STREE
SUPPLIES: INSTALLATION OF WASTE!
Total :
PERMIT REFUND: PRE-LU-2021-0039
Total:
SVPD BICYCLE DIVISION EQUIPMENT
Total
PERMIT REFUND: PRE-LU-2021-0025
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total:
COURT FILINGS
COURT FILINGS
COURT FILINGS
COURT FILINGS
200.00
200.00
129.56
129.56
56.84
56.84
488.67
2,499.37
2,988.04
189.00
189.00
4,569.91
4,569.91
250.00
250.00
240.00
240.00
240.00
240.00
240.00
240.00
240.00
240.00
Page:
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
05/2712021 12:52:40PM Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53859 5127/2021 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 45201.0124 403.000.317.595 CIP 0317: ROWACQUISITION FILINGS 10.00
Total : 10.00
53860 5/27/2021 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 45201.0121 403.000.317.595 C1P 0317: ROWACQUISITION FILINGS 10.00
Total : 10.00
53861 5/27/2021 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 45201.0126 403.000.317.595 C1P 0317: ROW ACQUISITION FILINGS 10.00
Total : 10.00
53862 5/27/2021 001206 SWANSON'S REFRIGERATION &, RESTAURAN 191990 001.076.305.575 ICE MACHINE 143.76
Total : 143.76
53863 5/27/2021 008014 VELEZ, JORGE EXPENSES 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 57.62
Total : 57.62
53864 5/27/2021 001792 WHITEHEAD, JOHN EXPENSES 001.090.000.517 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 54.40
Total : 54.40
53865 5/27/2021 001793 WWRC WWRC21-Mem 001.076.000.576 2021 WWRC MEMBERSHIP 750.00
Total : 750.00
1305005 6/5/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER MAY 2021 001.016.000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 177,777.55
Total : 177,777.55
13049907 5/28/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 9290201959 001.016.000.521 LE CONTRACT MAY 2021 1,863,483.00
Total : 1,863,483.00
21 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Sank total : 2,051,667.38
21 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,051,667.38
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
05/27/2021 10:38:49AM Spokane Valley
Bank code : pk-ref
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
8856 5/27/2021 006877 ACI COATINGS LLC PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 159.00
Total : 159.00
8857 5/27/2021 006581 COMUNIDAD CRISTIANA DE SPOKANE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00
Total : 75.00
8858 5/27/2021 008082 DENNIS, CATHY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF 75.00
Total : 75.00
8859 5/27/2021 008084 LEACH, CANDACE PARK REFUND 001.237,10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: TERRACE VIEW 75.00
Total : 75.00
8860 5/27/2021 008085 MILLS, RACQUAEL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00
Total : 75.00
8861 5/27/2021 008086 NAZAR, ELIZA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00
Total : 75.00
8862 5/27/2021 008087 PRATT, STEPHANIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PLAY( 75.00
Total : 75.00
8863 5/27/2021 008088 RIDENBAUGH, JANELLE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PLAY( 75.00
Total : 75.00
8864 5/27/2021 008089 SKORICK-KAYS, KYLIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES PAF 75.00
Total : 75.00
9 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 759.00
9 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 759.00
Page:
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
06/01/2021 10:35:41AM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
53866 6/1/2021 008099 10412 SPRAGUE EAT LLC 45201.0124 403.000.317.595 CIP 0317 ROW ACQUISITION PARCEL / 7,000.00
Total : 7,000.00
53867 6/1/2021 007964 LANGE, CONNOR EXPENSES 001.040.043.558 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 290.00
Total : 290.00
53868 6/1/2021 008098 PRING CORPORATION 45201.0121 403.000.317.595 CIP 0317 ROWACQUISTION 45201.012 5,462.50
Total : 5,462.50
53869 6/1/2021 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO CIP 0317 ROW DEEDS 403.000.317.595 CIP 0317 ROW DEEDS 45201.0121, 012 319.50
Total: 319.50
53870 6/1/2021 008097 UNIVERSITY CITY INC 45201.0126 403.000.317.595 CIP 0317 ROW ACQUISITION PARCEL / 1,166.00
Total : 1,166.00
5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 14,238.00
5 Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers : 14,238.00
Page:
21
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending May 31, 2021
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Employees
Council Total
Gross: $ 331,567.26 $ 10,265.00 $ 341,832.26
Benefits: $ 206,511.05 $ 13,001.37 $ 219,512.42
Total payroll $ 538,078.31 $ 23,266.37 $ 561,344.68
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of
the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.]
STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Department Director Approval ❑
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 21-007; 2021 Adopting Amendments to the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Development Regulations
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 21.50, 17.80.150 and 19.30.040.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: December 9, 2014: Council approved Ordinance 14-020 which
adopted the SMP, which was subsequently repealed and replaced December 15, 2015 by Ordinance 15-
024, (codified in our Municipal Code as 21.50) a comprehensive update to the SMP. April 28, 2020: Council
concurred that staff apply for a Department of Ecology grant to complete the SMP periodic update. March
2, 2021: staff presented an admin report. June 1, 2021: staff presented an admin report on the draft 2021
SMP periodic review amendments, and Council concurred that staff bring forward the ordinance for a first
reading.
BACKGROUND: The SMP is the official document to guide development along the Spokane River and
Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in the
Comprehensive Plan. The implementing regulations related to shoreline development are in Chapter 21.50
of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
RCW 90.58.080(4) requires the City to periodically review and, if necessary, revise the SMP. The purpose
of the review is to ensure the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules. The periodic review for
the City needs to be adopted by June 30, 2021.
In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. The
scope of the 2021 periodic review was limited to changes required by modifications to state law that have
occurred since the City completed its comprehensive update in 2015. The Gap Analysis completed as part
of the periodic review provides a summary of the changes to laws and rules and identifies needed changes
to the City's SMP.
Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. The majority of the
changes are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A
noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline
jurisdiction. These regulations need to be updated to be consistent with state law and the City's adopted
critical area regulations in 2016.
On February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the Planning Commission public hearing stating that the
City was accepting public comments for 30 days. The City also published all the draft documents on the
City's SMP project webpage and notified the public and interested individuals of their availability.
On February 25, 2021, a study session on the proposed SMP amendments and adoption process was
provided to the Planning Commission. On March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments. After the public hearing
on March 11, the public hearing was closed, except to allow written comments to be submitted by close of
business on Friday, March 12.
1 of 2
On March 25, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and deliberated on the
proposed SMP amendments. After deliberations, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward
the draft amendments to City Council with a recommendation of approval.
On June 1, 2021, staff presented an administrative report on the draft 2021 SMP periodic review amendments
to City Council. After the administrative report, Council agreed to proceed to the first reading of Ordinance 21-
007 adopting amendments to the shoreline master program development regulations in Chapter 21.50 of the
SVMC.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
OPTIONS: Move to advance Ordinance 21-007 to a second reading, with or without amendments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance 21-007, amending Chapter 21.50
of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, to a second reading.
STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance 21-007. The ordinance's attached exhibit 1 is included in the white
binder, which was previously distributed.
2 of 2
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 21-007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 21.50 SPOKANE
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Shoreline Management Act (chapter 90.58 RCW) governs shorelines of the
state and requires local governments to adopt shoreline programs in compliance with the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA); and
WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080 requires local governments to develop or amend master
programs for the regulation and uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the guidelines adopted
by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology); and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted a comprehensive shoreline master
program (SMP) update pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(2), which was effective as of December 30, 2015;
and
WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080(4) requires the City to periodically review and, if necessary,
revise its SMP on or before June 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the review process is intended to bring the SMP into compliance with current
changes in laws and rules that have been added or changed since the last SMP amendment; and
WHEREAS, in 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct
the periodic review pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(4). The entire review is paid with a grant from
Ecology; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a public participation program for the periodic review in
accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(a) to inform, involve and encourage participation of interested
persons and private entities, tribes, and applicable agencies having interests and responsibilities relating
to shorelines; and
WHEREAS, the City has followed the public participation program developed for the periodic
update, including developing and maintaining a SMP website that identified key dates and documents
for review, email notifications to interested parties and stakeholder distribution lists, media releases
including all the City's social media platforms, and on -hold messaging at various stages in the process;
and
WHEREAS, the City used Ecology's checklist of legislative and rule amendments to review
amendments to chapter 90.58 RCW and department guidelines that have occurred since the SMP was
adopted in 2015, and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance in accordance
with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i); and
WHEREAS, the City reviewed changes to the comprehensive plan and development
regulations to determine if the SMP policies and regulations remain consistent with them in accordance
with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(ii); and
WHEREAS, the City considered whether to incorporate any amendments needed to reflect
changed circumstances, new information or improved data in accordance with WAC 173-26-
090(3)(b)(iii); and
Ordinance 21-007 Page 1 of 4
DRAFT
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the public hearing stating that
the City was accepting public comments for 30 days. The City also published all draft documents on
the SMP project webpage and notified the public of their availability; and
WHEREAS, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental checklist was prepared
and the City's SEPA responsible official issued and circulated a copy of the checklist and a
Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) on February 12, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City provided Notice of Intent to Adopt to the Washington State Department
of Commerce in accordance with WAC 173-26-100(5); and
WHEREAS, the City Solicited comments on the draft proposal from Ecology prior to local
approval; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2021, an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a
summary of the adoption process was provided to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, after the public hearing on March 11, 2021, the public hearing was closed, except
to allow written comments to be submitted by close of business on Friday, March 12, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and
deliberated on the proposed SMP amendments; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2021, after deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously
voted to adopt the findings recommending to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments to
the SMP; and
WHEREAS, this completes the City's required process for periodic review in accordance with
RCW 90.58.080(4) and applicable state guidelines (WAC 173-26).
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows:
Section 1. Review and Evaluation. The City hereby finds that the review and evaluation
required by RCW 90.58.080(4) have occurred, as described in the recitals above, which are
incorporated herein by reference as set forth in Section 2.
Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning
Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed
updates to the SMP and recommended approval of the revised SMP. The City Council has read and
considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council adopts the foregoing recitals as
findings for this Ordinance, which are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full, and also makes
the following conclusions:
Conclusions:
A. The Council finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) for the SMP. The SMP is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will
Ordinance 21-007 Page 2 of 4
DRAFT
promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Specifically the
Council concludes the following:
1. The draft SMP amendments are consistent with the following policy and goal of the
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan:
H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing
innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre-
fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing types.
NR-G3 Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are
based on best available science and are consistent with required environmental policy.
2. The draft SMP amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare,
and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the SMP were identified
after a review of changes to laws and rules. The proposed amendments implement changes
to local and state laws and rules including best available science for wetlands and fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas. The proposed amendments maintain the vision and
goals adopted in the SMP and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The draft SMP amendments are in compliance with RCW 90.58, WAC 173-26, and
the Washington State Shoreline Management Planning Guidelines.
B. The Council finds that adequate public noticing was given to offer the public participation
opportunities consistent with the adopted SMP Public Engagement Plan.
C. The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to
local and state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations
under state law to review and revise the SMP.
Section 3. Amendment of Shoreline Master Program. The City's existing development
regulations for the SMP, set forth in chapter 21.50 SVMC and Appendix A-1, are hereby amended as
set forth in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and fully incorporated herein. The remaining portions of the
chapter 21.50 SVMC and Appendix A-1 shall remain unchanged.
Section 4. Submission to Department of Ecology. The City Manager or designee is
directed to submit the revised SMP and associated documents to the Department of Ecology for review
and approval prior to formal adoption. Once approved by the Department of Ecology, no further action
is necessary for compliance with RCW 90.58.080(4) for the periodic review update due on June 30,
2021.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause of phrase of this Ordinance shall
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, this Ordinance
shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in
the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. The amendments to chapter
21.50 SVMC and Appendix A-1 shall not be effective until 14 days after the Department of Ecology's
final action as provided by RCW 90.58.090(7).
Ordinance 21-007 Page 3 of 4
DRAFT
Passed by the City Council this day of June , 2021
ATTEST:
Ben Wick, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 21-007 Page 4 of 4
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
2021 PERIODIC UPDATE
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program Update Index
Index Tab No.
Summary of Amendment
1
Presentation
2
Draft Ordinance
3
Exhibit 1 to Ordinance (draft SMP amendment Ch. 21.50)
4
PC Findings
5
Gap Analysis
6
Request for Planning Commission Action; Meeting Minutes and Presentation
(Public Hearing)
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Department Director Approval
Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ['executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Periodic Review
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: December 9, 2014: Council approved Ordinance 14-020 which
adopted the SMP, which was subsequently repealed and replaced December 15, 2015 by Ordinance 15-
024, (codified in our Municipal Code as 21.50) a comprehensive update to the SMP. April 28, 2020: Council
concurred that staff apply for a Department of Ecology grant to complete the SMP periodic update. March
2, 2021: staff presented an admin report.
BACKGROUND: The SMP is the official document to guide development along the Spokane River and
Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in the
Comprehensive Plan. The implementing regulations related to shoreline development are in Chapter 21.50
of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
RCW 90.58.080(4) requires the City to periodically review and, if necessary, revise the SMP. The purpose
of the review is to ensure the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules. The periodic review for
the City needs to be adopted by June 30, 2021.
In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. The
scope of the 2021 periodic review was limited to changes required by modifications to state law that have
occurred since the City completed its comprehensive update in 2015. The Gap Analysis completed as part
of the periodic review provides a summary of the changes to laws and rules and identifies needed changes
to the City's SMP.
Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. The majority of the
changes are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A
noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline
jurisdiction. These regulations need to be updated to be consistent with state law and the City's adopted
critical area regulations in 2016.
On February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the Planning Commission public hearing stating that the
City was accepting public comments for 30 days. The City also published all the draft documents on the
City's SMP project webpage and notified the public and interested individuals of their availability.
On February 25, 2021, a study session on the proposed SMP amendments and adoption process was
provided to the Planning Commission. On March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments. After the public hearing
on March 11, the public hearing was closed, except to allow written comments to be submitted by close of
business on Friday, March 12.
On March 25, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and deliberated on the
proposed SMP amendments. After deliberations, the Planning Commission moved and voted 7-0 to forward
the draft amendments to City Council with a recommendation of approval.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
1 of 2
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action at this time. This item is currently scheduled to come
before Council June 8, 2021, as a first ordinance reading.
STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: White Binder (included separately contains Planning Commission and other materials)
2 of 2
5/27/2021
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline
Master Program Periodic Update
June 1, 2021
Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
Spokane
�•�Valley�
Tonight's Agenda
' Shoreline Master Program review
What and Where
' Periodic update requirement
' Adoption timeline/ process
' Review of proposed amendments
State legislative amendments
Critical Areas within SMP Jurisdiction
Local plans and regulations
2
1
5/27/2021
What is a Shoreline Master Program?
A set of policies and regulations
required by state law that has
three basic principles:
Protect environmental resources of
state shorelines
Promote public access and
enjoyment opportunities
Give priority to uses that require a
shoreline location
Comprehensively updated in 2015
Codified SVMC 21.50
SMP -City Council Administrative Report
3
Where does Shoreline Master Program apply?
"Shorelines of the State,"
and landward 200' of
Ordinary High Water Mark
(Shoreline Jurisdiction)
Spokane Valley:
Spokane River
Shelly Lake
Associated wetland
Gravel pits not considered
Shorelines until after
reclamation
2
5/27/2021
What is an SMP periodic update?
RCW 90.58.080 requires
review and update every
eight years
Review keeps current with:
Amendments to WACs &
RCWs
Amendments to local plans
and regulations
New or improved data and
information
Adopted by June 30, 2021
SMP - City Council Administrative Report
SMP Periodic Update Adoption Timeline
PC PC
Study Public
Session Hearing
02/25/21
03/11/21
PC
Findings
05/13/21
Send to Ecology for review and comment
30-day State Review
City Council
Admin
Report
06/1/21
City Response to
Comment u
City Council
1st Reading
06/08/21
- ative Report
City Council
2nd Reading
06/22/21
6
3
5/27/2021
2021 Periodic Shoreline Master Program Update
Gap analysis identified
three main areas
requiring updates:
Changes for consistency
with state legislative
amendments
Updates to Critical Areas
within SMP Jurisdiction
Changes for consistency
with local plans and
regulations
SMP - City Council Administrative Report
7
Proposed amendments - State Legislative Amendments
SMP Definitions Appendix A-1:
Development and
Nonconforming lot
SMP administrative provisions
Consistency with Ecology permit
filing procedure
Exemptions cost thresholds and
ADA allowances
SMP regulation provisions
setback relief criteria for
shoreline restoration
Critical Areas
4
5/27/2021
Proposed amendments - SMP Critical Area Regulations
Changes to Critical Area regulations
within Shoreline Jurisdiction required
due to changes in state laws and rules
Wetlands
Incorporate the 2016 CAO regulations
into SMP
Habitat score 4 Land use intensity
Wildlife Habitat
Add Habitat Conservation Area
standards
Include Riparian Management Zone
Buffers
Photo credit: Meenach, Dean. Shelley Lake. Google
Earth. Accessed 2020.
SMP - City Council Administrative Report
Proposed Amendments - Local Changes
Added Accessory Dwelling
Units as an exempt use
2016 Comprehensive Plan has
policy to expand housing
choices
ADUs permitted like single
family homes
Replacing Planning Director
references with City Manager
Similar to other provisions in
the code and provides flexibility
Accessory Dwelling Unit:
A freestanding detached
structure or an attached part of a
structure that is subordinate and
incidental to the primary dwelling
unit located on the same
property, providing complete,
independent living facilities
exclusively for a single
housekeeping unit, including
permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, cooking, and sanitation.
Smss<a Spokane \ II \I,�d�;p,l Code, dpp��d6-
Dei�uuons.
City Council Administrative Report
10
5
5/27/2021
Questions?
SMP-CityCouncil Administrative Report
11
6
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 21-007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 21.50 SPOKANE
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Shoreline Management Act (chapter 90.58 RCW) governs shorelines of the state
and requires local governments to adopt shoreline programs in compliance with the Shoreline Management
Act (SMA); and
WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080 requires local governments to develop or amend master programs for
the regulation and uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the guidelines adopted by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology); and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted a comprehensive shoreline master program
(SMP) update pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(2), which was effective as of December 30, 2015; and
WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080(4) requires the City to periodically review and, if necessary, revise
its SMP on or before June 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the review process is intended to bring the SMP into compliance with current changes
in laws and rules that have been added or changed since the last SMP amendment; and
WHEREAS, in 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the
periodic review pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(4). The entire review is paid with a grant from Ecology; and
WHEREAS, the City developed a public participation program for the periodic review in
accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(a) to inform, involve and encourage participation of interested
persons and private entities, tribes, and applicable agencies having interests and responsibilities relating to
shorelines; and
WHEREAS, the City has followed the public participation program developed for the periodic
update, including developing and maintaining a SMP website that identifies key dates and documents for
review, email notifications to interested parties and stakeholder distribution lists, media releases including
all the City's social media platforms, and on -hold messaging at various stages in the process; and
WHEREAS, the City used Ecology's checklist of legislative and rule amendments to review
amendments to chapter 90.58 RCW and department guidelines that have occurred since the SMP was
adopted in 2015, and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance in accordance with
WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i); and
WHEREAS, the City reviewed changes to the comprehensive plan and development regulations to
determine if the SMP policies and regulations remain consistent with them in accordance with WAC 173-
26-090(3)(b)(ii); and
WHEREAS, the City considered whether to incorporate any amendments needed to reflect changed
circumstances, new information or improved data in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(iii); and
Ordinance 21-007 Page 1 of 4
DRAFT
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the public hearing stating that the
City was accepting public comments for 30 days. The City also published all draft documents on the SMP
project webpage and notified the public of their availability; and
WHEREAS, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental checklist was prepared and
the City's SEPA responsible official issued and circulated a copy of the checklist and a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) on February 12, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City provided Notice of Intent to Adopt to the Washington State Department of
Commerce in accordance with WAC 173-26-100(5); and
WHEREAS, the City Solicited comments on the draft proposal from Ecology prior to local
approval; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2021, an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a summary
of the adoption process was provided to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, after the public hearing on March 11, 2021, the public hearing was closed, except to
allow written comments to be submitted by close of business on Friday, March 12, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and
deliberated on the proposed SMP amendments; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2021, after deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously voted
to adopt the findings recommending to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments to the SMP;
and
WHEREAS, this completes the City's required process for periodic review in accordance with
RCW 90.58.080(4) and applicable state guidelines (WAC 173-26).
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows:
Section 1. Review and Evaluation. The City hereby finds that the review and evaluation
required by RCW 90.58.080(4) have occurred, as described in the recitals above, which are incorporated
herein by reference as set forth in Section 2.
Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning
Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed updates
to the SMP and recommended approval of the revised SMP. The City Council has read and considered the
Planning Commission's findings. The City Council adopts the foregoing recitals as findings for this
Ordinance, which are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full, and also makes the following
conclusions:
Conclusions:
A. The Council finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) for the SMP. The SMP is consistent
with the goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public
Ordinance 21-007 Page 2 of 4
DRAFT
health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Specifically the Council concludes the
following:
1. The draft SMP amendments are consistent with the following policy and goal of the
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan:
H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing
innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated
homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing types.
NR-G3 Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are based
on best available science and are consistent with required environmental policy.
2. The draft SMP amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and
protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the SMP were identified after a
review of changes to laws and rules. The proposed amendments implement changes to local
and state laws and rules including best available science for wetlands and fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas. The proposed amendments maintain the vision and goals adopted
in the SMP and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The draft SMP amendments are in compliance with RCW 90.58, WAC 173-26, and the
Washington State Shoreline Management Planning Guidelines.
B. The Council finds that adequate public noticing was given to offer the public participation
opportunities consistent with the adopted SMP Public Engagement Plan.
C. The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local
and state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations under state
law to review and revise the SMP.
Section 3. Amendment of Shoreline Master Program. The City's existing development
regulations for the SMP, set forth in chapter 21.50 SVMC and Appendix A-1, are hereby amended as set
forth in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and fully incorporated herein. The remaining portions of the chapter
21.50 SVMC and Appendix A-1 shall remain unchanged.
Section 4. Submission to Department of Ecology. The City Manager or designee is directed
to submit the revised SMP and associated documents to the Department of Ecology for review and approval
prior to formal adoption. Once approved by the Department of Ecology, no further action is necessary for
compliance with RCW 90.58.080(4) for the periodic review update due on June 30, 2021.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause of phrase of this Ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, this Ordinance shall
be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official
newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. The amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC
and Appendix A-1 shall not be effective until 14 days after the Department of Ecology's final action as
provided by RCW 90.58.090(7).
Ordinance 21-007 Page 3 of 4
DRAFT
Passed by the City Council this day of June, 2021
ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Ordinance Effective Date:
(Amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC and Appendix A-1 shall not be effective until 14 days after the
Department of Ecology's final action.)
Ordinance 21-007 Page 4 of 4
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Chapter 4 - CHAPTER 21.50 - SHORELINE REGULATIONS
Article I. Shoreline Permits, Procedures, and Administration
21.50.010 Applicability, Shoreline Permits, and Exemptions
To be authorized, all uses and development activities in shorelines shall comply with the City of
Spokane Valley's (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and the Shoreline Management Act
(SMA) pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(1). All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be
liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been
enacted.
21.50.020 Applicability
A. The SMP shall apply to all shorelands, shorelines, and waters within the City that fall
under the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW. The Shoreline Designations Map is shown
in Appendix A. These include:
1. Lands extending 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of waters
that fall under the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW, in all directions as
measured on a horizontal plane;
2. Floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such
floodways;
3. Critical areas within the shoreline and their associated buffer areas; and
4. Lakes that are subject to the provisions of the SMP, as may be amended.
B. Maps depicting the extent of shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline designations are for
guidance only. They are to be used in conjunction with best available science, field
investigations, and on -site surveys to accurately establish the location and extent of the
shoreline jurisdiction when a project is proposed. All areas meeting the definition of a
shoreline or a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, whether mapped or not, are subject
to the provisions of the SMP. Within the City, Shelley Lake is considered a Shoreline of
the State and is subject to the provisions of the SMP. The Spokane River is further
identified as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance.
C. The SMP shall apply to every person, individual, firm, partnership, association,
organization, corporation, local or state governmental agency, public or municipal
corporation, or other non-federal entity that develops, owns, leases, or administers
lands, critical areas, or waters that fall under the jurisdiction of the SMA.
D. Specific developments identified in WAC 173-27-044 and -045 are not required to obtain
shoreline permits or local reviews. Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant to a
consen decree, order or agreed order iss ed p irci cant to char ter 70 1 050 R(`W are
empt from all procedural requirements of the SMP.
E. Development may require a shoreline permit in addition to other approvals required from
the City, state, and federal agencies.
F. The SMP shall apply whether the proposed development or activity is exempt from a
shoreline permit or not.
G. Definitions relevant to the SMP are set forth in Appendix A-1. If any conflict occurs
between the definitions found in Appendix A-1, and Appendix A, the definition provided
in Appendix A-1 shall govern.
Page 1 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
H. When the provisions set forth in SVMC 21.50 conflict with other provisions of the SMP or
with federal or state regulations, those which provide more substantive protection to the
shoreline shall apply.
21.50.030 Administrative Authority and Responsibility
A. The City Manager or designee is the City's has designated the Community Development
Director (Director) as the City's shoreline administrator, who shall carry out the
provisions of the SMP and who shall have the authority to act upon the following
matters:
1. Interpretation, enforcement, and administration of the SMP;
2. Modifications or revisions to approved shoreline permits as provided in the SMP;
and
3. Requests for Letters of Exemption.
B. The -Director City Manage, shall ensure compliance with the provisions of the SMP for all
shoreline permits and approvals processed by the City pursuant to SVMC 21.50.100,
21.50.110, 21.50.130, and 21.50.140.
C. The')arectorCity Manage shall document all project review actions in the shoreline
jurisdiction in order to periodically evaluate the cumulative effects of authorized
development on shoreline conditions, pursuant to WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(D).
D. The DirectorCity CVianage shall consult with Ecology to ensure that any formal written
interpretations are consistent with the purpose and intent of chapter 90.58 RCW and the
applicable guidelines of chapter 173-26 and 173-27 WAC.
21.50.040 Types of Shoreline Permits
Developments and uses within the shoreline jurisdiction may be authorized through one or more
of the following:
A. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.100, for substantial
development.
B. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.130, for projects identified in
SVMC 21.50.190 or uses not specified in the SMP.
C. Letters of Exemption, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.120, for projects or activities meeting the
criteria of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) and WAC 173-27-040(2).
D. Shoreline Variance, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140.
21.50.050 Development Authorization Review Procedure
A. Complete development applications and appeals shall be processed pursuant to SVMC
17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and with any specific
process requirements provided in SVMC 21.50 including:
1. Submittals;
2. Completeness review;
3. Notices;
4. Hearings;
5. Decisions; and
6. Appeals.
B. The following procedures shall also apply to development authorizations within the
shoreline jurisdiction:
Page 2 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
1 The public comment period for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall
be 30 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-110.
2. The public comment period for limited utility extensions and shoreline
stabilization measures for bulkheads to protect a single-family residence and its
appurtenant structures shall be 20 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-120.
3. For limited utility extensions and bulkheads for a single-family residence, a
decision shall be issued within 21 days from the last day of the comment period,
pursuant to WAC 173-27-120.
4. The effective date of a shoreline permit shall conform to WAC 173-27-090 and
shall be the latter of the permit date, or the date of final action on subsequent
appeals of the shoreline permit, if any, unless the Applicant notifies the shoreline
administrator of delays in other necessary construction permits.
5. The expiration dates for a shoreline permit pertaining to the start and completion
of construction, and the extension of deadlines for those dates shall conform to
WAC 173-27-090 and are:
a. Construction shall be started within two years of the effective date of the
shoreline permit;
b. Construction shall be completed within five years of the effective date of
the shoreline permit;
c. A single one-year extension of the deadlines may be granted at the
discretion of the DirectorCity Manager; and
d. The DirectorCity Manager may set alternative permit expiration dates as a
condition of the shoreline permit if just cause exists.
6 The decision and the application materials shall be sent to Ecology after the local
decision and any local appeal procedures have been completed, pursuant to
WAC 173-27-130.
7 For Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Ecology shall file the permit
without additional action pursuant to WAC 173-27-130.
8. For Shoreline Conditional Use permits and Variance decisions, Ecology shall
issue a decision within 30 days of the date of filing, pursuant to WAC 173-27-130
and WAC 173-27-200.
9. The appeal period to the Shorelines Hearings Board of an Ecology action shall
be 21 days from the date of filing pursuant to WAC 173-27-190. The date of
filling shall be as follows
a. Ffor projects that orris require a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit_; ethe i:fue date of a Shoreline Conditional Use permit or
Varianccthat Ecology actually receives a final decision by the City;
pursuant to WAC 173 27 190.
b. For a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Variance: the date that
Ecology's decision on the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Variance is
transmitted to the applicant and the City.
c. For Substantial Development Permits simultaneously mailed with a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Variance to Ecology: the date that
Ecology's decision on the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Variance is
transmitted to the applicant and the City.
10. The Shorelines Hearings Board will follow the rules governing that body,
pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW.
C. Development applications shall be reviewed for conformance with SVMC 21.50.180
through 21.50.560.
Page 3 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action
A. Approval or denial of any development or use within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be
based upon the following:
1. Danger to life and property that would likely occur as a result of the project;
2. Compatibility of the project with the critical area features on, adjacent to, or near
the property, shoreline values and ecological functions, and public access and
navigation;
3. Conformance with the applicable development standards in SVMC 21.50;
4. Requirements of other applicable local, state, or federal permits or
authorizations;
5. Adequacy of the information provided by the Applicant or available to the
UircctoFC. ty IVManagel ; and
6. Ability of the project to satisfy the purpose and intent of the SMP.
B. Based upon the project evaluation, the DirectorCity Manage shall take one of the
following actions:
1. Approve the development or use;
2. Approve the development or use with conditions, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.070;
or
3. Deny the development or use.
C. The decision by the DirectorCity Manage on the development or use shall include
written findings and conclusions stating the reasons upon which the decision is based.
21.50.070 Conditions of Approval
When approving any development or use, the t?irectorCity Manages may impose conditions to:
A. Accomplish the purpose and intent of the SMP;
B. Eliminate or mitigate any negative impacts of the project on critical areas, and on
shoreline functions;
C. Restore important resource features that have been degraded or lost on the project site;
D. Protect designated critical areas and shoreline jurisdiction from damaging and
incompatible development; or
E. Ensure compliance with specific development standards in SVMC 21.50.
21.50.080 Prohibited Activities and Uses
The following activities and uses are prohibited in all shoreline designations and are not eligible
for a shoreline permit, including a Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance. See Table 21.50-1
and Table 21.50-2.
A. Uses not allowed in the underlying zoning district;
B. Discharge of solid wastes, liquid wastes, untreated effluents, or other potentially harmful
materials;
C. Solid waste or hazardous waste landfills;
D. Speculative fill;
Page 4 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
E. Dredging or dredge material disposal in wetlands;
F Dredging or dredge material disposal to construct land canals or small basins for boat
moorage or launching, water ski landings, swimming holes, or other recreational
activities;
G. Commercial timber harvest or other forest practices;
H. Agriculture and aquaculture;
Non water -oriented Industrial Uses and Mining; and
J. The construction of breakwaters, jetties, groins, or weirs.
21.50.090 Minor Activities Allowed Without a Shoreline Permit or Letter of Exemption
The SMP applies to the following activities, however, they are allowed without a shoreline permit
or Letter of Exemption:
A. Maintenance of existing landscaping (including paths and trails) or gardens within the
shoreline, including a regulated critical area or its buffer. Examples include mowing
lawns, weeding, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning, and planting of non-
invasive ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the general
condition and extent of such areas. Removing trees and shrubs within a buffer is not
considered a maintenance activity. See SVMC 21.50.260 for regulations regarding
vegetation removal. Excavation, filling, and construction of new landscaping features
are not considered a maintenance activity and may require a shoreline permit or letter of
exemption.
B. Minor maintenance and/or repair of lawfully established structures that do not involve
additional construction, earthwork, or clearing. Examples include painting, trim or facing
replacement, re -roofing, etc. Construction or replacement of structural elements is not
covered in this provision, but may be covered under an exemption in SVMC
21.50.110(B).
C. Cleaning canals, ditches, drains, wasteways, etc. without expanding their original
configuration is not considered additional earthwork, as long as the cleared materials are
placed outside the shoreline jurisdiction, wetlands, and buffers.
D. Creation of unimproved private trails that do not cross streams or wetlands and which
are less than two feet wide and do not involve placement of fill or grubbing of vegetation.
E. Planting of native vegetation.
F. Noxious weed control outside of buffers pursuant to SVMC 21.50.110(M) except for area
wide vegetation removal/grubbing.
G. Noxious weed control within vegetative buffers, if the criteria listed below is met. Control
methods not meeting these criteria may still apply for a restoration exemption, or other
authorization as applicable:
1. Hand removal/spraying of individual plants only; and
2. No area -wide vegetation removal/grubbing.
Page 5 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
H. Pruning, thinning, or dead or hazardous tree removal pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(C).
21.50.100 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Required
A. Classification Criteria - A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for any
substantial development unless the use or development is specifically exempt pursuant
to SVMC 21.50.090 or 21.50.110.
B. Process - Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be processed as a Type II
review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, subject to the
exceptions set forth in SVMC 21.50.050.
C. Decision Criteria - A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may be issued when all
applicable requirements of the SMA, WAC 173-27, and the SMP have been met.
21.50.110 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
The activities listed below, or as amended by RCW 90.58.030(3) and WAC 173-27-040, are
exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. T pursuant
to WAC 173 27 N0. These activities still require a letter of exemption and may require a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, or other development permits from the
City or other agencies.
If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for a Letter of Exemption, then a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit is required for the entire proposed development project.
Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms
of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemptions from the Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit.
A. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed
$7,047$6,1116 or as adjusted by the State Office of Financial Management, if such
development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or
Shorelines of the State. For purposes of determining whether or not a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be
based on the value of development as defined in RCW 90.58.030(`- (c3). The total cost
or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any
donated, contributed, or found labor, equipment, or materials.
B. Normal maintenance or repair of existing legally -established structures or developments,
including damage by accident, fire, or elements.
1. Normal maintenance includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or
cessation from a lawfully established condition.
2. Normal repair means to restore a development to a state comparable to its
original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration,
location, and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or
partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the
shoreline resource or environment.
3. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where
such replacement is:
a. The common method of repair for the type of structure or development
and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the
original structure or development including but not limited to its size,
shape, configuration, location, and external appearance; and
Page 6 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
b. The replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline
resources or environment.
C. Construction of a normal protective bulkhead common to residential lots:
1. A normal protective bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural
developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the OHWM for the sole
purpose of protecting an existing residence and appurtenant structures from loss
or damage by erosion.
2. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of
creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or
reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be
used as backfill.
3. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall
fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the
existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a
bulkhead has deteriorated such that an OHWM has been established by the
presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement
bulkhead must be located at or near the actual OHWM.
4. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be
considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are
consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved
by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
D. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements.
An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the
environment that requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full
compliance with Chapter 21.50.
1. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent
protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective
structures are deemed by the Director to be the appropriate means to address
the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new
structure shall be removed or any permit that would have been required, absent
an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, WAC 173-27, or the SMP, shall
be obtained.
2. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies and requirements
of chapter 90.58 RCW and the SMP. As a general matter, flooding or other
seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent
are not an emergency.
E. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor
buoys.
F. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family
residence or appurtenance for their own use or for the use of their family, which
residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above average grade level, and which
meets all requirements of the City, other than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter
90.58 RCW. Construction authorized under this subsection shall be located landward of
the OHWM.
G. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for
the private non-commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single -
Page 7 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
family or multiple -family residence. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for
watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities, or other
appurtenances. This exception applies when the fair market value of the dock does not
exceed $22,500$20,000 for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks and are
of equal or lesser square footage than the existing dock being replaced;- $11,200 for all
other docks; or as amended by WAC 173-27-040. However, if subsequent construction
occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, and the combined fair
market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amounts specified in
this subsection, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial
development.but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding $2,500
occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent
construction shall be considered a substantial development. The amounts in this
subsection shall automatically be adjusted as provided by the State Office of Financial
Management.
H. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or
other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an
irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including
return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands.
The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does
not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water.
J. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities
existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a
part of an agricultural drainage or diking system.
K. Any project with a State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council certification from the
governor pursuant to RCW 80.50.
L. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an
application for development authorization under this chapter, if:
1. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of surface waters;
2. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including
but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic
values;
3. The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon
completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are
restored to conditions existing before the activity; and
4. The Applicant first posts a performance surety acceptable to the City to ensure
that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions.
M. Removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through
the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control published
by the Department of Agriculture or Ecology jointly with other state agencies under RCW
43.21 C.
N. Watershed restoration projects as defined in WAC 173.27.040(2)(o). The Director shall
determine if the project is substantially consistent with the SMP and notify the Applicant
of such determination by letter.
Page 8 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
O. A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish
passage as reviewed by WDFW and all of the following apply:
1. The project has been approved in writing by the WDFW;
2. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the WDFW pursuant to
chapter 77.55 RCW; and
3. The Director has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the SMP and
shall notify the Applicant of such determination by letter.
21.50.120 Letter of Exemption
A. The proponent of an activity exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
shall apply for a Letter of Exemption. All activities exempt from the requirement for a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall use reasonable methods to avoid
impacts to critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. Being exempt from the
requirements for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit does not give authority to
degrade a critical area, or shoreline, or ignore risk from natural hazards.
B. The DirectorCity Manage shall review the Letter of Exemption request to verify
compliance with the SMP and shall approve or deny such Letter of Exemption.
C. If a Letter of Exemption is issued, it shall be sent to Ecology, the Applicant, and a copy
retained by the City.
D. A Letter of Exemption may contain conditions and/or mitigating conditions of approval to
achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of the SMP and the SMA.
E. A denial of a Letter of Exemption shall be in writing and shall list the reason(s) for the
denial.
21.50.130 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
A. Classification Criteria - Shoreline conditional uses are those uses within the shoreline
jurisdiction identified in Table 21.50-1 Shoreline Use Table, which require a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit.
B. Unclassified uses not specifically identified in Table 21.50-1 may be authorized through
a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, provided the Applicant can demonstrate consistency
with the requirements of SVMC 21.50.
C. Process - A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be processed as a Type II review
pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. The lirectorCity Manager
shall be the final authority for the City, whose recommendation is then forwarded to
Ecology. Ecology shall have final approval authority pursuant to WAC 173-27-200.
D. Decision Criteria - The iDirectc,rCity Manaoe 's decision on a conditional use shall be
based upon the criteria set forth in SVMC 19.150.030 and 21.50.060 Conditions and
Requirements, together with the criteria established below. The Applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the JirectorL tv IVManager that the development meets
all of the following criteria:
1. The use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020;
2. The use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
3. The use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other permitted
uses in the area;
Page 9 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
4. The use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment
designation in which it is located; and
5. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
E. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like
actions in the area. For example, if Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were granted for
other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist for similar uses and
impacts, the total cumulative effect of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent
with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to
the shoreline environment.
F. The burden of proving that the project is consistent with the applicable criteria shall be
upon the Applicant.
21.50.140 Shoreline Variance
A. The purpose of a Shoreline Variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional
requirements set forth in SVMC 21.50 where extraordinary or unique circumstances
exist relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the standards would
impose unnecessary hardships on the Applicant, or thwart the policies set forth in the
SMA and the SMP.
B. When a development or use is proposed that does not meet requirements of the bulk,
dimensional, and/or performance standards of the SMP, such development may only be
authorized by approval of a Shoreline Variance, even if the development or use does not
require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
C. Process - A Shoreline Variance shall be processed as a Type II review pursuant to
SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. Each request for a Shoreline Variance
shall be considered separately and prior to any decision on a development application.
Any decision to approve or conditionally approve the development will include and
specifically cite only those variances approved for inclusion with the project.
D. When a Shoreline Variance is requested, the DirectorCity Manage shall be the final
authority for the City. The OirectorCity Manage 's determination shall be provided to
Ecology for review. Ecology shall have final approval authority of Shoreline Variances
pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(10).
E. Decision Criteria - To qualify for a Shoreline Variance, the following shall be required:
1. Demonstrate compliance with the criteria established in SVMC 21.50.060
Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action.
2. A Shoreline Variance request for a development or use located landward of the
OHWM, or landward of any wetland shall cite the specific standard or condition
from which relief is requested and be accompanied by evidence that
demonstrates the variance is consistent with all of the items below:
a. That the strict application of a standard precludes, or significantly
interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
b. That the hardship described in subsection (a) is specifically related to the
property, and is a result of unique natural or physical conditions, such as
irregular lot shape, size, or natural features which do not allow compliance
with the standard. The site constraint shall not be the result of a deed
Page 10 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
restriction, a lack of knowledge of requirements involved when the property
was acquired, or other actions resulting from the proponent's own actions;
c. The project is generally compatible with other permitted or authorized uses
in the project area, with uses planned for the area under the
Comprehensive Plan and the SMP, and will not cause adverse impacts to
the area;
d. The requested variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege
not enjoyed by other properties in the area, and the variance is the
minimum necessary to afford the requested relief; and
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
3. A Shoreline Variance request for a development or use located waterward of the
OHWM, or within any wetland shall cite the specific standard or condition from
which relief is requested and be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates the
variance is consistent with all of the items below:
a. That the strict application of a standard would preclude all reasonable use
of the property;
b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under
subsection (2)(b) through (e) of this section; and
c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be
adversely affected.
4. In the granting of any Shoreline Variance, consideration shall be given to the
cumulative impact of additional requests for like variances in the area. For
example, if Shoreline Variances were granted to other developments and/or uses
in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances shall also
remain consistent with the policies of the SMA and SMP and shall not cause
substantial adverse impacts to the shoreline environment.
F. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets the criteria of the SMP and WAC
173-27-170 shall be on the Applicant. Absence of such proof shall be a basis for denial
of the application.
21.50.150 Nonconforming Development
A. Classification Criteria — A use, structure, appurtenant structure, or lot is nonconforming if
it was legally established but is inconsistent with a subsequently adopted regulation or
regulations. Lawful uses, structures, appurtenant structures, and lots that are deemed
nonconforming are subject to the provision of this section.
B. Process and Decision Criteria
1. Decisions on projects that require review under this section shall be made
pursuant to SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action and the
following criteria.
2. Legal nonconforming uses and structures shall be allowed to continue with no
additional requirements except as otherwise addressed in this section.
3. Nonconforming Uses.
a. Additional development of any property on which a nonconforming use
exists shall require that all new uses conform to the SMP.
b. Intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses that will not result in
an increase of nonconformity shall be allowed and will be processed
under these nonconforming provisions as a Type II review, pursuant to
SVMC Title 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures.
Page 11 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
c. Change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a nonconforming use
shall not affect its nonconforming status provided that the use does not
change or intensify.
d. If a nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use, a
nonconforming use may not be resumed.
e. Conversion from one nonconforming use to another may only be
approved through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit pursuant to SVMC
21.50.130(E) if the following additional criteria are met:
The property is located within a residential or conservancy
shoreline environment;
ii. The replacement use is either of a similar intensity to the previous
nonconforming use, or is more conforming with the intent of the
applicable Shoreline Environment Policies; and
The impacts to the shoreline ecological functions from the existing
use are reduced by changing the use.
f. When the operation of a nonconforming use is discontinued or
abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months, the nonconforming use
rights shall expire and the future use of such property shall meet all
current applicable regulations of the SMP.
g. If a conforming building housing a nonconforming use is damaged, the
use may be resumed at the time the building is repaired, provided a
permit application for the restoration is received by the City within 12
months following said damage.
h. Normal maintenance and repair of a structure housing a nonconforming
use may be permitted provided all work is consistent with the provisions
of the SMP.
Legally established residences are considered conforming uses.
4. Nonconforming Structures.
a. A nonconforming structure may be maintained or repaired, provided such
improvements do not increase the nonconformity of such structure and
are consistent with the remaining provisions of the SMP.
b. Alterations to legal nonconforming structures that:
Will result in an increase of nonconformity to the structures,
including expanding within the buffer, may be allowed under a
Shoreline Variance pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140; or
ii Do not increase the existing nonconformity and will otherwise
conform to all other provisions of SVMC 21.50 are allowed without
additional review.
c. A nonconforming structure that is moved any distance within the shoreline
jurisdiction shall be brought into conformance with the SMP.
d. A damaged nonconforming structure may be reconstructed or replaced,
regardless of the amount of damage if:
The rebuilt structure or portion of structure does not expand or
modify the original footprint or height of the damaged structure
unless:
(1). The expansion or modification does not increase
the degree of nonconformity with the current
regulations; and
(2). The reconstructed or restored structure will not
cause additional adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the shoreline environment;
Page 12 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
ii. It is not relocated except to increase conformity or to increase
ecological function, in which case the structure shall be located in
the least environmentally damaging location possible;
The permit application to restore the development is made within
12 months of the date the damage occurred; and
iv. Any residential structures, including multi -family structures, may
be reconstructed up to the size, placement, and density that
existed prior to the damage, so long as other provisions of the
SMP are met.
5. Nonconforming Lots. Legally established nonconforming, undeveloped lots
located landward of the OHWM are buildable, provided that all new structures or
additions to structures on any nonconforming lot must meet all setback, height,
and other construction requirements of the SMP and the SMA.
21.50.160 Minor Revisions to Approved Uses or Developments
A. Classification Criteria - Minor revisions to a project that have been approved under a
shoreline permit are allowed in certain circumstances.
1. Changes that are not substantive are not required to obtain a revision and may
be allowed as part of the original shoreline permit. Examples include, but are not
limited to, minor changes in facility orientation or location, minor changes in
structural design that do not change the height or increase ground floor area, and
minor accessory structures such as equipment covers or small sheds near the
main structure.
2. Substantive changes are those that materially alter the project in a manner that
relates to its conformance with the shoreline permit and SMP requirements.
Such changes may be approved as a minor revision if:
a. The DirectorCity Manager determines that the proposed revision and all
previous revisions are within the scope and intent of the original shoreline
permit;
b. The use authorized with the original shoreline permit does not change;
c. The project revision does not cause additional significant adverse
environmental impacts;
d. No new structures are proposed; and
e. The criteria in SVMC 21.50.160(A)(3) are met.
3. Substantive changes shall comply with the following to be approved as a minor
revision:
a. No additional over -water construction shall be involved, except that pier,
dock, or swimming float construction may be increased by 10 percent
from the provisions of the original shoreline permit;
b. Lot coverage and height approved with the original shoreline permit may
be increased a maximum of 10 percent if the proposed revisions do not
exceed the requirements for height or lot coverage pursuant to SVMC
21.50.220 Dimensional Standards and SVMC Title 19 Zoning
Regulations; and
c. Landscaping may be added to a project without necessitating an
application for a new shoreline permit if the landscaping is consistent with
permit conditions (if any) and SVMC 21.50.
4. Substantive changes which cannot meet these requirements shall require a new
shoreline permit. Any additional shoreline permit shall be processed under the
applicable terms of this chapter.
Page 13 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
B. Process - Requests for minor revisions to existing shoreline permits shall be processed
as a Type I review, pursuant to SVMC Title 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures.
Parties of record to the original shoreline permit shall be notified of the request for
revision, although a comment period is not required. A minor revision for a project within
shoreline jurisdiction shall follow state filing, appeal, and approval standards pursuant to
WAC 173-27-100 Revisions to Permits.
C. Decision Criteria - Decisions on minor revisions shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.060
Authorization Decisions — Basis for Action.
21.50.170 Enforcement
A. Enforcement of the SMP, including the provisions of SVMC 21.50, shall be pursuant to
SVMC 17.100. Nothing herein or within SVMC 17.100 shall be construed to require
enforcement of the SMP and SVMC 21.50 in a particular manner or to restrict the
discretion of the DirectorCity Manage' in determining how and when to enforce the SMP
and SVMC 21.50; provided all enforcement shall be consistent with the policies of the
SMP and SVMC 21.50.
B. Upon a determination that a violation of the SMP, including SVMC 21.50, has occurred,
no further development may be authorized unless and until compliance with any
applicable shoreline and development permit or process conditions and requirements of
SVMC 21.50 have been achieved to the satisfaction of the >irectorCity IVlanaQer.
C. For violations affecting a critical area, the party(s) responsible for the violation and the
owner shall meet the following minimum performance standards to achieve the
restoration requirements, as applicable:
1. A restoration plan shall be prepared and address the following:
a. Restoration of historical structural and functional values, including water
quality and habitat functions;
b. Ensure that replacement soils will be viable for planting and will not create
a less fertile growing conditions;
c. Replacement of native vegetation within the critical area, and buffers with
native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the
site in species types, sizes, and densities;
d. Replication of the historic functions and values at the location of the
alteration;
e. Annual performance monitoring reports demonstrating compliance with
mitigation plan requirements shall be submitted for a minimum two-year
period; and
f. As -built drawings and other information demonstrating compliance with
other applicable provisions of the SMP shall be submitted.
2. The following additional performance standards shall be met for restoration of
frequently flooded areas and geological hazards and be included in the
restoration plan:
a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the pre -
development hazard;
b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated;
and
c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation
sufficient to minimize the hazard.
Page 14 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
3. The )irectorCity Manager may, at the violator's expense, consult with a Qualified
Professional to determine if the plan meets the requirements of the SMP.
Inadequate plans shall be returned to the violator for revision and resubmittal.
Article II. Shoreline Regulations
21.50.180 General provisions
A. General Regulations.
1. Regulations in SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.290 are in addition to the specific
use regulations in SVMC 21.50.300 through 21.50.450 and other adopted rules,
including but not limited to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the Spokane
Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Spokane Valley Street Standards, and the
Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, as adopted or amended.
2. All permitted and exempt projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall ensure
that the no net loss of ecological functions standard is met. SVMC 21.50.210 No
Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing and SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation
Conservation contain appropriate methods to achieve no net loss of shoreline
ecological function. The City may also condition project dimensions, location of
project components on the site, intensity of use, screening, parking requirements,
and setbacks, as deemed appropriate.
3. All shoreline uses and modifications shall obtain all necessary permits from the
appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and shall operate in compliance
with all permit requirements.
4. Deviations from regulations may be granted through a Shoreline Variance, which
requires approval by both the City and Ecology. Shoreline modifications listed in
Table 21.50-2 as "prohibited" are not eligible for consideration as a Shoreline
Variance.
5. New projects, including the subdivision of land and related construction of single-
family residences, are prohibited when the use or development requires
structural flood hazard reduction or other structural stabilization measures within
the shoreline to support the proposed or future development.
6. When a proposal contains two or more use activities, including accessory uses,
the most restrictive use category shall apply to the entire proposal.
7 Structures, uses, and activities shall be designed and managed to minimize
blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access to the
water and the shorelines from public lands which are within the shoreline
jurisdiction and excluding public roads.
8. Structures and sites shall be designed with landscaping, vegetated buffers,
exterior materials, and lighting that are aesthetically compatible with the shoreline
environment.
9. When a study is required to comply with SVMC 21.50, it shall be performed by
Qualified Professional registered in the State of Washington.
10. All clearing and grading activities shall comply with SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing
Activities. Adherence to the following is required during project construction:
a. Materials adequate to immediately correct emergency erosion situations
shall be maintained on site;
b. All debris, overburden, and other waste materials from construction shall
be disposed of in such a manner so as to prevent their entry into a water
body. Such materials from construction shall not be stored or disposed of
on or adjacent to Shorelines of the State;
Page 15 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
c. The shoreline buffer shall be clearly marked on the ground prior to and
during construction activities to avoid impacts to the buffer; and
d. Infrastructure used in, on, or over the water shall be constructed using
materials that do not contaminate the water or interfere with navigation.
B. The City may consult with agencies with expertise or jurisdiction over the resources
during the review of any permit or process to assist with analysis and identification of
appropriate performance measures that adequately safeguard shoreline and critical
areas.
C. The LiirectorCity Manage may consult with a Qualified Professional to review a critical
areas report when City staff lack the resources or expertise to review these materials.
The City may require the Applicant to pay for or reimburse the City for the consultant
fees.
21.50.190 Shoreline Uses Table
A. Uses and activities are categorized within each shoreline environment as allowed,
permitted, conditional use, or prohibited, as defined in this section. This priority system
determines the applicable permit or process, administrative requirements, and allows
activities that are compatible with each shoreline designation. Procedures and criteria
for obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Letter of Exemption,
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance are set forth in SVMC
21.50.040. These uses shall also meet the requirements of SVMC Title 19 Zoning
Regulations.
B. The following terms shall be used in conjunction with Shoreline Use and Modification
Tables provided in SVMC 21.50.190 and SVMC 21.50.200.
Allowed Use: These are uses that are exempt from the shoreline permit review process
and do not require submittal of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or
Letter of Exemption application. Projects or uses shall be reviewed to ensure
that all requirements contained in SVMC 21.50 are met. Building permit
applications or site plans are the general method of review.
Permitted Use: These are uses which are preferable and meet the policies of the
particular shoreline environment designation. They require submittal of a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or a Letter of Exemption application.
An exemption is subject to an administrative approval process; a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit requires public notice, comment periods, and
filing with Ecology.
Conditional Use: A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is intended to allow for flexibility
and the exercise of judgment in the application of regulations in a manner
consistent with the policies of the SMA and the SMP.
Prohibited: These are uses which are viewed as inconsistent with the definition, policies,
or intent of the shoreline environmental designation. For the purposes of the
SMP, these uses are considered inappropriate and are not authorized under any
permit or process.
Table 21.50-1 - Shoreline Uses, below, shall be used to determine the permit or process
required for specific shoreline uses and activities within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Page 16 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Table 21.50-1: Shoreline Uses
SHORELINE USES
Shoreline Residential
— Upland
Shoreline Residential
— Waterfront
Urban Conservancy
Urban Conservancy
— High Quality
Aquatic
Agricultural Activities
Aquaculture
Boating Facilities (Including
launches, ramps, public/commercial
docks, and private docks serving more
than four residences)
N/A
P
C
1
Commercial Use
Water -dependent
P2
P2
C
Water -related and water -enjoyment
P2
P2
P2
C
Non water -oriented
P2,3
Forest Practices
Industrial Use
Water -dependent
P
C
Water -related and water -enjoyment
P
Non water -oriented
P3
In -stream Structures
As part of a fish habitat
enhancement project
N/A
P
P
P
P
Other
N/A
P
P
P
Mining
Parking Facilities
As a primary use
As an accessory/secondary use
P
P
P
C
Recreational Use
Water -dependent
P
P
P
P
P
Water -related and water -enjoyment
P
P
P
P
P
Non water -oriented
P
P
P
C4
C
Trails and walkways
P
P
P
C5
P
Residential Use
Single-family
A
A
A
A
Single-family residential
accessory uses and structures
A
A
A
A
Multi -family
P
P
P
Private docks serving one to four
single-family residences
N/A
P
P
P
Accessory Dwelling Units
Transportation Facilities
Page 17 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
New circulation routes related to
permitted shoreline activities
P
P
C
C
Expansion of existing
circulation systems
P
P
P
P
New, reconstructed, or maintenance of
bridges, trail, or rail crossings
P
P
P
P
P
Public Facilities and Utilities
Public facilities
C
C
C
C
Utilities and utility crossings
C
C
C
C
C
Routine maintenance of existing
utility corridor and infrastructure
A6
A6
A6
P7
A6
KEY: A= Allowed
Applicable
Notes:
For Boating Facilities within the aquatic environment, the adjacent upland environment as set
forth on the City Environment Designation Map shall govern (i.e., if the aquatic environment is
adjacent to Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designated shorelines, the use would be
permitted).
2 Commercial uses are allowed in the Shoreline Residential - Upland, Shoreline Residential -
Waterfront and Urban Conservancy Environments only if the underlying zoning of the property is
Mixed Use Center.
3 Permitted only if the applicable criteria in SVMC 21.50.320(B)(1) or 21.50.330(B)(1) are met.
4 Non water -oriented recreation uses are prohibited in Urban Conservation - High Quality
Shorelines except limited public uses that have minimal or low impact on shoreline ecological
functions, such as the Centennial Trail and appropriately -scaled day use areas which may be
allowed through a Conditional Use Permit.
5 Modifications, improvements, or additions to the Centennial Trail are permitted in the Urban
Conservancy - High Quality Environment.
6 A Letter of Exemption is required if the maintenance activity involves any ground disturbing
activity.
A Letter of Exemption is required.
P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Blank= Prohibited
N/A= Not
21.50.200 Shoreline Modification Activities Table
Table 21.50-2, Shoreline Modification Activities, below, shall be used to determine whether a
specific shoreline modification is allowed in a shoreline environment. Shoreline modifications may
be permitted, approved as a conditional use, or prohibited, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.190.
Shoreline modifications shall also meet the requirements of SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations.
Page 18 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Table 21.50-2: Shoreline Modification Activities
SHORELINE MODIFICATION
ACTIVITY
Shoreline Residential
— Upland
Shoreline Residential
— Waterfront
Urban Conservancy
Urban Conservancy
— High Quality
Aquatic
Shoreline/Slope Stabilization
Structural, such as bulkheads
P
P
1
Nonstructural, such as soil
bioengineering
P
P
P
Piers and Docks
Piers
N/A
P
C
1
Viewing Platforms
P
P
P
Docks
N/A
P
C
Dredging and Fill
Dredging
C
C
C
C
Fill
C
C
C
C
Shoreline Habitat and Natural
Systems Enhancement Projects
P
P
P
P
P
Groins and Weirs
N/A
C
C
C
KEY: P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Blank= Prohibited N/A= Not Applicable
For these uses within the aquatic environment, the adjacent upland environment as set forth
on the Environment Designation Map shall govern (i.e., if the aquatic environment is adjacent to
Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designated shorelines, "hard" shoreline stabilization
measures would be allowed by Shoreline Substantial Development Permit).
21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing
A. Applicability. This section applies to all shoreline activities, uses, development, and
modifications, including those that are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit.
B. Standards.
1. All projects shall result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The
requirement for no net loss may be met through project design, construction, and
operations. Additionally, this standard may be achieved by following the
mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210(6)(4) and SVMC 21.50.260
Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. The City may condition project dimensions,
location of project components on the site, intensity of use, screening, parking
requirements, and setbacks, as deemed appropriate to achieve no net loss of
shoreline ecological function.
2. Required mitigation shall not exceed the level necessary to ensure that the
proposed use or development will ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
Page 19 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
3. Mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210(B)(4) is required when
specified in these regulations or for projects that:
a. Involve shoreline modifications;
b. Request a buffer or setback reduction pursuant to SVMC 21.50.230
Shoreline Buffers and Building Setbacks;
c. Are located within a wetland or its buffer; or
d. Will have significant probable adverse environmental impacts that must
be avoided or mitigated.
4. Mitigation measures shall be applied in the following order:
a. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
b. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology;
c. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
d. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations;
e. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and
f. Monitor the impact and the compensation projects and take appropriate
corrective measures, as needed.
21.50.220 Height Limit Standards
A. Applicability. This section applies to all new or redeveloped primary and residential
accessory structures.
B. Standards.
1. The maximum height limit for all new or redeveloped primary structures shall be
35 feet.
2. The maximum height limit for single-family residential accessory or appurtenant
structures shall be 25 feet.
3. These height limit standards may be altered through a Shoreline Variance
pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140.
21.50.230 Shoreline Buffers and Building Setbacks
A. Applicability. This section applies to all new construction, new and expanded uses, and
modifications. Shoreline buffers are shown on the City Shoreline Buffer Map in
Appendix A-2 Shoreline Buffers.
B. Standards.
1. Unless otherwise specified in SVMC 21.50, buffers shall be maintained in
predominantly natural, undisturbed, undeveloped, and vegetated condition.
2. The shoreline buffer shall be clearly marked on the ground prior to and during
construction activities to avoid impacts to the buffer.
3. Shoreline buffers for new and expanded uses may be reduced up to 25 percent
by the ,lector' tv IVianacit, if the buffer widths have not been reduced or
modified by any other prior action and one or more of the following conditions
apply:
a. Adherence of the buffer width would not allow reasonable use;
b. The buffer contains variations in sensitivity to ecological impacts due to
existing physical characteristics; i.e. the buffer varies in slope, soils, or
Page 20 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
vegetation. This shall be supported by a Habitat Management Plan
developed in conformance with SVMC 21.50.540(F€)(12)�; or
c. Where shoreline restoration is proposed consistent with the City's
Restoration Plan.
4. Building Setback from the shoreline buffer shall be as shown in Table 21.50-3:
Table 21.50-3 Buffer Building Setbacks
Environment
Urban
Conservancy
Urban
Conservancy —
High Quality
Shoreline
Residential -
Upland
Shoreline
Residential -
Waterfront
Setback
10 foot
15 foot
0 foot 1
0 foot 1
A 15-foot building setback from the shoreline buffer shall be required for any
subdivision, binding site plan, or planned residential development in the
Shoreline Residential — Upland and Shoreline Residential — Waterfront
designations.
a. Front, rear, and side setbacks and lot coverage shall conform to the
SVMC Title 19, Zoning Regulations.
21.50.240 Flood Hazard Reduction
A. Applicability. This section applies to development proposals:
1 Intended to reduce flood damage or hazard;
2. To construct temporary or permanent shoreline modifications or structures within
the regulated floodplains or floodways; or
3. That may increase flood hazards.
B. Standards.
1. All proposals shall conform to SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulation, SVMC
21.50.340, In -stream Structures and SVMC 21.50.410 Shoreline Modifications.
2. The following uses and activities may be allowed within the floodplain or
floodway:
a. Actions or projects that protect or restore the ecosystem -wide processes
and/or ecological functions;
b. New bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation
structures, with appropriate mitigation, where no other feasible alternative
exists;
c. Repair and maintenance of an existing legal structure, utility corridor, or
transportation structure, provided that such actions do not increase flood
hazards to other uses;
d. Modifications, expansions, or additions to an existing legal use; and
e. Measures to reduce shoreline erosion.
3. Natural in -stream features such as snags, uprooted trees, or stumps shall be left
in place unless an engineered assessment demonstrates that they are causing
bank erosion or higher flood stages.
21.50.250 Public Access
A. Applicability. This section applies to all new projects by public and private entities.
B. Standards.
Page 21 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
1 Public access shall be consistent with the City's SMP Public Access Plan.
2. Public access may only be required as a condition of approval of a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit to the extent allowed
by law and in a manner consistent with the City's Public Access Plan, and only in
the following circumstances:
a. The use or development is a public project; or
b. The project is a private use or development and one of the following
conditions exists:
The project impacts, interferes with, blocks, discourages, or
eliminates existing access;
ii. The project increases or creates demand for public access that is
not met by existing opportunities or facilities; or
The project impacts or interferes with public use of waters subject
to the Public Trust Doctrine.
3. Public access shall not be required for activities qualifying for a letter of
exemption or new single-family residential development of four or fewer units.
4. All developments, including shoreline permits or letter of exemption applications,
which require or propose public access shall include a narrative that identifies:
a. Impacts to existing access, including encroachment, increased traffic, and
added populations;
b. The access needs of the development consistent with those described for
similar projects in the Public Access Plan, Section Four; and
c. The proposed location, type, and size of the public access.
5. When public access is required pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b), the City
shall impose permit conditions requiring public access that are roughly
proportional to the impacts caused or the demand created by the proposed use
or development.
6. Prior to requiring public access as a condition of approval of any shoreline permit
or letter of exemption pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b), the .. arc ctorCAty
Manage shall determine and make written findings of fact stating that the use or
development satisfies any of the conditions in SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b) and that
any public access required is roughly proportional to the impacts caused or the
demand created by the proposed use or development.
7 When public access is required or proposed, the following shall apply:
a. Mitigation sequencing shall be required to mitigate adverse impacts
resulting from the public access.
b. Visual access to the shoreline may be established if any vegetation
removal is pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation
Conservation.
c. Public access sites shall be connected to the nearest public street or
other public access point.
d. Future trails on private property, including trail extensions and new
access points, shall incorporate enhancement and restoration measures
and be contained within a recorded easement.
e. Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for
public use at the time of occupancy or use of the project or activity.
f. Public and private entities may establish user regulations, including hours
of operation, usage by animals or motorized vehicles, and prohibited
activities, such as camping, open fires, or skateboarding. Such
restrictions may be approved by the DirectorCity Manager as part of the
permit review process.
Page 22 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
g. Public access improvements shall include provisions for disabled and
physically impaired persons where reasonably feasible.
h. Signage associated with public access shall be pursuant to SVMC
21.50.380 Signs and Outdoor Lighting, and SVMC 22.110 Sign
Regulations.
21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation
A. Applicability. Vegetation conservation measures are required for all projects that
propose vegetation removal.
B. Standards.
1. A vegetation management plan shall be submitted for projects that propose to
remove either of the following within the shoreline jurisdiction:
a. One or more mature native trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at
chest height; or
b. More than 10 square feet of native shrubs and/or native ground cover at
any one time by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or
other activities.
2. When required, a vegetation management plan shall contain the following:
a. A site plan showing:
The distribution of existing plant communities in the area proposed
for clearing and/or grading;
ii. Areas to be preserved;
Areas to be cleared; and
iv. Trees to be removed.
b. A description of the vegetative condition of the site that addresses the
following:
Plant species;
ii. Plant density;
Any natural or man-made disturbances;
iv. Overhanging vegetation;
v. The functions served by the existing plant community (e.g., fish
and wildlife habitat values, slope stabilization); and
vi. The presence and distribution of noxious weeds.
c. A landscape plan showing:
Proposed landscaping, including the species, distribution, and
density of plants; the plan should be pursuant to SVMC
21.50.260(B)(3)(b), if applicable; and
ii. Any pathways or non -vegetated portions, and the materials
proposed.
3. Projects that propose to remove native vegetation within a shoreline buffer shall
meet the following standards:
a. The Applicant must demonstrate to the CiiTectorCity IViana�e 's
satisfaction that the proposed vegetation removal is consistent with
SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing, and that
avoidance is not feasible;
b. Vegetation shall be replaced per the following:
1:1 area ratio for herbaceous vegetation;
ii. 2:1 stem ratio for shrubs and saplings; and
Page 23 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
3:1 ratio for trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height
or 2:1 ratio if tree stock is five years old or greater. For native
trees greater than 16 inches diameter at breast height,
replacement tree stock shall be at least five years old;
c. All removed native plants shall be replaced with native vegetation;
removed ornamental plants may be replaced with similar species;
d. Applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan consistent with
SVMC 21.50.260(6)(2) that demonstrates compliance with the standards
of SVMC 21.50.260(6)(3); and
e. Projects that propose a pathway or trail in the shoreline buffer shall meet
the additional following standards:
Pathways and trails that are roughly parallel to the OHWM may be
allowed if:
(1) It is a public non -motorized multi -use equestrian or
pedestrian/bike trail;
(2) It is located at the landward edge of the shoreline buffer
with the following exceptions:
(a) When physical constraints, public safety concerns,
or public ownership limitations merit otherwise; or
(b) When the trail will make use of an existing
constructed grade such as those formed by an
abandoned rail grade, road, or utility.
ii. Pathways, trails, and river crossings that are perpendicular to the
water, and lead to the OHWM, shall be sited in a location that has
the least impact to shoreline ecological functions with mitigation
sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210. Previously altered or
disturbed locations shall be preferred.
All pathways and trails shall be located, constructed, and
maintained so as to avoid, to the maximum extent possible,
removal and other impacts to perennial native vegetation,
including trees, standing snags, forbs, grasses, and shrubs,
consistent with the vegetation management plan.
iv. Alternatives to impervious paving should be considered and are
encouraged.
v. Total trail width, inclusive of shoulders, shall be the minimum
width necessary to achieve the intended use and shall not exceed
14 feet.
vi. Disturbed areas (outside of the designated trail and trail
shoulders) shall be re -vegetated with native vegetation consistent
with the vegetation management plan.
vii. Public, non -motorized multi -use equestrian pedestrian/bike trails
shall only be allowed in the shoreline buffer for the Urban
Conservancy -High Quality environment designation to connect to
or from (in phases or otherwise) an existing regional multi -use
non -motorized trail and only pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(B).
viii. Encroachments in the buffer allowed by the exceptions listed
above shall be the minimum necessary to provide for the
permitted use.
4. A performance surety may be required as a condition of shoreline permit
approval to ensure compliance with the SMP. The performance surety shall be
Page 24 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
substantially in the same form and for the same coverage as provided for in the
City's Street Standards as adopted or amended.
5. Projects that require a critical areas report pursuant to SVMC 21.50.490 shall
incorporate any specific vegetation conservation measures identified in the
critical areas reports for the identified critical areas. Any application of
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals proposed in conjunction with
the vegetation removal or management activities shall be addressed by the
report.
C. Minor vegetation conservation activities allowed without a shoreline permit or letter of
exemption.
1. Pruning and thinning of trees or vegetation on public or private land for
maintenance, safety, forest health, and view protection if the criteria listed below
are met:
a. No native vegetation is removed, including thinning;
b. Pruning of native vegetation shall not exceed 30 percent of a tree's limbs.
Tree topping shall not occur;
c. Native shrubs shall not be pruned to a height less than six feet;
d. Pruning any vegetation waterward of the OHWM is prohibited; and
e. Pruning of any vegetation and thinning activities associated with non-
native plants shall ensure the continued survival of vegetation.
Whenever possible, pruning and thinning activities conducted to maintain or
create views shall be limited to areas dominated with non-native vegetation and
invasive species. Pruning and thinning on public land to establish a view for
adjacent properties shall be prohibited unless written approval from the
Washington State Parks Riverside Area Manager is given.
2. Pruning and thinning within a utility corridor by the utility service provider of both
native and non-native trees and vegetation shall be allowed when the following
criteria are met:
a. Reasonable measures to reduce the adverse effects of the activity are
implemented; and
b. No net loss of buffer functions and values occur.
3. Dead or hazardous trees within the shoreline buffer that pose a threat to public
safety or a risk of damage to private or public property may be removed if a letter
from a certified arborist or Qualified Professional is submitted that confirms the
tree is dead or is hazardous and includes:
a. Removal techniques;
b. Procedures for protecting the surrounding area; and
c. Replacement of native trees, if applicable. Where possible, hazard trees
within the shoreline buffer shall be turned into snags.
21.50.270 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non -Point Pollution
A. Applicability. This section applies to all projects that add any pollution -generating
impervious surfaces. This standard supersedes the regulatory threshold specified in the
Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, which is applicable outside the shoreline
jurisdiction.
B. Regulations.
1. All activities shall comply with the SVMC 22.150 Stormwater Management
Regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency's Underground Injection
Page 25 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Control program, the Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit
requirements, applicable total maximum daily Toads laws and regulations, and
other water cleanup plans.
2. Use of chemicals for commercial or industrial activities shall be pursuant to
SVMC 21.50.530(C).
3. Herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, and pesticides shall not be applied within 25
feet of a water body, except by a Qualified Professional in accordance with state
and federal laws.
21.50.280 Archaeological and Historic Resources
A. Applicability. This section applies to:
1. Projects with archaeological and historic resources on site that are either
recorded at the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP), or Spokane County;
2. Projects where archaeological and historical resources have been inadvertently
uncovered; or
3. Permit applications that contain a ground -disturbing component.
B. Standards.
1. Archaeological sites are subject to chapter 27.44 RCW Indian Graves and
Records and chapter 27.53 RCW Archaeological Sites and Records.
Development or uses that may impact such sites shall comply with WAC 25-48
as well as the regulations of this section.
2. A cultural resources site survey or assessment prepared by a Qualified
Professional is required for all shoreline permit applications that contain a
ground -disturbing component if the proposal meets the criteria below, which may
be determined through review of Spokane County and/or DAHP resources:
a. The project is on property known to contain archaeological, historic, or
cultural resources; or
b. The project is in an area mapped as having the potential for the presence
of archaeological, historic, or cultural resources.
3. When required, the cultural resources site survey or assessment shall:
a. Use standard procedures and methods to assess the potential for
presence of archaeological, historic, or cultural resources that could be
impacted by the project;
b. Provide appropriate recommendations for protecting and preserving the
archaeological, historical, or cultural resources;
c. Make an inventory of buildings or structures over 50 years in age located
within the project area in a DAHP Historic Property Inventory Database
entry; and
d. Record archaeological sites located within the project area on DAHP
Archaeological Site Inventory Forms.
4. When required, the cultural resources site survey or assessment shall be
circulated to DAHP and affected tribe(s). The ':)irectorCity Manager shall
consider comments from DAHP and affected tribe(s) prior to approval of the
survey or assessment. Based on the cultural resources site survey or
assessment, the application may be conditioned to ensure that such resources
are protected.
5. If archaeological, historic, or cultural resources are inadvertently discovered or
uncovered during excavation, the Applicant shall immediately stop work on that
portion of the project site and notify the City. The Applicant may be required to
Page26of82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
prepare a cultural resources site survey or assessment pursuant to SVMC
21.50.280(6)(3), after coordinating with DAHP.
21.50.290 Gravel Pits
A. Applicability. This section applies to existing and active gravel pit operations including
but not limited to known gravel pits located at 2010 North Sullivan Road and 220 North
Thierman Road.
B. Standards. Active gravel pits are not regulated as Shorelines of the State until
reclamation is complete and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
terminates the Surface Mine Reclamation Permit. Proposed subsequent use of mined
property shall be consistent with the provisions of the Urban Conservancy Environment
unless a different environmental designation is established through an amendment
pursuant to WAC 173-26-201.
21.50.300 Specific Shoreline Use Regulations
Applicability. The regulations in SVMC 21.50.300 through 21.50.450 apply to specific common
uses and types of development to the extent they occur within the shoreline jurisdiction.
21.50.310 Boating Facilities
A. Applicability. This section applies to new and existing boating facilities.
B. Standards.
1. Boating facilities shall:
a. Be allowed only for water -dependent uses or for public access;
b. Be limited to the minimum size and height necessary to achieve the
intended purpose of the facility; and
c. Incorporate measures for cleanup of accidental spills of contaminants.
2. Public boating facilities shall be located only at sites identified in the Public
Access Plan.
3. All new boating facilities shall incorporate public access when required by the
Public Access Plan and SVMC 21.50.250 herein.
4. New launch ramps shall be approved only if public access is provided to public
waters which are not adequately served by existing access facilities because of
location or capacity. Documentation of need shall be required from the Applicant
prior to approval pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access.
5. Existing boating facilities may be maintained and repaired pursuant to SVMC
21.50, provided the size is not increased.
6. In addition to the regulations above, boating facilities shall comply with SVMC
21.50.320 Commercial Use, SMVC 21.50.360 Recreational Development and
Use, and SVMC 21.50.430 Piers and Docks, as applicable.
21.50.320 Commercial Use
A. Applicability. This section applies to all commercial uses.
B. Standards.
1. New non water -oriented commercial uses shall be prohibited, except within the
Urban Conservancy Environment, where such uses may be permitted if:
Page 27 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
a. The use is part of a mixed -use project that includes water -dependent
uses; and
b. Provides a significant public benefit, such as public access or ecological
restoration; or
The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another parcel or
public right-of-way.
2. New commercial uses shall comply with the following criteria:
a. Windows, breezeways, and common areas should be oriented towards
the shoreline or recreational amenities on the site;
b. Buildings should provide at least one main entry that orients toward the
shoreline, not including a service entry;
c. Architectural features that reduce scale shall be incorporated, such as
pitched roofs, offsets, angled facets, and recesses;
d. Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water shall employ materials that
minimize reflected light;
e. Building mechanical equipment, noise generating systems, vents, utility
cabinets, and small scale service elements shall be incorporated into
building architectural features, such as pitched roofs. Where it is not
possible to incorporate into architectural features, a landscaping screen
consistent with SVMC 22.70.030(C) shall be utilized;
f. Screening and buffering, or other visual screen consistent with the
building exterior material and colors, shall be provided that conceals view
of such equipment from the shoreline;
g. Commercial uses shall be screened from any adjacent residential uses by
providing a Type I -Full Screening Buffer pursuant to SVMC 22.70
Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping;
h. Landscaping within the shoreline setback area shall incorporate native
plant materials;
Loading docks and maintenance facilities shall be located away from the
shoreline to minimize visual, noise, or physical impacts on the site, street,
adjacent public open spaces, and adjacent properties; and
j. A site plan and landscaping plan shall be submitted showing all the
applicable items listed in SVMC 21.50.320(B)(2).
3. Commercial wireless communication facilities shall not be allowed within the
shoreline jurisdiction.
4. Home occupations shall be allowed within the Shoreline Residential - Upland and
Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designations pursuant to SVMC 19.40.140
Home Occupations.
21.50.330 Industrial Use
A. Applicability. This section applies to all new Industrial uses, including uses involved in
processing, manufacturing, assembly, and storage of finished or semi -finished goods
and food products.
B. Standards.
1. New non water -oriented industrial uses shall be prohibited, except within the
Urban Conservancy Environment, where such uses may be permitted if the use
is part of a mixed -use project that includes water -dependent use and:
Page 28 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
a. Provides a significant public benefit such as providing public access and
ecological restoration; or
b. The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another parcel or
public right-of-way.
2. Industrial development shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated to
avoid visual impacts to users of the Spokane River and Centennial Trail.
3. New industrial uses shall comply with the requirements of SVMC 21.50.320(6)(2)
and (3).
4. Noise associated with operations or equipment, including volume, repetitive
sound, or beat, shall be muffled or otherwise controlled so that it is not audible at
a distance over 30 feet from the landward boundary of a buffer.
21.50.340 In -Stream Structures
A. Applicability. This section applies to all projects proposing in -stream structures.
B. Standards.
1. In -stream structures shall conform with the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, WDFW, SVMC 21.50.240 Flood Hazard Reduction, SVMC
21.50.270 Water Quality, Stormwater and Non -Point Pollution, SVMC 21.50.410
General Regulations for Specific Shoreline Modifications, and any other
applicable federal, state, and local requirements.
2. In -stream structures shall provide for the protection and preservation of
ecosystem -wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources pursuant
to WAC 173-26-241(3)(g).
21.50.350 Parking Facilities
A. Applicability. This section applies to all new parking facilities.
B. Regulations.
1. A parking facility is permitted only if:
a. It directly serves a permitted shoreline use, including the Centennial Trail,
direct river access, and use areas; and
b. It is not the primary use; for example, it cannot be a stand-alone parking
facility.
2. Parking facilities serving individual buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction shall
be located:
a. Landward from the principal building being served; or
b. Within or beneath a structure.
3. Parking facilities shall be screened from the shoreline and less intense adjacent
land uses by providing a Type I - Full Screening Buffer pursuant to SVMC
22.70.030(B) Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping. A majority of the plant
materials proposed to meet the vegetation mix requirements shall be native
plants.
4. Parking shall be pursuant to SVMC 22.50 Off -Street Parking and Loading
Standards.
5. Private projects, excluding single-family residential projects, which include public
access features shall dedicate parking stalls for public use that are in addition to
the number of parking stalls necessary to serve the proposed development
pursuant to SVMC 22.50 Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards:
a. Projects shall provide and dedicate additional parking for public use.
Applicants shall either use a presumptive standard of one additional
Page 29 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
space for public parking for every 25 parking spaces required to serve the
proposed development or provide an assessment of public access need
which supports a different ratio. Any proposal to change from this
presumptive standard shall be approved by the `irectorCity Manager,
which approval shall be based upon the unique factual circumstances of
the development and surrounding shoreline uses;
b. Spaces that are dedicated for public use shall be marked with appropriate
signage; and
c. Stalls dedicated for public use shall be near the public access point.
21.50.360 Recreational Development and Use
A. Applicability. This section applies to public and commercial shoreline recreational
facilities and uses, including but not limited to trails, viewing platforms, swimming areas,
boating facilities, docks, and piers.
B. Standards.
1 Non water -oriented recreation uses are prohibited in Urban Conservation - High
Quality Shorelines except limited public uses that have minimal or low impact on
shoreline ecological functions, such as the Centennial Trail and appropriately -
scaled day use areas.
2. Water -oriented recreational structures, limited to boat launches, ramps, public
docks or piers, commercial docks or piers, and private docks serving more than
four residences may be allowed waterward of the shoreline buffer and setback.
3. Water -oriented recreational structures, limited to access routes, boat and
equipment storage, viewing platforms, amenities such as benches, picnic tables
and similar facilities for water enjoyment uses, including those related to the
Centennial Trail shall be allowed within the shoreline buffer and setback area
provided:
a. Structures are located outside of an Urban Conservancy - High Quality
area;
b. Structures are not located in, on, or over water; and
c. Structure height limit is less than 15 feet.
4. All recreational development shall provide:
a. Non -motorized and pedestrian access to the shoreline pursuant to SVMC
21.50.250 Public Access;
b. Landscaping, fencing, or signage designed to prevent trespassing onto
adjacent properties;
c. Signs indicating public right of access to shoreline areas, installed and
maintained in conspicuous locations at the point of access and the
entrance; and
d. Buffering of such development and uses from incompatible adjacent land
uses pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030 Screening and Buffering, and Table
22.70-2 - Buffers Required by Type, as applicable.
5. Recreational development and uses shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.310
Boating Facilities, SVMC 21.50.320 Commercial Use, and SVMC 21.50.430
Piers and Docks, as applicable.
21.50.370 Residential Development and Use
A. Applicability.
1. This section applies to single-family and multi -family structures, lots, and parcels.
Page 30 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
2. Residential uses also include Iccessory dwelling units (ADUs' accessory uses
and structures normally associated with residential uses including, but not limited
to, garages, sheds, decks, driveways, fences, swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas,
and tennis courts.
3. Clearing, grading, and utilities work associated with residential use are subject to
the regulations established for those activities.
B. Standards.
1. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is not required for construction by
an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence, provided,
any such construction of a single-family residence and all accessory structures
meet the requirements of the SMP.
2. Residential development, including single-family structures, shall be required to
control erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation shall be minimized
and any areas disturbed shall be restored to prevent erosion and other impacts
to shoreline ecological functions pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260.
3. New residential development, including accessory uses and structures, shall be
sited in a manner to avoid the need for structural improvements that protect such
structures and uses from steep slopes and shorelines vulnerable to erosion,
including bluff walls and other stabilization structures.
4. New over -water residences and floating homes are prohibited.
5. New single-family residential accessory structures, excluding accessory dwelling
units, may be located waterward of the shoreline setback provided that all of the
following criteria are met:
a. The combined building footprint of all accessory structures does not
exceed 10 percent of the lot area;
b. Structures are located outside of critical areas, their associated buffers,
and the shoreline buffer; and
c. Structures are set no closer than five feet to any side or rear property line.
6. New attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall:
a. Be located landward of the shoreline buffer and outside of all critical
areas and their buffers. and
b. Be pursuant to SVMC 19.40.100 Accessory Dwelling Unit.: and
c. Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
7 New residential developments of four or more lots shall comply with the following
requirements:
a. The shoreline buffer shall be shown on the plat and permanently marked
on the ground with methods approved by the 0irectorCity Manager;
b. A site plan shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit
application showing the project elements described in SVMC
21.50.370(6)(3); and
c. Provide a project narrative describing how the project elements are being
met.
8. Exterior lighting associated with single-family residences, such as pathway
lighting and lighting directed at landscaping features, is permitted within the
setback area so long as it is directed away from the shoreline.
9. Recorded plats shall include language that states that pursuant to SVMC
21.50.230, use and development within the defined shoreline buffer area is
prohibited. Title notices shall be recorded with each newly created parcel with
the restrictive language.
Page 31 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
10. New fences shall meet the requirements of SVMC 22.70 Fencing, Screening and
Landscaping.
11. Fences are prohibited in the following areas:
a. Shoreline buffers;
b. Critical areas; and
c. Waterward of the OHWM.
21.50.380 Signs and Outdoor Lighting
A. Applicability. This section applies to any commercial, industrial, or advertising sign
directing attention to a business, professional service, community site, facility, or
entertainment conducted or sold, and all outdoor lighting, except those associated with
residential use and public street lighting.
B. Standards.
1 All signs shall comply with SVMC 22.110 Sign Regulations; variances from these
regulations may be granted pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140 Shoreline Variances.
2. Signage, including kiosks and directional signage to commercial uses or
recreation areas, related to, or along, the Centennial Trail, is allowed without a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit provided:
a. Signage is consistent with the SMP, the City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, and any applicable master plan of Washington State Parks;
and
b. Signage proposed within a buffer area shall not:
Exceed 15 square feet in area;
ii. Exceed six feet in height;
Be illuminated unless warranted by safety factors; and
iv. A building permit is obtained, if required.
3. Outdoor lighting shall comply with SVMC 22.60 Outdoor Lighting Standards.
4. New permanent outdoor lighting is prohibited within the shoreline buffer.
5. Pedestrian -oriented lighting along walkways and paths shall be allowed within
the shoreline setback area if:
a. The purpose of the light is safety;
b. Lighting structure height is not greater than 12 feet; and
c. Lighting fixtures are downward directed and fully shielded.
6. All outdoor lighting shall be oriented away from the shoreline and adjacent uses
using directional lighting or shielding.
21.50.390 Transportation Facilities
A. Applicability. This section applies to structures and developments that aid in land, air,
and water surface movement of people, goods, and services. They include roads and
highways, bridges, bikeways, heliports, rail, and other related facilities. Trails are
addressed in SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access.
B. Standards.
1. New road and bridge construction and expansion of existing roads and bridges
shall only be located within the shoreline jurisdiction upon approval by the
DirectorCity Manages when deemed necessary for the good of the community, or
when deemed related to, and necessary to support permitted shoreline activities.
2. When allowed, transportation facilities shall be:
Page 32 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
a. Consistent with an approved private project or applicable City plans,
including the City's Transportation Improvement Plan, Public Access Plan
and Restoration Plan;
b. Located on the landward side of existing structures or uses; and
c. Be designed to minimize clearing, grading, and alteration of natural
features. Roadway and driveway alignment should follow natural
contours and minimize width.
3. To the extent consistent with federal jurisdiction, new rail lines and corridors or
expansion of existing rail lines and corridors shall be allowed only for the purpose
of connecting to existing rail lines or rights -of -way. New rail lines, including
bridges, shall be constructed within existing rail corridors or rights -of -way.
4. To the extent consistent with federal jurisdiction, new rail lines shall be
constructed so that they do not compromise the public's ability to access the
shoreline safely.
21.50.400 Public Facilities and Utilities
A. Applicability. This section applies to all public facilities and utilities. This section does
not apply to on -site utility features serving a primary use, such as water, sewer, or gas
lines to a development or residence. These utility features are considered "service
utilities" and shall be considered part of the primary use.
B. Regulations.
1 New public facilities and utilities may only be allowed pursuant to Shoreline
Conditional Use permit and if they meet the following conditions:
a. Address conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses
through site design or configuration, buffers, aesthetics, or other methods;
and
b. Identify the need to site within shoreline jurisdiction and why it is not
possible to locate outside of the shoreline jurisdiction.
2. New wastewater and stormwater outfalls shall not be allowed.
3. Routine maintenance, replacement, and minor upgrades of existing utilities shall
be allowed; provided that if the activity involves ground disturbance or is located
in the Urban Conservancy - High Quality Environment, then such maintenance,
replacement, and minor upgrades shall only be allowed by Letter of Exemption.
If existing high -quality vegetated areas, as noted in the Shoreline Inventory and
Analysis, are disturbed by maintenance activities in Urban Conservancy - High
Quality designated shorelines, mitigation pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net
Loss and Mitigation Sequencing, shall be required.
4. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines,
cables, and pipelines, should be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction.
5. New utility corridors shall be prohibited within the Urban Conservation — High
Quality Environment.
6. New over -water utility crossings are allowed within existing utility corridors.
7 New or expanded service utilities shall:
a. Be located underground, unless placement underground results in more
damage to the shoreline area;
b. Utilize low impact, low profile design, and construction methods; and
c. Restore any areas disturbed to pre -project configurations, replant with
native species, and maintain until the newly planted area is established.
8. Stormwater pipe systems shall not be allowed within the shoreline buffer.
Page 33 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
21.50.410 General Regulations for Specific Shoreline Modifications
A. Applicability. SVMC 21.50.410 through 21.50.450 apply to all shoreline modifications.
Shoreline modification activities are structures, including in -stream structures, or actions
that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area.
B. General shoreline modification standards.
1 All shoreline modification applications shall also comply with:
a. SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulations;
b. SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities; and
c. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (WDFW, Ecology and
Transportation, 2003 as adopted or amended).
2. All shoreline modification activities shall ensure that the no net loss of ecological
function standard is met.
3. Structural shoreline modifications within the regulated floodplain, geologically
hazardous areas, and in -stream shall only be allowed where it can be
demonstrated that nonstructural measures are not feasible or the proposed
activities are necessary to:
a. Support or protect a legally existing shoreline use or primary structure
that is in danger of loss or substantial damage;
b. Reconfigure the shoreline or channel bed for an allowed water -dependent
use; or
c. Provide for shoreline mitigation or enhancement purposes.
4. All shoreline modifications within the regulated floodplain and in -stream, with the
exception of docks proposed on the Spokane River that are located west of the
City of Millwood, shall provide the following:
a. Site suitability analysis that justifies the proposed structure;
b. A Habitat Management Plan prepared by a Qualified Professional that
describes:
The anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife habitat
and migration areas;
ii. Provisions for protecting in -stream resources during construction
and operation; and
Measures to compensate for impacts to resources that cannot be
avoided.
c. An engineering analysis which evaluates and addresses:
The stability of the structure for the required design frequency;
ii. Changes in base flood elevation, floodplain width, and flow
velocity;
The potential for blocking or redirecting the flow which could lead
to erosion of other shoreline properties or create an adverse
impact to shoreline resources and uses;
iv. Methods for maintaining the natural transport of sediment and
bedload materials;
v. Protection of water quality, public access, and recreation; and
vi. Maintenance requirements.
21.50.420 Shoreline/Slope Stabilization
A. Applicability. This section applies to shoreline modification activities for shoreline and
slope stabilization projects, including structural and nonstructural measures.
Page 34 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
B. Standards.
1. Nonstructural measures are the preferred method for slope and shoreline
stabilization.
2. Nonstructural measures may include building setbacks, relocation of the
structure to be protected, groundwater management, and planning and
regulatory measures to avoid the need for structural stabilization.
3. Structural stabilization measures may include hard surfaces such as concrete
bulkheads or less rigid materials, such as vegetation, biotechnical vegetation
measures, and riprap-type stabilization.
4. New structural shoreline modifications require a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit.
5. New structural stabilization measures may be allowed under the following
circumstances:
a. To protect existing primary structures, public facilities and utilities, and the
Centennial Trail. Prior to approval, a geotechnical investigation shall:
Demonstrate that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion
by currents or waves; and
ii. Evaluate on -site drainage and address drainage problems away
from the shoreline.
b. To protect new non water -dependent uses from erosion, when all of the
following apply:
The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions;
ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient;
An engineering or scientific analysis demonstrates that damage is
caused by natural processes; and
iv. The stabilization structure shall incorporate native vegetation and
comply with the mitigation sequencing in SVMC 21.50.210 No Net
Loss and Mitigation Sequencing.
c. To protect water -dependent development from erosion when all of the
following apply:
The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions;
ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient; and
The need to protect primary structures from damage due to
erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report.
d. To protect restoration and remediation projects when all of the following
apply:
The project is conducted pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW
Model Toxics Control Act; and
ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient.
6. Unless otherwise exempt from shoreline permit requirements, replacement of an
existing shoreline stabilization structure may be approved with a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit, provided the structure remains in the same
location and the outer dimension changes by 10 percent or less. However, a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be required if existing shoreline
stabilization measures are relocated or the outer dimension changes by more
than 10 percent.
7 All new or replaced structural shoreline stabilization measures shall provide:
a. Design plans showing the limits of construction, access to the
construction area, details, and cross sections of the proposed stabilization
measure, erosion and sediment controls, and re -vegetation of the project
area; and
Page 35 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
b. An engineered report that addresses the purpose of the repair,
engineering assumption, and engineering calculations to size the
stabilization measure.
8. A replacement structure shall not encroach waterward of the OHWM, unless all
of the following apply:
a. For residences occupied or constructed prior to January 1, 1992;
b. There are overriding safety or environmental concerns;
c. The replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization
structure; and
d. The Department of Natural Resources has approved, if applicable, the
proposed project if it is on state-owned aquatic lands.
21.50.430 Piers and Docks
A. Applicability. This section applies to the construction or expansion of piers and docks
constructed waterward of the OHWM.
B. Standards.
1. Piers and docks designed for pleasure craft only, and for the private
noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and
multi -family residences, shall require a Letter of Exemption. Any other dock or
pier permitted under the SMP requires a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit.
2. Piers and docks serving more than four residences and public or commercial
piers and docks shall comply with SVMC 21.50.310 Boating Facilities. Public or
commercial piers and docks shall comply with SVMC 21.50.360 Recreational
Development and Uses.
3. New piers and docks shall only be allowed for water -dependent uses or public
access. A dock associated with a single-family residence and designed and
intended as a facility for access to watercraft is a water -dependent use.
4. New piers and docks shall be the minimum size necessary based upon a needs
analysis provided by the Applicant. However, the size shall not exceed 55 feet in
length measured perpendicularly from the OHWM. Total deck area shall not
exceed 320 square feet.
5. The City may require modifications to the configuration of piers and docks to
protect navigation, public use, or ecological functions.
6. Wood treated with toxic compounds shall not be used for decking or for in -water
components.
7 Existing legally established docks, piers, or viewing platforms may be repaired or
replaced in accordance with the regulations of the SMP, provided the size of the
existing structure is not increased.
8. Piers and docks proposed on the Spokane River and located east of the City of
Millwood shall comply with SVMC 21.50.410(6)(4) and the following additional
criteria:
a. The site suitability analysis shall demonstrate that:
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, and
Page 36 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
shall include an analysis of the cumulative impact of additional requests
for like actions in the area.
9. A new pier or dock accessory to residential development- 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. Application materials shall
include documentation of the applicant's efforts to explore feasibility of and
interest in a joint use dock with owners of any residential lots immediately
adjacent to the applicant's sites. Such documentation may include copies of
certified letters sent to owners of the immediately adjacent properties listed on
title. Any proposal for a joint use dock shall include in the application materials a
legally enforceable joint use agreement or other legal instrument, notice of which
must be recorded against title of the properties sharing the dock prior to dock
construction. The joint use agreement shall, at a minimum, address the
following:
a. Apportionment of construction and maintenance expenses;
b. Easements and liability agreements; and
c. Use restrictions.
21.50.440 Dredging and Fill
A. Applicability. This section applies to shoreline modification activities for projects or uses
proposing dredging, dredge material disposal, or fill waterward of the OHWM.
B. Regulations.
1. Dredging and dredge material disposal is prohibited unless associated with a
comprehensive flood management solution, an environmental cleanup plan, a
habitat restoration, fish enhancement project, or when considered suitable under,
and conducted in accordance with, the Dredged Material Management Program
of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. These projects
require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
2. Fill shall be allowed only when necessary to support the following uses (a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is required unless stated otherwise):
a. Water -dependent uses;
b. Public access;
c. Cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an
interagency environmental cleanup plan; these proposals may be exempt
from a shoreline permit of any type by the Model Toxics Control Act;
d. Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities. These proposals shall
also demonstrate that alternatives to fill are not feasible and require a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit;
e. A mitigation action; and
f. An environmental restoration or enhancement project.
21.50.450 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
A. Applicability. This section applies to all shoreline habitat and natural system
enhancement projects.
B. Standards.
1. Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects are encouraged.
These projects shall:
Page 37 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
a. Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or a Letter of
Exemption;
b. Demonstrate that the main project purpose is enhancing or restoring the
shoreline natural character and ecological functions by establishing the
restoration needs and priorities; and
c. Implement the restoration plan developed pursuant to WAC 173-26-
201(2)(f) and with applicable federal and state permit provisions.
2. Relief procedures for shoreline restoration projects.
a. The City may grant relief from SMP development standards and use
regulations resulting from shoreline restoration projects within urban
growth areas consistent with criteria and procedures in WAC 173-27-215.
Article III. Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations
21.50.460 General - Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations - Applicability
A. SVMC 21.50.460 through 21.50.560 apply to critical areas and their buffers that are
completely within the shoreline jurisdiction as well as critical areas and their buffers
located within, but extending beyond the mapped shoreline jurisdiction boundary.
Regulated critical areas include: wetlands, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs),
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs), geologically hazardous areas,
and frequently flooded areas, pursuant to WAC 173-26-221(2) and (3), and WAC 365-
196-485.
B. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within the shoreline jurisdiction
of the City, whether or not a shoreline permit or other authorization is required. No
person, company, agency, or other entity shall alter a critical area or its associated buffer
within the shoreline jurisdiction except as consistent with the purposes and requirements
of the SMP.
21.50.470 Maps and Inventories
A. The approximate location and extent of known critical areas are depicted on the Critical
Areas and Priority Habitats Map updated and maintained by the Community
Development Department. The Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map is a reference
tool, not an official designation or delineation. The exact location of a critical area
boundary shall be determined through field investigation by a Qualified Professional.
B. In addition to the Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map, City staff may review
additional reference materials to determine whether a proposed development has the
potential to affect a critical area within the shoreline jurisdiction. Reference materials
may include, but are not limited to the following as adopted or amended:
1 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Spokane
County, Washington, 2012;
2. USGS 7.5 Minute Series Digital Elevation Model;
3. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Spokane County, Washington and
Incorporated Areas, July 6, 2010;
4. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory;
5. Aerial photos;
6. WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and Wildlife Heritage Maps and Data; and
7. City critical area designation maps.
21.50.480 Exemptions from Critical Area Review and Reporting Requirements
Page 38 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
A. Activities exempt from critical area review and reporting requirements shall ensure no
net loss of shoreline ecological functions pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210. Exempt
activities shall be conducted consistent with performance standards identified in SVMC
21.50.180 through 21.50.450, including mitigation sequencing.
B. Any incidental damage to or alteration of a critical area or their buffers resulting from
exempt activities shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the expense of the
responsible party within one growing season.
C. The following activities are exempt from critical area review and reporting requirements:
1. Conservation or enhancement of native vegetation.
2. Outdoor recreational activities which do not involve disturbance of the resource
or site area, including fishing, hunting, bird watching, hiking, horseback riding,
bicycling, and natural trail use.
3. Education, scientific research, and surveying.
4. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of:
a. Legally -constructed existing irrigation and drainage ditches, utility lines
and right-of-way, and appurtenances;
b. Facilities within an existing right-of-way and existing serviceable
structures or improved areas, not including expansion, change in
character or scope, or construction of a maintenance road. The
exemption includes the necessary vegetation management that keeps the
existing right-of-way clear from hazard trees; and
c. State or City parks, including noxious weed control and removal of hazard
trees where the potential for harm to humans exists.
5. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the
elements.
6. Routine maintenance, repair, and minor modifications (such as construction of a
balcony or second story) of existing structures where the modification does not
extend the structure further into or adversely impact the functions of the critical
area.
7 In Category III or IV wetlands only, stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioinfiltration
swales located within the outer 25 percent of the buffer provided that no other
location is feasible.
21.50.490 Critical Area Review
A. All clearing, uses, modifications, or development activities within a shoreline critical area
or its buffer shall be subject to review under SVMC 21.50 unless specifically exempted
under SVMC 21.50.480.
B. Applicant shall identify in the application materials the presence of any known or
suspected critical areas on or within 200 feet of the property line.
C. If the proposed project is within or adjacent to a critical area, or is likely to create a net
loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain a critical area, the City shall:
1. Require and review a critical area report for each applicable critical area; and
2. Determine if the proposed project adequately addresses and mitigates impacts to
the critical area and is consistent with the requirements of the SMP.
21.50.500 Critical Area Report Requirements for all Critical Areas
Page 39 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
A. When required by SVMC 21.50.490(C), the Applicant shall submit a critical area report
subject to the requirements of this section and any additional reporting requirements for
each critical area, as applicable.
B. Critical area reports for two or more types of critical areas shall meet the report
requirements for each relevant type of critical area.
C. All critical area assessments, investigations, and reports shall be completed by a
Qualified Professional.
D. At a minimum, all critical area reports shall contain the following:
1. The name and contact information of the Applicant, a description of the proposal,
and identification of the permit(s) requested;
2. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and
documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site;
3. A statement from the Qualified Professional certifying that the report meets the
critical area requirements;
4. A description of the nature, density, and intensity of the proposed use or activity
in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such proposal upon identified critical area;
5. List of all references used and all assumptions made and relied upon;
6. A scaled site plan showing:
a. Critical areas and their buffers;
b. Ordinary high water mark;
c. Proposed and existing structures and related infrastructure;
d. Clearing and grading limits;
e. Impervious surfaces;
f. Location of temporary and/or permanent construction signage and
fencing to protect critical areas and their buffers;
g. Topographic contours at two foot intervals;
h. Fill and material storage locations;
Proposed and existing drainage facilities and stormwater flow arrows; and
j. Title, date, scale, north arrow, and legend;
7 Identification and characterization of all critical areas, water bodies, and critical
areas associated with buffers located on site, adjacent to, and within 200 feet of
proposed project areas. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap (such
as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer shall apply;
8. A mitigation plan which contains a description of the application of mitigation
sequencing and offsetting of impacts pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss
and Mitigation Sequencing;
9. Erosion and sediment control plan and drainage plan, as applicable for
conformance with SVMC 24.50;
10. Cost estimate for required mitigation when a financial surety is required pursuant
to SVMC 21.50.510;
11. A discussion of the performance standards applicable to the critical area and
proposed activity; and
12. Monitoring plan pursuant to SVMC 21.50.510(D) when mitigation is required.
E. The DirectorCity Manage may modify the required contents or the scope of the required
critical area report to adequately evaluate the potential impacts and required mitigation.
This may include requiring more or less information and addressing only that part of a
site affected by a development proposal.
Page 40 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
21.50.510 Mitigation
A. Applicants shall follow the mitigation sequencing put forth in SVMC 21.50.210 No Net
Loss Mitigation and Sequencing.
B. All impacts to critical areas and their buffers likely to result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions necessary to sustain the critical area shall be mitigated consistent
with appropriate state and federal guidelines.
C. Unless specifically addressed in specific critical area sections, compensatory mitigation
may be provided by any of the following means, in order of preference:
1. Except as provided in SVMC 21.50.510(C)(2)(a), adverse critical area impacts
shall be mitigated on or contiguous to the development site through resource
expansion, enhancement, protection, or restoration.
2. Off -site mitigation.
a. Off -site mitigation may be allowed if an Applicant demonstrates that
mitigation on or contiguous to the development proposal site cannot be
achieved and that off -site mitigation will achieve equivalent or greater
ecological functions.
b. When off -site mitigation is authorized, priority shall be given to the
following locations within the same drainage sub -basin as the project site:
Mitigation banking sites and resource mitigation reserves.
ii. Private mitigation sites that are established in compliance with the
requirements of SVMC 21.50.510(C)(2) and approved by the
D4 ectorCity Manager.
Offsite mitigation consistent with Selecting Wetland Mitigation
Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Eastern Washington)
(Publication #10-06-07, Olympia, WA, November 2010 as adopted
or amended).
c. The njr -rCity Manager shall maintain a list of known sites available for
use for off -site mitigation projects.
3. Title notices shall be recorded against the affected parcels for on -site mitigation,
and easements shall be recorded for off -site mitigation, to avoid impacts from
future development or alteration to the function of the mitigation. The mitigation
site shall be permanently preserved.
D. Monitoring.
1. The Applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and
submit performance monitoring reports, as specified in the applicable permit
conditions.
2. When required, the monitoring plan shall:
a. Demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the SMP and specific
permits and approvals;
b. Describe the objectives and methods for monitoring and quantifying;
c. Provide results with an estimate of statistical precision;
d. Identify the length of monitoring and reporting requirements;
e. Recommend management actions based upon the monitoring results;
and
f. Address the length of the mitigation consistent with the following:
Page 41 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a minimum of two years
for temporary impact restoration and up to 10 years for
compensatory mitigation; and
ii. If the mitigation objectives are not obtained within the initial
monitoring period, the Applicant shall remain responsible for
restoration of the natural values and functions until the mitigation
goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved.
E. Sureties.
1. Performance and maintenance sureties shall be required from all private persons
and entities required to provide mitigation and a maintenance plan.
2. The performance surety shall be in substantially the same form as provided for in
the City's Street Standards as adopted or amended.
3. A performance surety shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Shoreline
Substantial Development, Conditional Use Permit, or Grading Permit. The surety
shall include costs to cover for construction and vegetation, annual maintenance
for a five-year period, and a 25 percent contingency fee.
4. The performance surety shall be released when the following conditions have
been met:
a. The installation of the required mitigation is approved by the City; and
b. The Applicant has submitted a warranty surety pursuant to SVMC
21 .50.51 0(E)(5).
5. All projects with required mitigation shall submit a warranty surety to ensure the
success of the mitigation project before certificate of occupancy, final plat
approval, or as required by the City. The warranty surety shall be for 40 percent
of the total mitigation construction and planting costs and annual maintenance/
monitoring for five years, including but not limited to: costs for the maintenance
and replacement of dead or dying plant materials; failures due to site preparation,
plant materials, construction materials; installation oversight, monitoring,
reporting, and contingency actions expected through the end of the required
monitoring period.
6. The warranty surety shall remain in effect for five years from the release of the
performance surety or a timeframe as otherwise determined by the irectorCity
Manager. The Applicant shall have a Qualified Professional inspect the
mitigation site within 30 days of the expiration of the warranty. Any deficiencies
noted shall be repaired prior to the release of the surety. If the inspection is not
conducted and/or the deficiencies are not repaired, the warranty surety shall be
renewed by the Applicant until all deficiencies are corrected. The City shall
conduct an inspection prior to releasing the warranty surety.
7 If any deficiencies identified while the warranty surety is in effect are not
corrected in the time frame specified by the uw City Mann , the City may
choose to conduct the necessary repairs. The City shall then either invoice the
Applicant or collect from the surety for all costs for the related work, plus a $500
administrative fee.
F. The Uii ector(ty IVianag may approve alternative mitigation provided such mitigation is
based on the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information
available and provides an equivalent or better level of protection of shoreline ecological
functions than would be provided by the strict application of the SVMC 21.50. The
DirectorCity Manager shall consider the following for approval of an alternative mitigation
proposal:
Page 42 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
1 The Applicant proposes creating or enhancing a larger system of natural areas
and open space in lieu of preserving many individual habitat areas.
2. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the proposed
site.
3. The approved plan contains clear and measurable standards for achieving
compliance with the specific provisions of the plan.
21.50.520 Wetlands - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations
to wetlands, unless specifically exempted by SVMC 21.50./180.
Designation, delineation, and classification.
1. Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include, but are not limited to,
s s, mar cs gs, pondss, d similiar areas. tl etlandr ono de
those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non wetland sites, including,
but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals,
those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a
result of the construction or a road, strcct, or highway. Wctlandc may includc
the conversion of wetlands.
2. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries shall be determined
through a field investigation by a Qualificd Profc&cional in accordancc with the
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional
Supplement to The Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West
Region (September 2008). Wetland delineations are valid for five years, after
which the City shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is
necessary.
3. Classification. Wetlands shall be rated by a Qualified Professional according to
the Ecology wetland rating system as set forth in the Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Eastern Washington (Ecology Di blication f0il_06 015
November 2010 as adopted or amended). The wetland categories are generally
defined as follows:
a. Category I (scorcc of 70 points or more): Wetlands that perform many
functions very well. These wetlands are those that:
Represent a unique or rare wetland type;
ii. Are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetla-n-El-s;
Are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that
arc imposiblc to rcplace within a human lifetime; or
iv. Provide a high level of function.
h ACategory 11 (scores between 51_69oi pnts): Forested d wetlans in the
floodplains of rivers or wetlands that perform functions well.
c. Category III (scor betwccn 30-50 points): Wetlands that have a
moderate level of functions. These wetlands have been disturbed in
some way and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural
resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.
Page 43 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
d. Category IV (scores fewer than 30 points): These wetlands have thc
lowest level of fi inctions and are often heavily disti irbed b it have
important functions that need to be protected.
/1. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to any illegal modifications.
C. Wetland buffers.
1. Applicability. These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands that:
a. Are not associated with riparian areas or buffers;
b. Do not contain habitat identified as essential for local populations of
priority species identified by WDFW or Natural Heritage plant specie
identified by the WDNR;
c. Are not a vernal pool;
d. Are not an alkali wetland; and
e. Do not contain aspen stands.
2. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in SVMC 21.50.520(C)(1), wetland
buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition.
3. Buffer widths.
a. All buffers widths shall be measured perpendicularly from the wetland
boundary as surveyed in the field.
b. The total buffer width shall be calculated by adding thc standard and thc
additional b iffer widths together.
c. The standard buffer widths in Table 21.50 /1 are based on the category
of wetland. In order to qualify for the standard buffer widths in Table 1,
the measures in Table 21.50 5 shall be implcmcntcd, where applicable,
to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses on the wetland(s).
d. Additional buffer widths listed in Table 1 shall be added to the standard
buffer widths based on the habitat score for the wetland.
Table 21.50 4: Wetland Buffer Requirements
Wetland
Category
Standard
Buffer Width
Additional
Buffer Width if
21 25 Habitat
Points
Additional
Buffer Width if
26_29 Habitat
Points
Additional
Buffer Width if
>30 mat
Points
100 feet
Add 15 feet
Add /15 feet
Add 75 feet
Category II
75 feet
Add 15 feet
Add /1 5 feet
Add 75 feet
Category III
60 feet
/1-0-feet
Add 30 feet
N/A
Add 60 feet
N/A
N/A
N/A
/1. Increased buffer widths.
a. If m asures listed in Table 21.50 5 arc not implcmcntcd, then thc
standard buffer widths in Table 21.50 /1 shall be increased by 33 percent.
b. Buffer widths may be increased on a case by case basic when thc
wetland is used by a plant or animal species listed by the federal
government or the state as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive,
monitored, or documented priority species or habitats, or essential or
outstanding habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting
sites. The buffer increase should be determined by the Qualified
Professional in the critical areas report.
Page 44 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
T, le-2a. 0 5:: Reg ed�Measur-es to nn rrze I,,,, cts to Wetla ds
Distufbanse
Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
L i
• Direct lights away from wetland
Noiso
Chemical Uso
• Locate activity that generates noise away from
wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffcr with nativc
vegetation plantings adjaccnt to noisc sourcc
• For activities that generate relatively continuous,
potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy
industry or mining, establish an additional 10 foot
heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent
to the outer wetland hi ffer
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within
150 feet of wetland
• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff
• Route all untreated runoff away from wetland whilc
ensuring wetland is not dewatered
• Retrofit substandard stormwatcr facilitics
• Prevent channelized flow that dircctly cntcrc the
buffer
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer
new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human-disturbancc
• Use privacy fencing or plant dense, thorny
vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to
discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriato
for this aroo
Bidet
• Use best management practices to control dust
Disruption of corridors or
connection
• Maintain conncctions to off site ar ac that arc
undisturbed
Vegetation alteration
• Protect and maintain native plant communities in
buffers
5. Buffer averaging.
a. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be allowed when all
of the following conditions are met:
The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that
affect its habitat functions and the buffer is increased adjacent to
the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of
the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or
less sensitive portion;
�i. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area
required without averaging• and
v
Page 45 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
The buffer at its narrowest point is not lesc than either 75 percent
of he-ireguired4vidrth oe•et r Category 1 and�rrcrirv0feet for
Category III and 30 feet for Category I\/ whichever is greater
b. Buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be allowed
when all of the following are met:
�. There are no feasible alternatives to thc sitc dcsign that could bc
accomplished without buffer averaging;
ii. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of thc wctland'D
functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report;
The total buffer area after averaging is equal or greater to the area
iv. The buffer at its narrowest point is not less than either 75 percent
of the regu red th Teet r Category 1 an�'�,d 11, Q0feet
Category III and 30 feet for Category I\/ whichever is greater
6. Signs and fencing.
a. Temporary.
The outer perimeter of wetland buffers and the clearing limits shall
be signed and fenced to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will
occur during construction.
ii. Temporary signs and fencing shall be placed prior to beginning
permitted activities and maintained throughout construction.
b. Permanent.
The Director, at his/her sole discretion, may require installation of
permanent signs and/or fencing along the boundary of a wetland
or buffer.
�i. Permanent signs shall bc made of an enamel coated mctal facc
and attached to a metal post or another non treated material of
equal durability. Signs, if rcquircd by thc Director, shall be posted
at an interval not Ice, than ^ne per lot and .high sh ill be
maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. The obligation to
maintain permanent signs shall be recorded against the property
in a form acceptable to the City.
The signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language
approved by the Director:
Protected Wetland Area
De -Nei -Disturb
Community Development Department
eg rdi Uses estrictiorns, and Opp i ies forStewards-h;p
iv. Permanent fence shall be installed and maintained around the
wetland buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may
be introduced on site.
v. Fencing shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that
minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat and
designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including
fish runs.
D. Mitigation.
1. Mitigation ratios.
Page 46 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
a. Impacts resulting from alteration to wetlands shall bc mitigated using thc
ratios specified in Table 21.50 6 below:
Ti-able-21. 0 6: Wet and itigatFtiti-Ratios
�ni e4l�nr!
Wetland
'�
Creation or
o^
AFC
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Category
, . ^
84
16:1
Category
24
64
12:1
Category 1
2;1-
44
Category IV
1.5:1 24
64
Refer to Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency
Policies and Guidance, (Ecology Publication tf 06 06 011a March
2006), for further information on wetland creation, re-establishment,
b. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Only fully vegetated
buffer areas will be included in mitigation calculations. Lawns, walkways,
draveways, they Ped ved eas ehal exceed f�T
buffer area calculations.
c. Credit/Debit Method. As an alternative to the mitigation ratios provided in
Table 21.50 6, thc Director may allow mitigation based on thc
Debits for Compensatory Mitiga+inn in Wetlands of Eastern Washington•
-Fi-na-l- eport (Ecole y Publication f11_06 015 4ugust 2012, as adopted
nr amended)
2. Wetland mitigation banks.
a. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may bc approved as off site
mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when:
The bank program is certified under state rules;
ii. The Director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides
appropriate compensation for the authorized imparts• and
The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and
conditions of the certified bank instrument.
b. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent
with replacement ratios specified in the certified bank instrument.
c. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to
compensate for impacts located within thc service ar a specified in thc
certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank
may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for
specific wetland functions.
d. When applying for a wetland mitigation bank, thc Applicant shall prepare
a Wetland Mitigation Credit Use Plan that documents consistency with
these criteria and shows how the identified wetland type and associated
functions will be compensated for by purchase of the credits.
3. Design.
a. Design of wetland mitigation projects shall be appropriate for its
landscape position. Compensatory mitigation shall result in the creation,
restoration, or enhancement of a wetland that matches the geomorphic
setting of the site.
Page 47 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
b. The design of a wetland that has a different Cowardin or
hydrogeomorphic classification than the impacted wetland may bc
justified if supported by a demonstrated need for, or scarcity of, thc
wetland type being designed.
/1. Timing.
a. Compcnsatory mitigation is cncouraged to be completed prior to activities
that will disturb wetlands.
b. Compensatory mitigation shall be completed no later than immediately
following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or
development. Construction of mitigation projccts shall bc timcd to rcducc
impacts to existing fisheries, `niildlifo and flora
c. The Director may authorizc a one timc dclay of mitigation whcn thc
Applicant provides a compelling written rationale for the delay with
recommendations from a qualified wetland professional if the delay shall
Create or perpetuate hazardous conditions;
ii. Create environmental damage or degradation; or
Be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public.
E. Additional critical area report requirements for wetlands.
1. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, wetland
reports shall include:
a. Documcntation of any ficldwork performed on the site, including but not
limited to field data sheets for delineations, function assessments, ratings,
or baseline hydrologic data;
b. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland
delineations fi inction assessments or impart analyses incli ding
references;
c. For each wetland idcntificd on sits, adjaccnt to and within 200 fcct of thc
project site, provide:
Required buffers;
ii. A professional survey from the field delineation that identifies:
(1) Wetland rating;
(2) Hydrogeomorphic classification;
(3) Cowardin classification of vegetation communities;
('1) On site wetland acreage; and
(5) Ecological function of the wetland and buffer.
Note: The above shall be based on entire wetland complexes, not
only the portion present on the proposed project site.
Estimates of acreage and boundary for the entire wetland area
where portions of the wetland extend off site;
iv. Description of habitat elements;
v. Soil conditions based on site asreccment and soil survey
information; and
vi. The following information shall be provided to the extent possible:
(1) Hydrologic information such as location and condition of
inlet/outlets (if they can be legally accessed);
(2) Estimated water depths within the wetland; and
(3) Estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g.,
algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.);
d. A description of the proposed actions and survcy and an analysis. of sitc
development alternatives, including a no development alternative;
Page 48 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
c. An ac cscmcnt of thc probablc impacts to the wctlands and buffcrs
resulting from the proposed development, including:
An estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers
based on the field delineation;
ii. Impacts associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from
the project; a€
Impacted wetland functions;
f. A description of how mitigation sequencing was applied pursuant to
SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing;
g. A discussion of mitigation measures, proposed to preserve existing
wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded by the current
proposed land use activity;
h. Methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland functions;
A site plan, drawn to scale, with the following information:
Delineated wetland(s) and required buffer(s) for on sitc wctlands
as well as off site critical areas that extend onto the project site;
ii. Areas of proposed impacts to wctlands and/or buffcrs (includc
square footage estimates);
Proposed stormwatcr managcmcnt facilitics and outicts for thc
development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the
buffers of any critical areas• and
0
j. A mitigation plan, if required.
A. Applicability. This section applies to all clearing, uses, modifications, or development
activities within or adjacent to wetlands, unless specifically exempted by SVMC
21.50.480.
B. Delineation and classification.
1. Delineation. Wetland identification and delineation of wetland boundaries shall
be determined by a qualified professional through a field investigation based on
the protocols of the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual and
applicable regional supplement, as adopted by Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) and as hereafter amended. Wetland delineations are valid for
five years, after which the City shall determine whether a boundary verification
study or additional assessment is necessary.
2. Classification.
a. Wetlands shall be rated pursuant to the Ecology wetland rating system as
set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern
Washington (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-030, or as amended and
approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for
determining wetland categorical ranking and scores based on functions
and values.
b. Categories. Wetland categories are defined as follows:
Category I: perform functions at very high levels as evidenced by
scoring between 22 and 27 points on Ecology's wetland rating
system; includes alkali wetlands, bogs, and forests with stands of
aspen.
ii. Category II: provide high levels of some functions, with a rating
score between 19 and 21 points; difficult, though not impossible,
to replace; includes forested wetlands in the floodplains of rivers,
Page 49 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
mature and old -growth forested wetlands over one -quarter acre in
size with fast-growing trees, and vernal pools.
Category III: provide a moderate level of functions, with a rating
score between 16 and 18 points; can be adequately replaced with
a well -planned mitigation project.
iv. Category IV: provide lowest level of functions, with a rating score
less than 16 points; often heavily disturbed but may provide some
important functions including groundwater recharge and the
removal of pollutants from surface water.
C. Wetland buffer areas.
1. Wetland buffer areas shall be required adjacent to all wetlands except isolated
Category IV wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that:
a. Are not associated with riparian areas or buffers;
b. Are not part of a wetland mosaic (a patchwork of nearby, small wetlands);
c. Do not contain habitat identified as essential for local populations of
priority species identified by WDFW or Natural Heritage plant species
identified by the DNR;
d. Are not a vernal pool;
e. Are not an alkali wetland; and
f. Do not contain aspen stands.
2. Wetland buffers shall apply to any wetland created, restored, or enhanced as
compensation for approved wetland alterations in the same manner as natural
wetlands.
3. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in SVMC 21.50.520(C), wetland buffers
shall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer disturbances have
occurred before or during construction, revegetation with native vegetation and
restoration of the hydrologic condition shall be required.
4. Buffer widths.
a. All buffers widths shall be measured perpendicularly from the wetland
boundary.
b. The width of the wetland buffer area shall be determined pursuant to
Table 21.50-5 based upon the associated wetland category and impact
intensity category of the proposed use. Widths shall be increased
pursuant to SVMC 21.50.520(C)(4)(c) and may be reduced pursuant to
SVMC 21.50.520(C)(4)(d). Wetland categories shall be assigned in
accordance with SVMC 21.050.520(6)(2) and consistent with Ecology's
Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2; Protecting and Managing
Wetlands, Guidance on Buffers and Ratios (Appendix 8-D), as may be
amended. Land use intensity shall be determined as follows (uses not
specifically listed shall be considered based upon the most similar use
listed):
Table 21.50-4: Wetland Impact Intensity Categories
Impact Intensity
Category (Impact
from Proposed
Change in Land Use)
Types of Land Use
Page 50 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Hiqh Impact
Commercial, industrial, and institutional
Residential (more than one unit/acre)
Hiqh-intensity recreation (qolf courses, ball fields, etc.)
Moderate Impact
Residential (one unit/acre or less)
Moderate -intensity active open space (parks with bikinq,
jogginq, etc.)
Paved trails
Utility corridor with access/maintenance road
Low Impact
Passive open space (hikinq, bird-watchinq, etc.)
Unpaved trails
Utility corridor without road or veqetation manaqement
Table 21.50-5: Standard Wetland Buffer Widths
Wetland
Minimum Buffer Width (in feet)
Category
Low Impact
Moderate Impact
High Impact
I
125
190
250
11
100
150
200
III
75
110
150
IV
25
40
50
c. Increase in Standard Wetland Buffer Width.
If the land adjacent to a wetland has an average slope of 30
percent or more, the minimum buffer width shall either:
(1) Be extended one and one-half times; or
(2) Extend to the upper break in slope (where the slope
gradient is less than 30 percent for 20 feet or more
perpendicular to the wetland, whichever is less).
d. Reduction of Standard Wetland Buffer Width.
The standard wetland buffer width for wetlands may be reduced to
the next, lower land use intensity buffer width (e.g., from high to
moderate), or reduced by no more than 25 percent if:
(1) A relatively undisturbed vegetative corridor of at least 100
feet in width is protected between the wetland and any
other priority habitats and the corridor is preserved by
means of easement or covenant; or
(2) All measures identified in Table 21.50-6 are taken to
minimize the impact of any proposed land use.
Table 21.50-6: Wetland Impact Minimization Measures
Disturbance
Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights
• Direct lights away from wetland.
Page 51 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Disturbance
Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Noise
•
Locate activity that generates noise away from
•
wetland.
If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native
•
vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source.
For activities that generate relatively continuous,
potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy
industry or mining, establish an additional 10-foot-
wide, heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately
adjacent to the outer wetland buffer.
Chemical Use
•
Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within
•
150 feet of wetland.
Apply integrated pest management.
Stormwater runoff
•
Route all untreated runoff away from wetland while
•
ensuring wetland is not dewatered.
Retrofit older stormwater facilities to meet current
•
standards.
Prevent channelized flow that directly enters the
•
buffer.
Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer
new runoff from impervious surfaces and new
lawns.
Pets and human disturbance
•
Use privacy fencing or plant dense, thorny
vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to
discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate
for the City.
Dust
•
Use best management practices to control dust.
Disruption of corridors or
•
Maintain connections to off -site areas that are
connections
•
undisturbed.
Restore corridors or connections to off -site habitats
by replanting.
Vegetation alteration
•
Protect and maintain native plant communities in
buffers.
e. Standard Buffer Width Averaging.
Standard wetland buffer width may be averaged (reduced in width
near a parcel or development but widened elsewhere along the
parcel or development to retain the overall area of the standard
wetland buffer) if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher -functioning
area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland,
and decreased adjacent to the lower -functioning or less
sensitive portion;
(2) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the
area required without averaging; and
Page 52 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
(3) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either
75 percent of the standard buffer width.
D. Signs and fencing.
1. Temporary.
a. The outer perimeter of wetland buffers and the clearing limits shall fenced
to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur during construction.
Temporary fencing shall be designed and installed to effectively prevent
construction and related impacts.
b. Temporary signs and fencing shall be placed prior to beginning permitted
activities and maintained throughout construction.
2. Permanent.
a. The City Manager may require installation of permanent signs and/or
fencing along the boundary of a wetland or buffer where public or high
traffic pedestrian uses may occur to protect critical areas.
b. Where required, permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated
metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of
equal durability. Signs shall be posted at an interval not less than one per
lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and shall be maintained in
perpetuity by the property owner. Any modification of the location or
materials required for permanent signs shall be approved by the City
Manager. The obligation to maintain permanent signs shall be recorded
against the property in a form acceptable to the City.
c. The signs shall be worded with language approved by the City Manager.
d. Permanent fence shall be installed and maintained around the wetland
buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced
on site.
e. Fencing shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the
wetland and associated habitat and designed to not interfere with species
migration, including fish runs. Fencing materials shall not be made or
treated with toxic chemicals.
E. Wetland Mitigation.
1. Mitigation Ratios.
a. Impacts resulting from alteration to wetlands shall be mitigated using the
ratios specified below:
Table 21.50-7: Wetland Mitigation Area Ratios'
Category of
Creation or
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Wetland
Reestablishment
Category I
4:1
8:1
16:1
Category II
3:1
6:1
12:1
Category III
2:1
4:1
8:1
Category IV
1.5:1
3:1
6:1
Page 53 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
1 Refer to Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency
Policies and Guidance, (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, March
2006), for further information on wetland creation, reestablishment,
rehabilitation, and enhancement.
b. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Only vegetated buffer
areas may be included in mitigation calculations. Lawns, walkways,
driveways, and other mowed or developed areas shall be excluded from
buffer area calculations.
c. Credit/Debit Method. As an alternative to the mitigation ratios provided in
SVMC 21.50.520(E), the City Manager may allow mitigation based on the
"credit/debit" method developed by the Ecology in Calculating Credits and
Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Eastern Washington:
Final Report (Ecology Publication No. 11-06-015, August 2012, as
adopted or as amended).
2. Off -Site Mitigation.
a. Wetland mitigation may be permitted off site if the primary drainage basin
will not be substantially damaged by the loss of affected wetland
hydrologic, water quality, or habitat functions as determined by a qualified
professional; and
On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with
hydrology, soils, or other factors such as other potentially adverse
impacts from surrounding land uses;
ii. Existing functions off site are significantly greater than lost wetland
functional values; or
Goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat, or other
wetland functions have been established and off -site mitigation is
strongly justified by meeting such goals.
b. Wetland Mitigation Banks and Fee -in -Lieu Programs.
Credits from a wetland mitigation bank or fee -in -lieu program may
be approved as off -site mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands when:
(1) The bank or fee -in -lieu program is certified under state rules;
(2) The City Manager determines that the wetland mitigation
bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized
impacts; and
(3) The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and
conditions of the certified bank instrument.
ii. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be
consistent with replacement ratios specified in the certified bank
instrument.
Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to
compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in
the certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of
the bank may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage
basin for specific wetland functions. The use of bank credits out of
the established service area of the nearest available bank must be
approved by the City, WDFW, and Ecology.
iv. When applying for a wetland mitigation bank or fee -in -lieu program,
the applicant shall prepare a wetland mitigation bank credit use plan
Page 54 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
that documents consistency with these criteria and shows how the
identified wetland type and associated functions will be
compensated for by purchase of the credits.
3. Design.
a. Design of wetland mitigation projects shall be appropriate for its
landscape position. Compensatory mitigation shall result in the creation,
restoration, or enhancement of a wetland that matches the geomorphic
setting of the site.
b. The design of a wetland that has a different Cowardin or
hydrogeomorphic classification than the impacted wetland may be
justified if supported by a demonstrated need for, or scarcity of, the
wetland type being designed.
4. Timing.
a. To minimize temporal loss of wetland ecological functions, compensatory
mitigation shall be completed prior to activities that disturb wetlands
where feasible.
b. Where mitigation cannot be completed prior to wetland impacts,
compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following
disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development.
c. Understanding that construction of mitigation projects should be timed to
reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora, the City Manager
may authorize a delay of mitigation when the applicant provides a
compelling written rationale for the delay with recommendations from a
qualified wetland professional. In such cases, the delay shall not:
Create or perpetuate hazardous conditions;
ii. Create environmental damage or degradation; or
Be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public.
F Additional critical area report requirements for wetlands. In addition to the critical area
report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, wetland reports shall include the following:
1. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including but not limited to
field data sheets for delineations, function assessments, ratings, or baseline
hydrologic data;
2. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations,
function assessments, or impact analyses including references;
3. For each wetland identified on site, adjacent to and within 200 feet of the project
site, provide:
a. Required buffers;
b. Wetland rating, hydrogeomorphic classification, Cowardin classification of
vegetation communities, on -site wetland acreage, and ecological function
of the wetland and buffer based on a professional survey from the field
delineation. All assessments shall be based on entire wetland
complexes, not only the portion present on the proposed project site;
c. Estimates of acreage and boundary for the entire wetland area where
portions of the wetland extend off site;
d. Description of habitat elements;
e. Soil conditions based on site assessment and soil survey information; and
f. To the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and
condition of inlet/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water
depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on
visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris);
Page 55 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
4. A description of the proposed actions and survey and an analysis of site
development alternatives, including a no -development alternative;
5. An assessment of the probable impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting
from the proposed development, including:
a. An estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on
the field delineation;
b. Impacts associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the
proiect; and
c. Impacted wetland functions;
6. A description of how mitigation sequencing was applied pursuant to SVMC
21.50.210, No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing;
7 A discussion of mitigation measures, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and
restore any wetlands that were degraded by the current proposed land -use
activity;
8. Methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland functions;
9. A site plan, drawn to scale, with the following information:
a. Delineated wetland(s) and required buffer(s) for on -site wetlands as well
as off -site critical areas that extend onto the proiect site;
b. Areas of proposed impacts to wetlands and/or buffers (include square
footage estimates); and
c. Proposed stormwater management facilities and outlets for the
development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any
critical areas; and
10. A mitigation plan, if required.
a. The plan shall address mitigation site selection criteria and goals and
objectives in relation to the functions and values of the impacted critical
area. Details in the mitigation plan shall include, but not be limited to:
The proposed construction method, sequence, timing, and
duration;
ii. Grading and excavation details;
Erosion and sediment control features;
iv. Dates for beginning and completion of mitigation activities;
v. A planting plan, if applicable, specifying plant species, quantities,
locations, size, spacing, and density; and measures to protect and
maintain plants until established; and
vi. Detailed site diagrams, scaled cross -sectional drawings,
topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade
elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show
construction techniques or anticipated final outcome.
b. The mitigation plan shall include a monitoring plan to ensure success of the mitigation
plan. The plan shall conform to the monitoring requirements outlined in SVMC
21.50.510.
21.50.530 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations
A. Applicability. This section applies to the following developments and uses when
proposed within designated CARAs:
1. Underground and aboveground storage tanks;
2. Vehicle repair and service uses, including automobile washers;
3. Chemical treatment, storage, and disposal facilities;
4. Hazardous waste generating uses;
Page 56 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
5. Injection wells, not including Class V or injection wells for stormwater
management;
6. Junk and salvage yards;
7. On -site sewage systems;
8. Solid waste handling and recycling facilities;
9. Surface mines;
10. Uses of hazardous substances, other than household chemicals for domestic
applications;
11. Projects having the potential to adversely impact groundwater; and
12. Work within a wellhead protection area.
B. Designation and classification.
1. CARAs are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for
potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing
geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential
for contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the
replenishment of ground water.
2. Aquifer recharge areas are rated as having a high, moderate, or low susceptibility
based on a scientific analysis of soils, hydraulic conductivity, annual rainfall, the
depth to aquifers, the importance of the vadose zone, and wellhead protection
information. The entire shoreline jurisdiction, as well as the entire City, is
identified as a high susceptibility CARA.
C. Performance standards.
The uses listed in Table 21.50-8shall be conditioned as necessary to protect CARAs in
accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations.
Table 21.50-8: Statutes, Regulations, and Guidance
Pertaining to Ground Water Impacting Activities
Activity
Statute — Regulation — Guidance
Above Ground Storage Tanks
WAC 173-303-640
Automobile Washers
WAC 173-216; Best Management Practices
Manual for Vehicle and Equipment Washwater
Discharges(WQ-R-95-056)
Below Ground Storage Tanks
WAC 173-360
Chemical Treatment Storage and Disposal
Facilities
WAC 173-303-300
Hazardous Waste Generator (Boat Repair
Shops, Biological Research Facility, Dry
Cleaners, Furniture Stripping, Motor Vehicle
Service Garages, Photographic Processing,
Printing and Publishing Shops, etc.)
WAC 173-303-300
Injection Wells
40 CFR Parts 144 and 146;WAC 173-218
Junk Yards and Salvage Yards
Vehicle and Metal Recycles — A Guide for
Implementing the Industrial Stormwater
General NPDES Permit Requirements (94-146)
On -Site Sewage Systems (Large Scale)
WAC 246-272B
On -Site Sewage Systems (< 14,500
gal/day)
WAC 246-272A, Local Health Ordinances
Page 57 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Activity
Statute — Regulation — Guidance
Solid Waste Handling and Recycling
Facilities
WAC 173-304
Surface Mining
WAC 332-18
Additional performance standards for storage tanks that store hazardous substances or
waste.
All storage tanks shall:
1. Comply with Title 24 SVMC Building Code and fire department requirements;
2. Use material in the construction or lining of the tank that is compatible with the
substance to be stored;
3. Not allow the release of a hazardous substance to the ground, groundwater, or
surface water;
4. Prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the operational life of
the tank; and
5. Be protected against corrosion and constructed of noncorrosive material or steel
clad with a noncorrosive material.
D. All new underground storage tanks shall include a built-in secondary containment
system that prevents the release or threatened release of any stored substances.
E. All new aboveground storage tanks shall include a secondary containment structure and
meet either of the criteria below:
1. If the secondary containment is built into the tank structure, the tank shall be
placed over a sealed impervious pad surrounded with a dike. The impervious
pad/dike shall be sized to contain the 10-year storm if exposed to the weather; or
2. If the tank is single walled, the tank shall be placed over a sealed impervious pad
surrounded with a dike. The impervious pad/dike shall have the capacity to
contain 110 percent of the largest tank plus the 10-year storm if exposed to the
weather.
F Additional performance standards for vehicle repair and servicing. Vehicle repair and
servicing must be conducted over impermeable pads and within a covered structure
capable of withstanding normally expected weather conditions.
G. Additional standards for chemical storage.
1. All chemicals used shall be stored in a manner that protects them from weather.
Secondary containment shall be provided. On -site disposal of any critical
material or hazardous waste shall be prohibited.
2. All developments and uses shall provide a narrative and plan to show how
development complies with the regulations and performance standards in SVMC
21.50.530(C-F), or prepare a hydrogeological assessment in accordance with
SVMC 21.50.530(H).
3. Proposed developments and uses that are unable to satisfy the performance
standards in SVMC 21.50.530(C-F), shall submit a hydrogeological assessment
report.
H. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, hydrogeological
assessments shall include:
Page 58 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
1 Available geologic and hydrogeological characteristics of the site, including
groundwater depth, flow direction, gradient, and permeability of the unsaturated
zone;
2. Discussion of the effects of the proposed project on groundwater quality and
quantity;
3. A spill plan that identifies equipment and/or structures that could fail, resulting in
an impact. Spill plans shall include provisions for regular inspection, repair,
replacement of structures and equipment that could fail, and mitigation and
cleanup in the event of a spill; and
4. Best management practices proposed to be utilized.
21.50.540 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas - Shoreline Critical Area
Regulations
\pplicability. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within designated
FWHCAs.
Designation.
the waters and land underneath the Spokane River are FWHCAs. The City
its shoreline functions of these through the Shoreline Buffer established in
SVMC 21.50.230 and the vegetation conservation standards in SVMC 21.50.260.
an y formal identification are hereby decignated C\/VI- C c•
a Area n h state or federal docignatod endangered threatened or
sensitive species have a primary asociation;
b. State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species, a�
identified by the WSDFW and are updated periodically; and
c. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas.
Nate iral area preserves and nati iral recoi irce conservation areas are
defined established and managed b y \A/flN
C. Performance standards. All development and uses shall be prohibited within FWHCAs
designated in SVMC 21.50.5/10(B)(2), except in accordance with this section. Buffers
shall be required only for FWHCAs described under SVMC 21.50.5/10(B)(2), excluding
FWHCA critical area report. Buffers shall not cxcccd 100 horizontal fcct from thc edge
ofhe FWHCA.
1. General.
a. A FWHCA may be altered only if the proposed alteration of the habitat or
the mitigation proposed does not create a net loss of the quantitative and
qualitative shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain the
FWHCA.
b. No plant, wildlife, or fish species not indigcnous to thc region shall bc
introduced into a FWHCA unless authorized by a state or federal permit
or approval.
c. Contiguous functioning habitat corridors arc prcfcrrcd to minimize thc
isolating effects of development on habitat areas.
d. Vegetation.
Vegetation shall be maintaincd in its natural state and shall bc
dicta irbed only ac minimally necessary for Oho development• and
v
Page 59 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
�i. Riparian vegetation shall not be removed unless there are no
other alternatives available. When it is ncccssa -en ecc
areas of vegetation that are absolutely unavoidable magi be
c}�T� dshall be re vegetated with nati iral riparian vegetation
as soon aspsssible.
c. The subdivision and short subdivision of land shall comply with thc
following provisions:
Land that is located wholly within a FWHCA or its buffer may not
be subdivided;
ii. Land that is located partially within a FWHCA or its buffcr may bc
divided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of
cach new lot is located outside of thc habitat conservation area or
its buffer; and
Access roads and utilities serving the proposal may be permitted
within the FWHCA and associated buffers only if the City
determines that no other feasible alternative exists and when
consistent with the SMP.
f. The project may be conditioned to minimize or mitigate any potential
adverse impacts. Conditions may include, but arc not limited to, thc
following:
Establishment of buffer zones;
ii. Preservation. of critically important vegetation, including
requirements for re_vegeta+ion of disturbed areas with native
plants;
Vegetation screenings to reduce the potential for harassment from
people and/or domesticated animals;
iy I imitation of access to the habitat area dfiring critical times of the
rv.
year;
v. Fencing to protect wildlife and deter unauthorized access;
vi. Dedication of all or part of the required open space to fish and
n iildlife habitat conservation• and
vii. Seasonal restriction of construction activities.
2. FWHCAs with endangered, threatened, or sensitive species.
a. No development shall bc allowed within a FWHCA or buffcr where state
or federal endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary
association without state and federal consultation and approval from
WDFW and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), respectively.
b. Approval for alteration of land or activities adjacent to a FWHCA having a
primary association with state or federally endangered, threatened, or
sensitive species shall not occur prior to consultation with the WDFW.
c. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected consistent with:
WAC 232 12 292, Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules;
artd
ii The Bald and Golden Cagle Protection 4c4 which magi regi lire a
permit obtained from the USFWS.
D. Mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring for FWI-IC4c designated in SVMC
21.50.5'10(B)(2).
1. Mitigation sites shall be located:
a. Preferably to achieve contiguous functioning habitat corridors that
minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas• and
v
Page 60 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
b. Within the same aquatic ecosystem as the FWHCA disturbed.
mitigation plantings. The design shall meet the specific needs of riparian and
shrub steppe vegetation and be prepared by a Qualified Professional and/or
landscape architect.
3. Mitigation shall be installed no later than the next growing season after
completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Director.
/1. Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and
management plan objectives are successful.
5. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous,
as nccdcd elimination of undcsirablc plants, protection of shrubs and small trees
from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants, and repair and replacement
of any dead plants.
6. Planting areas shall be maintained so they have less than 20 perccnt total non
native/invasive plant cover consisting of exotic and/or invasive species. Exotic
and invasivc spccics include any species on the state noxious weed list, or
considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Conservation Services
Department or local conservation district.
7. The Applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and
submit performance monitoring reports to the City consistent with the following:
a. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for five years.
b. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a Qualified Professional:
One year after mitigation installation;
ii. Three years after mitigation installation; and
Five years after mitigation installation.
c. The Qualified Professional shall verify whether the conditions of approval
and provisions in the fish and wildlife management and mitigation plan
have been satisfied.
d. Mitigation planting survival shall be 100 percent for the first year, and 80
percent for each of the four years following.
E. Additional critical area report requirements for FWHCAs designated in SVMC
21.50.5'10(B)(2).
1. Report Contents. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC
21.50.500, FWHCA reports shall include:
a. Habitat assessment, including:
�. Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project
area;
�i. Identification of any species of local importancc, priority habitat
and -species end ;gered, threatened, sensitive or candidate
species that have a primary association with habitat on or
adjaccnt to the project arema and assessment f potential project
impacts to the use of the site by the species;
A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management
recommendations, including WDFW habitat management
recommendations, that have been developed for species or
habitats located on or adjacent to the project area;
iv. A discussion of measures, including mitigation sequencing,
proposed to preserve existing habitats or restore any habitat that
was degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity• and
0
Page 61 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
v. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect
habitat after the project site has been developed, including
proposed monitoring and maintenance programs.
2. Any proposal in a FWHCA or within 1,320 feet from a priority species den or nest
site that the Director (in consultation with thc WDFW) dctcrmincs is likcly to havc
an adverse impact on a FWHCA or associated species shall provide a Habitat
Management Plan, including:
a. A plan, drawn to scale, that identifies:
�. The location of the proposed site;
ii. The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and built
elementc•
c�c�c rrcr,
The nature and intensity of the proposed use or activity;
iv. Proposed improvement(s) locations and arrangements;
v. The location of the OHWM, shoreline jurisdiction, and riparian
habitat area boundary lines;
vi. The legal description and the total acreage of the parcel;
vii. Existing structures and landscapc f aturcs including thc namc
viii. The location of priority habitat types or priority species point
locations within 1,320 feet of the proposal;
b. An analysis of the impact of the proposed use or activity upon FWHCAs
c. A mitigation plan that may include, but is not limited to:
Establishment of perpetual buffer areas;
ii. Preservation and/or restoration of native flora;
Limitation of access to habitat area;
iv. Seasonal restriction of construction activities;
v. Clustering of development and preservation of open space;
vi. Signs marking habitats or habitat buffer areas;
vii. Use of low impact development techniques;
viii. Recorded deed, plat, binding site plan, or planned unit
development covenant, condition, or restriction legally establishing
a riparian habitat area for subject property;
ix. Conservation or preservation easements; and
x. Dedication or conveyance of title of a riparian habitat area to a
public entity for the purpose of concervation• and
d. A summary of consultation with a habitat biologist with thc WDFW. If thc
habitat management plan recommends mitigation involving federally
listed threatened or endangered species, migratory waterfowl, or
wetlands, the USFWS shall receive a copy of the draft habitat
management plan and their review comments shall be included in thc
final report. The Director shall have the authority to approve habitat
management plans or require additional information.
A. This section applies to all clearing, uses, modifications, or development activities within
designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) and associated
buffers.
B. Designation. All areas meeting one or more of the following criteria, regardless of any
formal identification, are hereby designated FWHCAs:
1. The shoreline buffer as mapped by the City, which protects riparian habitat, and
the waters and land underneath the Spokane River are FWHCAs. The City protects
Page 62 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
shoreline functions of these through the Shoreline Buffer established in SVMC 21.50.230
and the vegetation conservation standards in SVMC 21.50.260.
2. Areas where the following species and/or habitats have a primary association:
a. Federally designated endangered and, threatened species. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service shall be consulted for current listing status.
State -designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species
pursuant to WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and WAC 232-
12-011 (state threatened and sensitive species). The WDFW maintains
the most current listing and shall be consulted for current listing status.
b.
State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species.
Priority habitats and species (PHS) are managed by the WDFW. Priority
habitat maps are amended from time to time by WDFW. Within the City,
priority habitats include wetlands, open waterways, riparian areas, urban
open space, and the habitat associated with individual native species.
Priority habitat data is included in the City's Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Critical Areas Map.
c.
3. Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that
provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created
from upland areas for mitigation purposes. Naturally occurring ponds do not
include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as
stormwater treatment or detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities,
temporary construction ponds, and landscape amenities. To distinguish between
ponds and wetlands, refer to current state or federal definitions and guidance.
4. Ponds or lakes artificially created as a result of mining once mining is complete
and the mine reclamation plan has been implemented and deemed complete by
DNR.
5. Waters of the State. Waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams,
inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and
watercourses, including wetlands, within the jurisdiction of the state of
Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-030. Water type classifications are as
follows:
a. "Type S water" means all waters, within their bankable width, as
inventoried as "shorelines of the state" pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW
and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including
periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands. Type S waters
have mean annual flows averaging 20 or more cubic feet per second.
b. "Type F water" means segments of natural waters other than Type S
waters, which are within the bankfull widths of defined channels and
periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands, or within lakes,
ponds, or impoundments having a surface area of one-half acre or
greater at seasonal low water and which in any case contain fish habitat
or are described by one of the following four categories:
Waters that are diverted for domestic use by more than 10
residential or camping units or by a public accommodation facility
licensed to serve more than 10 persons, where such diversion is
determined by the City to be a valid appropriation of water and the
only practical water source for such users. Such waters shall be
considered to be Type F water upstream from the point of such
Page 63 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
diversion for 1,500 feet or until the drainage area is reduced by 50
percent, whichever is less.
ii. Waters that are diverted for use by federal, state, tribal, or private
fish hatcheries. Such waters shall be considered Type F water
upstream from the point of diversion for 1,500 feet, including
tributaries, if highly significant for protection of downstream water
quality. The City may allow additional harvest beyond the
requirements of Type F water designation provided the City
determines, after a landowner -requested on -site assessment by
the WDFW, Ecology, the affected tribes, and interested parties
that:
(1) The management practices proposed by the landowner
adequately protect water quality for the fish hatchery; and
(2) Such additional harvest meets the requirements of the
water type designation that would apply in the absence of
the hatchery.
Waters that are within a federal, state, local, or private
campground having more than 10 camping units, provided that the
water shall not be considered to enter a campground until it
reaches the boundary of the park lands available for public use
and comes within 100 feet of a camping unit, trail, or other park
improvement.
iv. Riverine ponds, wall -based channels, and other channel features
that are used by fish for off -channel habitat. These areas are
critical to the maintenance of optimum survival of fish. This
habitat shall be identified based on the following criteria:
(1) The site is connected to a fish habitat stream and
accessible during some period of the year; and
(2) The off -channel water is accessible to fish.
c. "Type Np water" means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull
width of defined channels that are perennial non -fish habitat streams.
Perennial streams are waters that do not go dry any time of a year of normal
rainfall. However, for the purpose of water typing, Type Np waters include
the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost
point of perennial flow. If the uppermost point of perennial flow cannot be
identified with simple, nontechnical observations then Type Np waters
begin at a point along the channel where the contributing basin area is at
least 300 acres.
d. "Type Ns water" means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull
width of the defined channels that are not Type S, F, or Np waters. These
are seasonal, nonfish habitat streams in which surface flow is not present
for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and that are not located
downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np water. Type Ns
waters must be physically connected by an aboveground channel system
to Type S, F, or Np waters.
6. State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Areas. Natural
area preserves and natural resource conservation areas are defined, established,
and managed by the DNR.
7 Areas of Rare Plant Species and High Quality Ecosystems. Areas of rare plant
species and high quality ecosystems are identified by the DNR through the Natural
Heritage Program.
Page 64 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
8. Lands designated on state, regional, or local government agency plans (e.g. parks
or transportation) as useful or essential for preserving connections between habitat
blocks and open spaces.
C. Habitat Buffers and Riparian Management Zones.
1. Buffers to protect state- or federally designated sensitive wildlife FWHCAs shall
be based on the recommendations of a FWHCA critical area report prepared by
a qualified professional pursuant to SVMC 21.50.540(F). Habitat buffers shall
not exceed 100 horizontal feet from the edge of the FWHCA.
2. Riparian Management Zones for Waters of the State.
a. Designation. Riparian management zones (RMZs) are based on the
water type classification as described in SVMC 21.50.540(B). RMZs are
measured perpendicular to the ordinary high water line or bankfull
channel width boundary of a delineated stream. RMZ widths are
summarized as follows:
Table 21.540-9. Riparian Management Zones Buffer Widths
Stream Classification
RMZ Width
Type S — Shorelines of the state
See SVMC
21.50.230
Type F — Natural waters not classified as
150'
shorelines of the state with fish (e.q.
Chester and Saltese Creeks)
Type Np — Non -fish, -perennial
50'
Type Ns-- Non -fish, seasonal
30'
b. RMZ Requirements.
RMZs shall be retained or maintained in a natural condition, and
vegetation within RMZs shall be conserved as feasible to provide
shade, habitat, and water quality functions for the associated
stream.
ii. Where activities are proposed within a RMZ, mitigation measures
shall be specified in a habitat management plan and may include
but are not limited to one or more of the following:
(1) Fencing of riparian buffer area to protect remaining
vegetation;
(2) Non-native/noxious weed removal and maintenance;
and/or
(3) Enhancement of RMZ through planting of native
vegetation.
Proposed pedestrian/bike trails shall demonstrate though best
available science that the location and width of the trail minimizes
any adverse impacts on habitat and that measures to reduce
effects during construction are implemented.
iv. Off -road motorized vehicle use in riparian management zones is
prohibited.
Page 65 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
D. Performance standards. All development and uses shall be prohibited within FWHCAs
and their buffers except when they are in accordance with this subsection (SVMC
21.50.540(D)).
1. No Net Loss. A FWHCA buffer may be altered only if the proposed alteration of
the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not create a net loss of the
quantitative and qualitative shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain
the FWHCA.
2. No plant, wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall be introduced
into a FWHCA unless authorized by a state or federal permit or approval.
3. Contiguous functioning habitat corridors are preferred to minimize the isolating
effects of development on habitat areas.
4. Vegetation.
a. Vegetation shall be maintained in its natural state and shall be disturbed
only as minimally necessary for the development.
b. Riparian vegetation shall not be removed unless there are no other
alternatives available, as documented in a habitat management plan
prepared by a qualified professional. When it is necessary, only those
areas of vegetation that are absolutely unavoidable may be cleared, and
shall be re -vegetated with natural riparian vegetation as soon as possible.
5. The subdivision and short subdivision of land shall comply with the following
provisions:
a. Plat area that is located wholly within a FWHCA or its buffer may not be
subdivided;
b. Plat area that is located partially within a FWHCA or its buffer may be
divided; provided, that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new
lot is located outside of the habitat conservation area or its buffer; and
c. Access roads and utilities serving the proposal may be permitted within
the FWHCA and associated buffers only if the City determines that no
other feasible alternative exists and when consistent with Chapter 21.50
SVMC.
6. A project may be conditioned to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse
impacts. Conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Establishment of buffer zones;
b. Preservation of critically important vegetation, including requirements for
re -vegetation of disturbed areas with native plants;
c. Vegetation screenings to reduce the potential for harassment from people
and/or domesticated animals;
d. Limitation of access to the habitat area during critical times of the year;
e. Fencing to protect wildlife and deter unauthorized access;
f. Dedication of all or part of the required open space to fish and wildlife
habitat conservation; and
Seasonal restriction of construction activities.
7 FWHCAs with endangered, threatened, or sensitive species.
a. No development shall be allowed within a FWHCA or buffer where state
or federal endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary
association without state and federal consultation and approval from
WDFW and USFWS, respectively.
b. Approval for alteration of land or activities adjacent to a FWHCA having a
primary association with state or federally endangered, threatened, or
sensitive species shall not occur prior to consultation with the WDFW.
Page 66 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
c. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected consistent with the federal Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which may
require coordination with the USFWS.
E. Fish and wildlife habitat mitigation.
1 When necessary, fish and wildlife habitat mitigation shall be documented in a
habitat management plan (See SVMC 21.50.540(F)(1)).
2. Mitigation sites shall be located:
a. Preferably to achieve contiguous functioning habitat corridors that
minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas; and
b. Within the same aquatic ecosystem as the FWHCA disturbed.
3. Where available, irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings to ensure
survival during the first two years of plant growth.
4. Landscaping plans shall be informed by local reference riparian and shrub -
steppe vegetation conditions and be prepared by a qualified professional or
landscape architect. Only native vegetation may be used in habitat mitigation
plans, excluding sterile vegetation used for temporary erosion control.
5. Mitigation shall be installed no later than the next growing season after
completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the City
Manager.
6. Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and
management plan objectives are successful.
a. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include
rigorous, as -needed elimination of undesirable plants;; protection of
shrubs and small trees from herbivory and competition by grasses and
herbaceous plants; and repair and replacement of any dead woody
plants.
b. Areas proposed for mitigation shall be maintained so they have no more
than 20 percent total plant cover consisting of invasive species. Invasive
species include any species on the state noxious weed list.
7 Monitoring Required. An applicant shall monitor the performance of any required
mitigation and submit performance monitoring reports annually to the City.
a. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for a period of time appropriate to the
proposed mitigation as determined in a habitat management plan
prepared by a qualified professional.
b. At the end of the monitoring period, the qualified professional shall be
required to verify that the conditions of approval and provisions in the
habitat management plan have been satisfied.
c. Mitigation planting survival shall be 100 percent for the first year and 80
percent for each subsequent year.
d. If the final annual monitoring report clearly demonstrates that the site has
achieved all goals and objectives set forth in the approved habitat
management plan, the applicant shall be released from additional
mitigation obligations. If, however, performance objectives are not met,
additional maintenance, adaptive management, and performance
monitoring shall be required until all objectives are met.
F. Additional critical area report requirements for FWHCAs.
Page 67 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
1 Report Contents. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC
21.50.500, FWHCA reports shall include:
a. Habitat assessment, including:
Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project
area;
ii. Identification of any species of local importance, PHS, or
endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have
a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project
area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of
the site by the species;
A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management
recommendations, including WDFW habitat management
recommendations, that have been developed for species or
habitats located on or adjacent to the project area;
iv. A discussion of measures, including mitigation sequencing,
proposed to preserve existing habitats or restore any habitat that
was degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity; and
v. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect
habitat after the project site has been developed, including
proposed monitoring and maintenance programs.
b. Habitat Management Plan. Any proposal in a FWHCA or within one -
quarter mile of a priority species den or nest site shall provide a habitat
management plan which includes at least the following:
A plan, drawn to scale, that identifies:
(1) The location of the proposed site;
(2) The relationship of the site to surrounding topography and
developed areas;
(3) The nature and intensity of the proposed use or activity;
(4) Proposed improvement(s) locations and arrangements;
(5) The location of the ordinary high water mark, shoreline
jurisdiction, and RMZ boundary lines;
(6) The legal description and the total acreage of the parcel;
(7) Existing structures and landscape features including the
name and location of all waters within 300 feet of the
proposalcach; and
(8) The location of priority habitat types or priority species
point locations within one -quarter mile of the proposal.;
ii. An analysis of the effect of the proposed use or activity upon
FWHCAs or associated species and riparian habitat area.
A mitigation plan that may include, but is not limited to:
(1) Establishment of perpetual buffer areas;
(2) Preservation and/or restoration of native flora;
(3) Limitation of access to habitat area;
(4) Seasonal restriction of construction activities;
(5) Clustering of development and preservation of open
space;
(6) Signs marking habitats or habitat buffer areas;
(7) Use of low impact development techniques;
(8) Recorded deed, plat, binding site plan, or planned unit
development covenant, condition, or restriction legally
establishing a riparian FWHCA for subject property;
Page 68 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
(9) Conservation or preservation easements; and
(10) Dedication or conveyance of title of a riparian habitat area
to a public entity for the purpose of conservation.
iv. A summary of consultation with the WDFW. If the habitat
management plan recommends mitigation involving federally
listed threatened or endangered species, migratory waterfowl, or
wetlands, the USFWS shall receive a copy of the draft habitat
management plan and their review comments shall be included in
the final report. The DirectorCity Manager shall have the authority
to approve habitat management plans or require additional
information.
2. Conditions established by an approved habitat management plan shall be
included as a condition of approval for a permit.
21.50.550 Geologically Hazardous Areas - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations
A. Applicability.
1. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within designated
geologically hazardous areas.
2. Applications for development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall identify if it is
located within a geohazard area as designated on the City Critical Areas and
Priority Habitats Map. The DirectorCity Manager may require additional
information based on the criteria in SVMC 21.50.550 to identify unmapped
geohazards if application material and/or a site visit indicate the potential for
geohazard.
B. Designation and classification.
1. Areas susceptible to erosion, sliding earthquake, or other geological events are
designated geologically hazardous areas in accordance with WAC 365-190-120,
Geologically Hazardous Areas.
2. Categories.
a. Erosion hazard areas are identified by the NRCS as having a "moderate
to severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter -rill erosion hazard.
Erosion hazard areas also include areas with slopes greater than 15
percent.
b. Landslide hazard areas are subject to landslides based on a combination
of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas
susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope, slope
aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors and include the following:
Areas of historic failures, including:
(1) Areas delineated by the NRCS as having a significant
limitation for building site development; and
(2) Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows,
mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps published by the
United States Geological Survey or WDNR;
ii. Areas with all of the following characteristics:
(1) Slopes steeper than 15 percent;
(2) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively
permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable
sediment or bedrock; and
(3) Springs or groundwater seepage;
Page 69 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Areas that have shown movement during the holocene epoch
(from 10,000 years ago to the present) or which are underlain or
covered by mass wastage debris of this epoch;
iv. Slopes that are parallel or subparallel to planes of weakness (such
as bedding planes, joint systems, and fault planes) in subsurface
materials;
v. Slopes having gradients steeper than 80 percent subject to rock
fall during seismic shaking;
vi. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision,
stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action, including
stream channel migration zones;
vii. Areas that show evidence of, or are at risk from snow avalanches;
viii. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or
potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic
flooding; and
ix. Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical
relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of bedrock. A
slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured
by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief.
c. Seismic hazard areas are subject to severe risk of damage as a result of
earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or
subsidence, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. One indicator of
potential for future earthquake damage is a record of past earthquake
damage.
C. Standards applicable to all geologic hazard areas.
1. Any development or uses proposed within 50 feet of a geologic hazard area shall
prepare a critical areas report satisfying the general critical area report
requirements in SVMC 21.50.500 and the additional standards for Geologic
Hazard Areas in SVMC 21.50.550(E).
2. Development or uses within geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers
shall only be allowed when the proposed development or use:
a. Does not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent
properties beyond pre -development conditions;
b. Does not adversely impact other critical areas;
c. Is designed so that the hazard is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal
to or less than pre -development conditions; and
d. Is determined to be safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by
a Qualified Professional.
3. New development that requires structural shoreline stabilization over the life of
the development is prohibited, except in instances where:
a. Stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses consistent with SVMC
21.50.420(6)(5);
b. No alternative locations are available;
c. Shoreline modifications do not negatively affect other critical areas
pursuant to SVMC 21.50.460; and
d. Stabilization measures conform to WAC 173-26-231, Shoreline
Modifications.
D. Standards applicable to erosion and landslide hazard areas.
Page 70 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
1 Development within an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and/or buffer shall be
designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated
that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards
provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of the
SMP. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that
require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function:
a. Development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide
occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for
dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic conditions shall be based on a
minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the Uniform Building
Code as adopted or amended;
b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically
hazardous areas and other critical areas;
c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural
contour of the slope and foundations shall be tiered where possible to
conform to existing topography;
d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most
critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation;
e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for
increased buffers on neighboring properties;
f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural
slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes; and
g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage.
2. Buffers from all edges of Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas.
a. The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope or 50 feet,
whichever is greater.
b. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a Qualified
Professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the
proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject
critical area.
c. The buffer may be increased where the flirectorCity Manages determines
a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and
existing development.
3. Removal of vegetation from an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and/or buffer
shall be prohibited unless as part of an approved alteration plan consistent with
SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation.
4. New utility lines and pipes shall be permitted only when the Applicant
demonstrates that no other practical alternative is available. The line or pipe
shall be located above ground and properly anchored and/or designed so that it
will continue to function in the event of an underlying slide.
5. Stormwater conveyance shall be allowed only when the pipe design includes a
high -density polyethylene pipe with fuse -welded joints, or similar product that is
technically equal or superior.
6. New point discharges from drainage facilities and roof drains onto or upstream
from Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas shall be prohibited except as follows:
a. If it is conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where
there are no erosion hazards areas downstream from the discharge;
b. If it is discharged at flow durations matching pre -developed conditions,
with adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously
conveyed stormwater runoff in the pre -developed state; or
Page 71 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
c. If it is dispersed or discharged upslope of the steep slope onto a low -
gradient undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all
surface and stormwater runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that
such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope.
7 Division of land in Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas and associated buffers is
subject to the following:
a. Land that is located wholly within a designated Erosion or Landslide
Hazard Area or an associated buffer shall not be subdivided.
b. Land that is located partially within a designated Erosion or Landslide
Hazard Area or an associated buffer may be subdivided, provided that
each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area outside of the Erosion or
Landslide Hazard Area and buffer to accommodate reasonable
development without impacting the critical area or requiring structural
stabilization consistent with SVMC 21.50.180(B)(5) General Provisions.
c. Access roads and utilities may be permitted within an Erosion or
Landslide Hazard Area and associated buffers if the City determines that
no other feasible alternative exists.
8. On -site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within
Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas and associated buffers.
E. Additional critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas reports.
In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, geologically
hazardous area reports shall include:
1. A site plan showing the following:
a. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of
groundwater on or within 200 feet of the project area or that have
potential to be affected by the proposal;
b. The topography, in two -foot contours, of the project area and all hazard
areas addressed in the report; and
c. The following additional information for a proposal impacting an Erosion
Hazard or Landslide Hazard Area:
The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross section of the
project area;
ii. Stormwater runoff disposal location and flow patterns; and
The location and description of surface water runoff.
2. A geotechnical study that addresses the geologic characteristics and engineering
properties of the soils, sediments, and/or rock of the project area and potentially
affected adjacent properties, including:
a. A description of the surface and subsurface geology, hydrology, soils, and
vegetation found in the project area and in all hazard areas addressed in
the report;
b. A detailed overview of the field investigations; published data and
references; data and conclusions from past assessments of the site; and
site specific measurements, test, investigations, or studies that support
the identification of geologically hazardous areas;
c. Site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading;
d. A description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic and other geologic
events;
e. Proposals impacting an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area shall include
the following additional information:
A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover;
Page 72 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
ii. An estimate of load capacity including surface and groundwater
conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and
excavations, and all structural development;
An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and
placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated
life of the structure;
iv. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate that recognizes and reflects
potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100
year storm event;
v. Consideration of the run -out hazard of landslide debris and/or the
impacts of landslide run -out on down slope properties;
vi. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed angles
of cut and fill, and site grading;
vii. Recommendations for building limitations, structural foundations,
and an estimate of foundation settlement; and
viii. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the
vulnerability of the site to erosion;
f. A detailed description of the project, its relationship to the geologic
hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the subject
property, and affected adjacent properties;
g. Recommendations for the minimum no -disturbance buffer and minimum
building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the geotechnical
analysis;
h. A mitigation plan addressing how the activity maintains or reduces the
pre-existing level of risk to the site and adjacent properties on a long-term
basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or
occupation);
Proposals impacting an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area shall include
the following additional information:
An erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with
requirements set forth in SVMC 22.150 Stormwater Management
Regulations; and
ii. Drainage plan for the collection, transport, treatment, discharge,
and recycle of water;
j. Location and methods of drainage, surface water management, locations
and methods of erosion control, a vegetation management and replanting
plan, or other means for maintaining long-term soil stability; and
k. A plan and schedule to monitor stormwater runoff discharges from the
site shall be included if there is a significant risk of damage to
downstream receiving waters due to:
Potential erosion from the site;
ii. The size of the project; or
The proximity to or the sensitivity of the receiving waters.
3. A geotechnical report, prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and
where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions are
unchanged, may be incorporated into the required critical area report. The
Applicant shall submit a geotechnical assessment detailing any changed
environmental conditions associated with the site.
21.50.560 Frequently Flooded Areas - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations
Page 73 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
A. Incorporation and applicability. SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulations are incorporated by
reference herein and apply to all uses, activities, and structures within frequently flooded
areas.
B. Additional critical areas report requirements for frequently flooded areas. In addition to
the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, critical area reports for
frequently flooded areas shall include:
1. A site plan showing:
a. All areas of a special flood hazard within 200 feet of the project area, as
indicated on the flood insurance map(s);
b. Floodplain (100-year flood elevation), 10- and 50-year flood elevations,
floodway, other critical areas, buffers, and shoreline areas; and
c. Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures, and
the level to which any nonresidential structure has been flood proofed.
Alterations of natural watercourses shall be avoided, if feasible. If
unavoidable, the critical area report shall include:
A description of and plan showing the extent to which a
watercourse will be altered or relocated;
ii. A maintenance plan that provides maintenance practices for the
altered or relocated portion of the watercourse to ensure that the
flood carrying capacity is not diminished and downstream or
upstream properties are not impacted; and
A description of how the proposed watercourse alteration
complies with the requirements of FWHCAs, the SMP, and other
applicable state or federal permit requirements.
Page 74 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Appendix A-1 Shoreline Master Program Definitions
A. General Provisions.
The definitions provided herein are supplemental to the definitions provided in Appendix A and
only apply for use with the City's SMP, including chapter 21.50 Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC). Solely for purposes of the City's SMP, if a conflict exists between these definitions and
definitions in Appendix A, the definitions in Appendix A-1 shall govern. The definition of any word
or phrase not listed in Appendix A-1 which is ambiguous when administering the SMP shall be
defined by the City's Community Development Director, or his/her designee, from the following
sources in the order listed:
1. Any City of Spokane Valley resolution, ordinance, code, or regulation;
2. Any statute or regulation of the State of Washington;
3. Legal definitions from the Hearings Board, from Washington common law, or the
most recently adopted Black's Law Dictionary; or
4. The most recently -adopted Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
B. Definitions.
Accessory or appurtenant structures: A structure that is necessarily connected to the use and
enjoyment of a single-family residence, including garages, sheds, decks, driveways, utilities,
fences, swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, tennis courts, installation of a septic tank and
drainfield, and grading which does not exceed 250 cubic yards and does not involve placement
of fill in any wetland or waterward of the OHWM.
Agricultural activities: Relating to the science or art of cultivating soil or producing crops to be
used or consumed directly or indirectly by man or livestock, or raising of livestock. The term has
the full meaning as set forth in WAC 173-26-020(3)(a) as adopted or amended.
Amendment: A revision, update, addition, deletion, and/or reenactment to an existing SMP.
Applicant: A person who files an application for permit under the SMP and may be the owner of
the land on which the proposed activity would be located, a contract purchaser, or the authorized
agent of such a person.
Aquaculture: The culture or farming of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals.
Associated wetlands: Those wetlands (see "Wetlands" definition) that are in proximity to and
either influence, or are influenced by, a lake or stream subject to the SMA.
Average grade level: The average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the lot,
parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building or structure;
provided that in case of structures to be built over water, average grade level shall be the elevation
of OHWM. Calculation of the average grade level shall be made by averaging the elevations at
the center of all exterior walls of the proposed building or structure.
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Site -specific design strategies, techniques, technologies,
conservation and maintenance practices, or systems of practices and management measures
that minimize adverse impacts from the development or use of a site.
Bioengineering: Project designs or construction methods which use living plant material or a
combination of living plant material and natural or synthetic materials to establish a complex root
grid within the bank which is resistant to erosion, provides bank stability, and promotes a healthy
riparian environment. Bioengineering approaches may include use of wood structures or clean
angular rock to provide stability.
Page 75 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Boating facilities: Boating facilities include boat launches, ramps, public docks, commercial
docks, and private docks serving more than four residences, together with accessory uses such
as Americans with Disabilities Act -compliant access routes, boat and equipment storage, user
amenities such as benches and picnic tables, and restroom facilities.
Buffer or Shoreline buffer: The horizontal distance from the OHWM or critical area which is
established to preserve shoreline or critical area functions by limiting or restricting development.
See Appendix A-2, Shoreline Buffers Map. Permitted development and activities within buffers
depend on the type of critical area or resource land the buffer is protecting.
Clearing: The destruction or removal of ground cover, shrubs, and trees including, but not limited
to, root material removal and/or topsoil removal.
Commercial uses: Those uses that are involved in wholesale, retail, service, and business trade.
Examples of commercial uses include restaurants, offices, and retail shops.
Conditional use: A use, project, or substantial development which is classified as a conditional
use or is not classified within the SMP.
Degrade: To impair with respect to some physical or environmental property or to reduce in
structure or function.
Development: A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging;
drilling; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of
obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal
public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the SMA at any stage of water
level. Development" does not include dismantling or removing structures if there is no other
associated development or re -development.
Development regulations: The controls placed on development or land uses by the City,
including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, building codes, critical areas ordinances, all
portions of the SMP other than goals and policies approved or adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW,
planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances
together with any amendments thereto.
Dock: A floating platform over water used for moorage of recreational or commercial watercraft.
Dredging: The removal of sediment, earth, or gravel from the bottom of a body of water, for the
deepening of navigational channels, to mine the sediment materials, to restore water bodies, for
flood control, or for cleanup of polluted sediments.
Ecological functions or Shoreline functions: The work performed or role played by the
physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic
and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem.
Ecology: Washington State Department of Ecology.
Ecosystem -wide process: The suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of
erosion, transport, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within
a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated
ecological functions.
Enhancement: Alteration of an existing resource to improve its ecological function without
degrading other existing functions.
Exemption or Exempt development: Exempt developments are those set forth in WAC 173-
27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3)(e), RCW 90.58.140(9), RCW 90.58.147, RCW 90.58.355, and
RCW 90.58.515. See also "Shoreline exemption, letter of'.
Page 76 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Feasible: An action, such as a project, mitigation measure, or preservation requirement, which
meets all of the following conditions:
1. The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been
used in the past in similar circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated
in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely
to achieve the intended results;
2. The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose;
3. The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's intended legal
use; and
4. In cases where the SMP requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the
burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action's
infeasibility, the City may weigh the action's relative public costs and public
benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames.
Fill: The addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other material
to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a manner that raises the
elevation or creates dry land. Depositing topsoil in a dry upland area for landscaping purposes is
not considered a fill.
Flood hazard reduction: Measures taken to reduce flood damage or hazards. Flood hazard
reduction measures may consist of nonstructural measures, such as setbacks, land use controls,
wetland restoration, dike removal, use relocation, biotechnical measures, and stormwater
management programs, and of structural measures, such as dikes, levees, revetments,
floodwalls, channel realignment, and elevation of structures consistent with the National Flood
Insurance Program.
Footprint: That area defined by the outside face of the exterior walls of a structure.
Forest practices: Any activity relating to growing, harvesting, or processing timber, including,
but not limited to, uses defined in RCW 76.09.020.
Grading: The movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other
material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land.
Habitat: The place or type of site where a plant or animal lives and grows.
Habitat enhancement: Actions performed within an existing shoreline, critical area, or buffer to
intentionally increase or augment one or more ecological functions or values, such as increasing
aquatic and riparian plant diversity or cover, increasing structural complexity, installing
environmentally compatible erosion controls, or removing non -indigenous plant or animal species.
Hearings Board: The Shoreline Hearings Board established by the SMA.
Height: Height is measured from average grade level to the highest point of a structure; provided
that television antennas, chimneys, and similar appurtenances shall not be used in calculating
height; provided further that temporary construction equipment is excluded from this calculation.
In -stream structure: A structure placed by humans within a stream or river waterward of the
OHWM that either causes or has the potential to cause water impoundment or cause the
diversion, obstruction, or modification of water flow. In -stream structures may include those for
hydroelectric generation, irrigation, water supply, flood control, transportation, utility service
transmission, fish habitat enhancement, recreation, or other purpose.
Industrial uses: Facilities for processing, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, and storage of
finished or semi -finished products.
Page 77 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Landward: To, or towards, the land in a direction away from a water body.
May: The action is acceptable, provided it conforms to the provisions of this SMP.
Mining: The removal of sand, gravel, soil, minerals, and other earth materials for commercial
and other uses.
Mitigation or Mitigation sequencing: To avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse impacts.
Native: For the purposes of this SMP, "native" means a plant or animal species that naturally
occurs in Spokane County, or occurred in Spokane County at the time of Euro-American
exploration and settlement, beginning in the early 19th century.
No net Toss: The standard for protection of shoreline ecological functions established in RCW
36.70A.480 as adopted or amended, and as that standard is interpreted on an on -going basis by
courts, the Growth Management Hearings Board, or the Hearings Board. The concept of "no net
loss" as used herein, recognizes that any use or development has potential or actual, short-term
or long-term impacts which may diminish ecological function and that through application of
appropriate development standards and employment of mitigation measures in accordance with
mitigation sequencing, those impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the
end result will not cumulatively diminish the shoreline resources and values as they currently
exist. Where uses or development that impact ecological functions are necessary to achieve
other objectives of RCW 90.58.020, the no net loss standard protects to the greatest extent
feasible existing ecological functions and favors avoidance of new impacts to habitat and
ecological functions before implementing other measures designed to achieve no net loss of
ecological functions.
Nonconforming lot: means a legally established lot that met dimensional requirements of the
applicable master program at the time of its establishment but now contains less than the required
width, depth, or area due to subsequent changes to the master program.
Nonconforming structure: A structure within t#e- shoreline jurisdiction which was lawfully
constructed or established within the application process prior to the effective date of the SMA or
the SMP, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards
of the SMP.
Nonconforming use: A shoreline use which was lawfully established or established within the
application process prior to the effective date of the SMA or the SMP, or amendments thereto,
but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the SMP.
Non water -oriented uses: Any uses that are not water -dependent, water -related, or water -
enjoyment as defined by the SMP.
Off -site mitigation: To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental resources away from
the site on which a resource has been impacted by an activity.
Ordinary high water mark (OHWM): The mark that will be found by examining the bed and
banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and
so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of
the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may
naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by
the City, provided that in any area where the OHWM cannot be found, the OHWM adjoining
freshwater shall be the line of mean high water.
Pier: A fixed platform over water used for moorage of recreational or commercial watercraft.
Page 78 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Priority habitats and species: Habitats and species designated by the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife as requiring protective measures for their survival due to population status,
sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority
species include State Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate species; animal
aggregations (such as bat colonies) considered vulnerable; and species of recreational,
commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
maintains maps of known locations of priority habitats and species in Washington State.
Provisions: Policies, regulations, standards, guideline criteria, or environment designations.
Public access: The ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to
travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations.
Public facilities: Facilities and structures, operated for public purpose and benefit, including, but
not limited to, solid waste handling and disposal, water transmission lines, sewage treatment
facilities and mains, power generating and transfer facilities, gas distribution lines and storage
facilities, stormwater mains, and wastewater treatment facilities.
Qualified professional: A person who, in the opinion of the Director, has appropriate education,
training and experience in the applicable field to generate a report or study required in this SMP.
1. For reports related to wetlands, this means a certified professional wetland
scientist or a non -certified professional wetland scientist with a minimum of five
years' experience in the field of wetland science and with experience preparing
wetland reports.
2. For reports related to critical aquifer recharge areas, this means a
hydrogeologist, geologist, or engineer, who is licensed in the State of
Washington and has experience preparing hydrogeologic assessments.
3. For reports related to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas this means a
biologist with experience preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat.
4. For reports related to geologically hazardous areas this means a geotechnical
engineer or geologist, licensed in the State of Washington, with experience
analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems.
5. For reports related to frequently flooded areas this means a hydrologist or
engineer, licensed in the State of Washington with experience in preparing flood
hazard assessments.
6. For reports related to cultural and archaeological resources and historic
preservation, this means a professional archaeologist or historic preservation
professional.
RCW: Revised Code of Washington.
Recreational use: Commercial and public facilities designed and used to provide recreational
opportunities to the public.
Residential use: Uses for residential purpose.
Restore, restoration, or ecological restoration: The reestablishment or upgrading of impaired
ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures
including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures, and removal
or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the
shoreline area to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions.
Page 79 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Riparian area: The interface area between land and a river or stream. The area includes plant
and wildlife habitats and communities along the river margins and banks.
Setback or shoreline setback: The minimum required distance between a structure and the
shoreline buffer that is to remain free of structures.
Shall: An action that is mandatory and not discretionary.
Shorelands or shoreland areas: Those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions
as measured on a horizontal plane from the OHWM; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas
landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands associated with the streams and lakes
which are subject to the provisions of the SMA and the SMP; all of which will be designated as to
location by Ecology.
Shoreline exemption, letter of: Documentation provided by the City that proposed development
qualifies as an Exempt Development (as that term is defined herein) and that the proposed
development is consistent with chapter 21.50 SVMC and other local and state requirements,
including the State Environmental Policy Act as adopted or amended when applicable.
Shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline areas: All "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands".
Shoreline Management Act (SMA): The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as set forth in
chapter 90.58 RCW as adopted or amended.
Shoreline Master Program (SMP): The comprehensive use plan applicable to the shorelines of
the state within the City, including the use regulations, together with maps, goals and policies,
and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020.
Shoreline modifications: Those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the
shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike, breakwater,
pier, weir, dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline structure. They can include other
actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals.
Shoreline permit(s): Means any substantial development, variance, conditional use permit, or
revision authorized under chapter 21.50 SVMC and chapter 90.58 RCW.
Shoreline stabilization: Actions taken to prevent or mitigate erosion impacts to property or
structures caused by shoreline processes such as currents, floods, or wind action. Shoreline
stabilization includes, but is not limited to, structural armoring approaches such as bulkheads,
bulkhead alternatives, and nonstructural approaches such as bioengineering.
Shoreline substantial development permit: A permit required by the SMP for substantial
development within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Shorelines: All of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated
shorelands, together with the lands underlying them, except (a) shorelines of statewide
significance; (b) shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual
flow is 20 cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream
segments; and (c) shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size and wetlands associated with
such small lakes.
Shorelines of statewide significance: Has the meaning as set forth in RCW 90.58.030(2)(f) as
adopted or amended.
Shorelines of the state: The total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide significance"
within the state.
Should: An action which is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason based
on policy of the SMA and the SMP, against taking the action.
Page 80 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Substantial development: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds
$6,416, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the state. The current thresholds will be adjusted for inflation by the State Office of
Financial Management every five years, beginning from July 1, 2007.
Temporary impact: Impacts to a critical area that are less than one year and expected to be
restored following construction.
Transportation facilities: Facilities consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the
movement of passengers or goods.
Upland: Generally described as the dry land area above and landward of the OHWM.
Utilities: Services and facilities that produce, convey, store or process power, gas, sewage,
water, stormwater, communications, oil, and waste.
Variance: A process to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards
through submission of a shoreline variance. A variance is not a means to change the allowed
use of a shoreline.
Viewing platform: A platform located landward of the OHWM used for viewing pleasure.
WAC: Washington Administrative Code.
Water -dependent use: A use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location that is not
adjacent to the water and which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its
operations.
Water -enjoyment use: A recreational use or other use that facilitates public access to the
shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or
aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic
of the use and which through location, design, and operation ensures the public's ability to enjoy
the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water -enjoyment use,
the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline -oriented space within the project
must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment.
Water -oriented use: A use that is water -dependent, water -related, or water -enjoyment, or a
combination of such uses.
Water quality: The physical characteristics of water within the shoreline jurisdiction, including
water quantity, hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation -related, and biological
characteristics.
Water quantity: The flow rate and/or flow volume of stormwater or surface water. Where used
in the SMP, the term "water quantity" refers to uses and/or structures regulated under the SMP
affecting water quantity, such as impermeable surfaces and stormwater handling practices.
Water quantity, for purposes of the SMP, does not mean the withdrawal of groundwater or
diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340.
Water -related use: A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront
location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because:
1. The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival
or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or
2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water -dependent uses
and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive
and/or more convenient.
Page 81 of 82
City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program
Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those
artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including, but not limited to,
irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1,
1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway.
Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas to
mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
Page 82 of 82
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
2021 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
May 13, 2021
A. Background:
The City has completed the periodic review of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as required by the
Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58.080. The SMA requires that the SMP
be reviewed and revised, if needed, every eight years. This periodic update is required to be complete by
June 30, 2021. The review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains
consistent with other City plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new
information and improved data.
B. Findings:
1. The City initiated a SMP periodic review in 2020.
2. RCW 90.58, WAC 173-26-090, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.150 and 19.30.040
set forth goals, policies and procedures to guide the development and adoption of the City's periodic
review of the SMP.
3. In 2015, the City adopted a comprehensive update of its SMP after an extensive multi -year public
process.
4. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(4)(a), the scope of the 2021 periodic review was limited to changes
required to stay current with changes in laws and rules.
5. The Gap Analysis completed as part of the 2021 periodic review analyzed the changes required to
maintain consistency with changes in laws and rule and overall the SMP was found to be consistent.
Minor changes were recommended.
6. The changes to the SMP regulations include items such as exemptions, definitions, administrative
procedures, and updates to critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction.
7. On February 12, 2021. a SEPA Determination of Non -significance (DNS) was issued determining the
adoption of the Draft SMP to be a non -project action that does not have a probable significant adverse
impact on the environment.
8. On February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the public hearing stating that the City was accepting
public comments for 30-days. The notice provided met all state and local requirements.
9. On February 12, 2021, the City published to the SMP project webpage all draft documents and review
materials for the periodic review of the SMP.
10. On February 25, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a study session where the proposed SMP
amendments were presented and discussed.
11. On March 11. 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the purpose of taking
public testimony on the proposed amendments. No public testimony was received during the hearing.
At the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission continued to allow written comment
on the draft SMP amendments until 5:00 PM March 12, 2021. One written public comment was
received.
12. On March 25 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and deliberated on the
proposed SMP amendments. After deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended to the City Council that the draft SMP amendments be adopted as presented.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission
For the 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update
Page 1 of 2
C. Conclusions
1. The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) for the Draft SMP
amendments.
a. The draft SMP amendments are consistent with the following policy and goal of the Spokane
Valley Comprehensive Plan:
H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing
types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, co -housing,
cottage housing, and other housing types.
NR-G3 Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are based on best
available science and are consistent with required environmental policy.
b. The draft SMP amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and
protection of the environment: The proposed amendments to the SMP were identified after a
review of changes to laws and rules. The proposed amendments implement changes to local and
state laws and rules including best available science for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas. The proposed amendments maintain the vision and goals adopted in the SMP
and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The draft SMP amendments are in compliance with RCW 90.58, WAC 173-26, Washington State
Shoreline Management Planning Guidelines.
3. The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and
state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations under state law to
review and revise the SMP.
D. Recommendations
1. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2021 Shoreline
Master Program update.
Approved this 13th day of May, 2021
Robert McKinley, Chairman
ATTEST
Marianne Lemons, Planning Commission Secretary
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission
For the 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update
Page 2 of 2
City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review
Gap Analysis
Prepared on behalf of:
Spokane
_Valley
City of Spokane Valley
10210 E. Sprague Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Prepared by:
1 I'
WATERSHED
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland WA 98033
- 425.822.5242
f 425.827.8136
watershedco.com
The Watershed Company Reference Number:
190827
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. State Laws, Rules & Implementation Gap Analysis 2
3. Other Local Plans and Development Regulations Gap Analysis 2
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Summary of potential gaps in consistency between the SMP and other local plans
and development regulations. 2
Attachments
Attachment A: Periodic Review Checklist
i
City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company
Gap Analysis April 26, 2021
1. Introduction
In accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local jurisdictions with
"Shorelines of the State" are required to conduct a periodic review of their Shoreline Master
Programs (SMPs) (Washington Administrative Code [WAG] 173-26-090). The periodic review is
intended to keep SMPs current with amendments to state laws, changes to local plans and
regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information.
The City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted its current SMP on December 15, 2015 (Ordinance
No. 15-024). Shorelines of the State in the City include Shelley Lake and the Spokane River.
The current SMP outlines goals and policies for shorelines in the City and establishes
regulations for their development (codified in Spokane Valley Municipal Code [SVMC] Chapter
21.50). The current SMP includes regulations for critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction (SVMC
21.50.460-.560).
As a first step in the periodic review process, the City's current SMP was reviewed by City staff
and consultants. The purpose of this SMP Periodic Review Gap Analysis is to present a
summary of the review and inform updates to the SMP. This document is organized into the
following sections:
• Section 2, in conjunction with Attachment A, presents the findings of a review for gaps
in consistency between the SMP and state laws, rules and implementation guidance.
• Section 3 presents the findings of a review for gaps in consistency between the SMP and
other local plans and development regulations.
This document includes tables that identify potential revision actions. Where potential revision
actions are identified, they are classified as follows:
• "Mandatory" indicates revisions that are required for consistency with state laws.
• "Recommended" indicates revisions that improve consistency with state laws, but are
not strictly required.
• "Optional" indicates revisions that amend the SMP in accordance with state laws, but
that are not necessarily required or recommended for consistency with state laws.
• "No action necessary" indicates the SMP as written is sufficient and no change is
needed at this time.
1
City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company
Gap Analysis April 26, 2021
2. State Laws, Rules & Implementation Gap Analysis
The Washington State Department of Ecology's Periodic Review Checklist summarizes recent
amendments to state laws, rules and implementation guidance that may trigger the need for
local SMP amendments during periodic reviews. A completed version of the Periodic Review
Checklist is appended to this document as Attachment A.
Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. A majority of
the changes are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative
procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area
regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations need to be updated to be consistent
with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations.
3. Other Local Plans & Development Regulations Gap
Analysis
The SMP was reviewed for gaps in consistency with other local plans and development
regulations, including the zoning code. In general, the review found no major inconsistencies,
but did reveal one area where the SMP might be amended to better reflect the priorities of the
Comprehensive Plan. Table 3-1 summarizes a potential gap in consistency between the SMP
and the Comprehensive Plan.
Table 3-1. Summary of potential gaps in consistency between the SMP and other local plans and
development regulations.
No.
Topic
Review
Action
1
Permitting for
Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs)
SVMC 21.50.370.B.6 requires a
Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit for ADUs,
whereas new single-family
residences require a shoreline
exemption per WAC 173-27-
040(2)(g). The 2017
Comprehensive Plan Housing
Element encourages additional
affordable housing options such
as ADUs. The additional
procedural requirements for a
Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit compared to
a shoreline exemption may be a
disincentive to ADU applications.
Amend Table 21.50-1, Shoreline
Uses, as well as SVMC
21.50.370, to allow accessory
dwelling units as part of a
shoreline exemption, consistent
with WAC 173-27-040(2)(g).
2
City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company
Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist April 26, 2021
Attachment A: Periodic Review Checklist
The periodic review checklist summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable updated
guidance adopted between 2007 and 2019 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments during
periodic reviews. Per guidance from the Department of Ecology, the city completed the periodic review
checklist to document review considerations and determine if local amendments are needed to
maintain compliance, see WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i).
To ease review and track potential amendments, the draft amendments to the city's SMP have been
cross-referenced with the row of the checklist below. For each proposed amendment there is a
comment bubble that references the row in the checklist. For example, the proposed amendment at
21.50.020 D. has the comment "Gap Analysis Attachment A, 2017c", which means the proposed
amendment was in response to a change made in 2017 at row c.
Prepared By
Jurisdiction
Date
Alex Capron, The Watershed
Company
City of Spokane Valley
2/9/2021
Row Summary of change
2019
a.
OFM adjusted the cost threshold
for building freshwater docks
b. The Legislature removed the
requirement for a shoreline
permit for disposal of dredged
materials at Dredged Material
Management Program sites
(applies to 9 jurisdictions)
c. The Legislature added restoring
native kelp, eelgrass beds and
native oysters as fish habitat
enhancement projects.
Review
SVMC 21.50.110.G includes
outdated cost threshold for
freshwater docks and does
not fully align with the
language in WAC 173-27-040
or RCW 90.58.030(3).
There are no DMMP sites in
City limits. Therefore, this
legislative amendment does
not apply.
There are no saltwater
shorelines in City limits.
Therefore, this legislative
amendment does not apply.
Action
Reference the current cost
threshold, in addition to WAC
173-27-040 to ensure the SMP
always reflects the most
current exemption language.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
1
City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company
Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist April 26, 2021
Row Summary of change
2017
a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold
for substantial development to
$7,047.
b. Ecology permit rules clarified the
definition of "development"
does not include dismantling or
removing structures.
c. Ecology adopted rules clarifying
exceptions to local review under
the SMA.
d. Ecology amended rules clarifying
permit filing procedures
consistent with a 2011 statute.
e. Ecology amended forestry use
regulations to clarify that forest
practices that only involves
timber cutting are not SMA
"developments" and do not
require SDPs.
f. Ecology clarified the SMA does
not apply to lands under
exclusive federal jurisdiction
Review
SVMC 21.50.110.A includes
outdated cost threshold for
substantial development,
though it references RCW
90.58.030 and the Office of
Financial Management for
automatic cost threshold
updates.
Definition of "Development"
(Appendix Al, Definitions)
does not clarify that removing
structures does not constitute
"development."
SVMC 21.50.020.D indicates
that remedial actions are
exempt from procedural
requirements of the SMP.
The SMP does not include
specific guidance on permit
filing procedures.
Forestry uses are prohibited
by the current SMP (Table
21.50-1: Shoreline Uses,
within SVMC 21.50.190,
Shoreline Uses Table).
No federal lands exist within
City shoreline jurisdiction.
Action
Reference current cost
threshold under SVMC
21.50.110.A. In addition,
include, "WAC 173-27-040 and
RCW 90.58.030(3), or as
amended" under SVMC
21.50.110 to ensure the SMP
will reflect the most current
exemption language.
Modify the definition of
"Development" to be
consistent with Ecology's
example definition.
Reference the exceptions in
WAC 173-27-044 and -045 at
SVMC 21.50.020.D.
Add specific guidance on
permit filing procedures to
SVMC 21.50.050.B.9
consistent with Ecology
example language.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
2
City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company
Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist
Row
g•
Summary of change
Ecology clarified "default"
provisions for nonconforming
uses and development.
h. Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the scope
and process for conducting
periodic reviews.
i. Ecology adopted a new rule
creating an optional SMP
amendment process that allows
for a shared local/state public
comment period.
J•
2016
Submittal to Ecology of proposed
SMP amendments.
a. The Legislature created a new
shoreline permit exemption for
retrofitting existing structure to
comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
b. Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance including
implementation guidance for the
2014 wetlands rating system.
Review
The SMP contains its own
provisions regarding
nonconforming uses,
structures and lots under
SVMC 21.50.150. SMP
Appendix A-1, Definitions,
includes definitions of
"Nonconforming structure"
and "Nonconforming use," but
not for "Nonconforming lot."
The SMP does not include
procedures for periodic
reviews, nor is required.
The SMP does not include
procedures for the optional
amendment process, nor is
required.
The SMP does not include
procedures for submittal to
Ecology of proposed SMP
amendments.
SVMC 21.50.110 does not
include this exemption.
The SMP references the 2004
wetlands rating system and
does not include the most
recent wetland critical areas
guidance.
April 26, 2021
Action
Add a definition for
"nonconforming lot"
consistent with Ecology's
example language.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
Reference WAC 173-27-040
and RCW 90.58.030(3) to
ensure the SMP always
reflects the most current
exemption language.
Add this exemption to SVMC
21.50.110.
Update the SMP wetland
regulations in SVMC 21.50.520
to reference the 2014 wetland
rating system.
3
City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review
Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist
Row Summary of change
2015
Review
The Watershed Company
April 26, 2021
Action
Note: SMP Locally Adopted December 15, 2015
a. The Legislature adopted a 90-day
target for local review of
Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT)
projects.
2014
a. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
on -water residences legally
established before 7/1/2014.
2012
a. The Legislature amended the
SMA to clarify SMP appeal
procedures.
2011
a. Ecology adopted a rule requiring
that wetlands be delineated in
accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation
manual.
b. Ecology adopted rules for new
commercial geoduck
aquaculture.
c. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
homes permitted or legally
established prior to January 1,
2011.
The SMP does not
acknowledge WSDOT review
timelines, nor is it required to.
The City does not have any
floating on -water residences,
nor does the SMP allow them
per SVMC 21.50.370.B.4.
SMP does not contain specific
steps or language for
appealing amendments, nor is
it required to.
The SMP, as well as the
Citywide critical areas
regulations in SVMC Chapter
21.40, Critical Areas, require
the use of the current
approved federal wetland
delineation manual.
There are no saltwater
shorelines in City limits.
Therefore, this legislative
amendment does not apply.
Not applicable. The City does
not have any floating homes,
nor does the SMP allow them
per SVMC 21.50.370.B.4.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
4
City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company
Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist April 26, 2021
Row Summary of change
d. The Legislature authorizing a new
option to classify existing
structures as conforming.
2010
a. The Legislature adopted Growth
Management Act (GMA) —
Shoreline Management Act
(SMA) clarifications.
2009
a. The Legislature created new
"relief" procedures for instances
in which a shoreline restoration
project within a UGA creates a
shift in Ordinary High -Water
Mark.
b. Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland mitigation
banks.
c. The Legislature added moratoria
authority and procedures to the
SMA.
2007
a. The Legislature clarified options
for defining "floodway" as either
the area that has been
established in FEMA maps, or the
floodway criteria set in the SMA.
Review
The SMP does not classify
existing structures as
conforming, nor is it required
to. Maintenance and repair of
existing structures is allowed.
Alterations to existing
structures that do not
increase nonconformity are
also allowed under SVMC
21.50.150.6.4.
The SMP critical area
regulations in SVMC 21.50.460 GMA — SMA clarifications.
through 21.50.560 do not
reflect the GMA - SMA
clarifications.
Action
No action necessary.
The SMP does not include or
reference the relief criteria or
procedures in WAC 173-27-
215.
The SMP, as well as the
Citywide critical areas
regulations in SVMC Chapter
21.40, Critical Areas, address
wetland mitigation banks.
SMP does not reference
moratoria authority. The City
can rely on statute for
moratoria authority and
procedures.
"Floodway" is not defined in
the SMP. However,
"floodway" is defined in SVMC
Appendix A consistent with
the FEMA definition.
Update the SMP to reflect the
Reference the relief criteria
and procedures in WAC 173-
27-215.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
5
City of Spokane Valley SMP Periodic Review The Watershed Company
Attachment A Periodic Review Checklist April 26, 2021
Row Summary of change
b. Ecology amended rules to clarify
that comprehensively updated
SMPs shall include a list and map
of streams and lakes that are in
shoreline jurisdiction.
c. Ecology's rule listing statutory
exemptions from the
requirement for an SDP was
amended to include fish habitat
enhancement projects that
conform to the provisions of
RCW 77.55.181.
Review
The list of shoreline
jurisdictional areas is located
under SVMC 21.50.020.E and
Appendix B, Figure 51 of the
adopted Comprehensive Plan
includes streams and lakes
within the shoreline
jurisdiction.
This exemption is included at
SVMC 21.50.110.0.
Action
No action necessary.
No action necessary.
6
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: February 25, 2021
Item: Check all that apply n old business n new business n public hearing
n information Fl study session n pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: None
BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the city's official document to guide
development along the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and
polices which are adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan and regulations related to shoreline
development that can be found in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 21.50.
The City of Spokane Valley is undertaking a Periodic Review of its SMP, as required by the Washington
State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58.080. The SMA requires that the SMP be reviewed
and revised, if needed, by June 30, 2021. The review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws
and rules, remains consistent with other City plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed
circumstances, new information and improved data.
In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review.
Because the SMP was recently adopted in 2015 after an extensive multi -year public process, the scope of
the 2021 periodic review is limited to changes required to stay current with local and state laws and rules.
A summary of the changes to state laws and rules and their impacts to the City's SMP regulations can be
found in the Gap Analysis completed as part of the 2021 periodic review.
Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. A majority of the changes
are minor and include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy
required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These
regulations will need to be updated to be consistent with state law and the City's adopted critical area
regulations. These regulations reside in the SVMC Title 21 Environmental Controls, Chapter 21.40 Critical
Areas. The critical area regulations were updated in 2016 through the periodic update of the Comprehensive
Plan as required by the Growth Management Act.
Tonight, staff and the City's consultant will provide an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a
summary of the adoption process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report
2. Gap Analysis Memo
3. Draft amendments to the SMP and Definitions
4. Presentation
RPCA Study Session for 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 1
Spokane
Valley
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 2021
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: March 11, 2021, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206.
Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the COVID-19 outbreak, and pursuant to Governor
Inslee's Stay Home, Stay Healthy Proclamation (No. 20-25) and Proclamation 20-28 (and associated
extensions), the hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to
the Zoom meeting will be provided on the Planning Commission's agenda and posted to the City's
webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Statutorily required update the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to maintain
consistency with changes in state and local laws and plans. The necessary changes are generally minor and
include items such as exemptions, definitions, administrative procedures, and SMP critical areas
regulations.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria for review and approval for code text amendments.
STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table
summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal.
Process
Date
Department of Commerce 60-day Notice
February 12, 2021
SEPA — DNS Issued
February 12, 2021
Publish Notice of Public Hearing:
February 12 and 19, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's required program to govern development along waters
of the state. In the City, the waters of the state include the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. The SMP is
required pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (ch. 90.58 RCW) and provides additional protections
for development within shoreline buffers to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The SMP works in
conjunction with and in addition to other applicable development regulations. The SMP consists of a
number of components, including SMP Goals and Policies, Shoreline Environment Designations, Shoreline
Inventory, Shoreline Public Access, Shoreline Restoration Plan, Cumulative Impacts Analysis, No Net Loss
Report, Public Involvement Plan, and Shoreline Regulations. The SMP was initially adopted pursuant to
Ordinance No. 14-020 and is located on the City's website at
Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update
http://laserfiche.spokanevalley.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=69831 &dbid=0&repo=SpokaneValley, and
was again adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan in 2016.
The Shoreline Regulations are located in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
The SMP adopted in 2015 was the result of a multi -year extensive public process that incorporated the SMP
rules made by the state in 2003. As part of the statewide shoreline rules, the City is required to review and
revise the SMP to incorporate changes to local and state laws, rules and plans by June 30, 2021.
In order to assist the City in identifying needed changes to SMPs, the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) has provided a Periodic Review Checklist summarizing amendments made to state laws
and rules. The checklist is included as an attachment to this staff report and provides an easy resource to
review and track the proposed amendments to the City's SMP. The amendments have been cross-referenced
with the row of the checklist.
The proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are the minimum necessary to maintain consistency
with changes to local and state laws, rules, and plans.
ANALYSIS:
The current SMP adopted in 2015 was a multi -year process developed and adopted with extensive citizen
input. The 2015 SMP was comprehensive in scope incorporating the best available science. Since the SMP
was updated just five years ago, the current 2021 review found that the SMP is generally consistent with
currently applicable local and state laws and rules. The majority of changes are minor in nature and include
items like adding exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures to be consistent with changes to
state shoreline laws and rules. Another change is replacing the reference of Community Development
Director with City Manager or designee to be consistent with amendments made by the city in 2016.
A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline
jurisdiction. The general critical area regulations were updated in 2016 through the periodic update of the
Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act and they are currently found in chapter
21.40 SVMC. Staff are proposing to update the shoreline critical areas regulations to remain consistent with
the generally applicable critical areas regulations
Another noted change is to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be permitted in the same way as a
single-family dwelling. Under the existing SMP, ADUs are required to obtain a Substantial Development
Permit, which could present a barrier to provide this more affordable housing type. The 2017
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element encourages additional affordable housing options such as ADUs,
and by allowing ADUs in a similar way as single-family homes the proposed change removes the potential
barrier ADUs.
Overall, staff have determined that the proposed amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC meet the requirement
of the of the SMA to review and revise the City's SMP to maintain consistency with state laws, changes to
local plans and regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information.
A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria
The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that:
i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Page 2 of 3
Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Pan
and is consistent with the following policy and goal:
H-P2
NR-G3
Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing
innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units,
pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing
types.
Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are
based on best available science and are consistent with required
environmental policy.
ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare,
and protection of the environment:
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health,
safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the
SMP were identified after a review of changes to local and state laws and ensure that
the SMP is consistent with all applicable laws and rules. The proposed amendments
implement changes to local and state laws and rules including best available science
for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The proposed
amendments maintain the vision and goals adopted in the SMP and Comprehensive
Plan.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC
17.80.150(F).
2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments
a. Findings:
No public comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
Adequate public noticing was conducted for Periodic Review of the Shoreline Master Program
in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures.
3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments
a. Findings:
No agency comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
Comments have been addressed and no concerns noted.
B. CONCLUSION
The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and
state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations under state law to
review and revise the SMP.
For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed amendments to the SMP are found to be consistent
the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F).
Page 3 of 3
Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
February 25, 2021
I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The
meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting.
II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance.
III. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
Fred Beaulac
Karl Granrath
Walt Haneke
Bob McKinley
Nancy Miller
Paul Rieckers
Sherri Robinson, absent
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Jenny Nickerson, Building Official
Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant
Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant
There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Robinson
from the meeting.
IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the February 25, 2021 meeting agenda
as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
V. MINUTES: Commissioner Granrath moved to approve the February 11, 2021 minutes as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission Reports.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There were no Administrative Reports.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Study Session: Shoreline Master Program — Legislative Update
Senior Planner Chaz Bates introduced Alex Capron with The Watershed Company, who was
hired by the City to assist with the periodic update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
Mr. Bates explained that Washington state law requires that the SMP be reviewed and
updated every eight years. The original SMP was adopted comprehensively in 2015 through
1
02-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
an in-depth process. Due to that process, the update this year includes just the items that are
required by state law.
Mr. Capron gave a presentation explaining the proposed changes to the SMP. He explained
that an SMP is a set of policies and regulations required by state law to protect the
environmental resources of state shorelines, promote public access and enjoyment
opportunities, and give priority to uses that require a shoreline location. The SMP applies to
"Shorelines of the State", which are waterbodies that meet certain criteria and size. In
Spokane Valley, this includes the Spokane River, Shelley Lake, and associated wetlands.
Mr. Capron explained that the state Department of Ecology requires all SMP's to be
reviewed every eight years. This periodic review is intended to keep SMP's current with
amendments to state law, changes in local plans and regulations, and new or improved data
and information. The updated SMP must be adopted by June 30, 2021.
Mr. Capron stated that during the review process they looked at the 27 legislative
amendments, critical areas regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan and municipal code.
The proposed state legislative amendments included updating definitions, exemptions, and
exceptions to be consistent with those in state law. The proposed amendments to the SMP
critical areas will incorporate required City-wide critical areas ordinance updates which will
update wetland buffers within shoreline jurisdiction. It will also provide updates to the Fish
and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas by adding standards for habitat management plans
requirements and including riparian management zone buffers. Previously, the SMP did not
have regulations set up for streams that weren't shoreline. This amendment will establish
those stream regulations.
Mr. Capron explained that there is an additional "suggested" SMP amendment that the City
has decided to add to their regulations that ensures the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are
permitted like single-family residences. This means that any ADU requests will have to
apply for a shoreline exemption, just like a regular single-family home.
Mr. Capron outlined the adoption timeline. Joint Ecology/City public hearing will be held on
March 11, 2021, submittal to Ecology for initial determination will occur in March 2021,
initial determination response from Ecology should be received in April 2021, Planning
Commission adoption of findings will occur in May 2021, City Council first and second
reading will occur in June 2021, and local adoption of the SMP will occur in June 2021.
Commissioner Haneke requested information about fish -baring streams that feed the river
that would be included in the riparian management zone buffer area. Mr. Capron responded
that he will get that information and present it at the public hearing.
Commissioner Beaulac asked if gravel pits are included in the SMP. Deputy City Attorney
Erik Lamb answered that gravel pits are included once they have been fully reclaimed and if
they are exposed to the aquifer. The City does not currently have any gravel pits that meet
the criteria.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Beaulac moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:43 p.m.
There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the
motion passed.
2
02-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Bob McKinley, Chair
Deanna Horton, Secretary
Date signed
3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: March 11, 2021
Item: Check all that apply n old business n new business ® public hearing
n information n study session ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study session on February 25, 2021.
BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's official document to guide development along the
Spokane River and Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in
the Comprehensive Plan and regulations related to shoreline development that can be found in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
The City is undertaking a periodic review of its SMP, as required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
(SMA), RCW 90.58.080. The SMA requires that the SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, by June 30, 2021. The review
ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other City plans and regulations, and
is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data.
In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. Because the SMP was
recently adopted in 2015 after an extensive multi -year public process, the scope of the 2021 periodic review is limited to
changes required to stay current with local and state laws and rules. A summary of the changes to state laws and rules and
their impacts to the City's SMP regulations can be found in the Gap Analysis completed as part of the 2021 periodic review.
Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. A majority of the changes are minor and
include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified
relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations will need to be updated to be
consistent with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations. These regulations reside in Title 21 SVMC
(Environmental Controls) and Chapter 21.40 SVMC (Critical Areas). The critical area regulations were updated in 2016
through the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act.
On February 25, 2021, staff and the City's consultant provided an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a
summary of the adoption process. Tonight, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for the purpose of taking
public testimony on the proposed amendments.
The City has opted to combine the required local and state public comment periods for the draft SMP amendments. The
purpose is to allow a consistent and early public review of the proposed amendments and to streamline the adoption process.
The joint process is open for public comment through Friday, March 12, 2021. At tonight's meeting, Planning Commission
will conduct a public hearing for any verbal testimony. The public hearing will be closed, except to allow any written
comments that are submitted by close of business on Friday, March 12. Planning Commission will then conduct
deliberations on the proposed amendments at its next scheduled meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action at this time. However, at the close of the public hearing, the
Chair should identify that the hearing is closed but that written comments will continue to be received until close of business
on Friday, March 12, 2021.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report
2. Gap Analysis Memo
3. Draft amendments to the SMP and Definitions
4. Presentation
RPCA Public Hearing for 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 1
Spokane
Valley
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
STAFF REPORT DATE: February 25, 2021
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: March 11, 2021, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206.
Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak, and pursuant to Governor
Inslee's Stay Home, Stay Healthy Proclamation (No. 20-25) and Proclamation 20-28 (and associated
extensions), the hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to
the Zoom meeting will be provided on the Planning Commission's agenda and posted to the City's
webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Statutorily required update the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to maintain
consistency with changes in state and local laws and plans. The necessary changes are generally minor and
include items such as exemptions, definitions, administrative procedures, and SMP critical areas
regulations.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria for review and approval for code text amendments.
STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table
summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal.
Process
Date
Department of Commerce 60-day Notice
February 12, 2021
SEPA — DNS Issued
February 12, 2021
Publish Notice of Public Hearing:
February 12 and 19, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's required program to govern development along waters
of the state. In the City, the waters of the state include the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. The SMP is
required pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (ch. 90.58 RCW) and provides additional protections
for development within shoreline buffers to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The SMP works in
conjunction with and in addition to other applicable development regulations. The SMP consists of a
number of components, including SMP Goals and Policies, Shoreline Environment Designations,
Shoreline Inventory, Shoreline Public Access, Shoreline Restoration Plan, Cumulative Impacts Analysis,
No Net Loss Report, Public Involvement Plan, and Shoreline Regulations. The SMP was initially
adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-020 and is located on the City's website at
http://laserfiche.spokanevalley.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=69831 &dbid=0&repo=SpokaneValley, and
Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update
was again adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan in 2016. The Shoreline Regulations are
located in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
The SMP adopted in 2015 was the result of a multi -year extensive public process that incorporated the SMP
rules made by the state in 2003. As part of the statewide shoreline rules, the City is required to review and
revise the SMP to incorporate changes to local and state laws, rules and plans by June 30, 2021.
In order to assist the City in identifying needed changes to SMPs, the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) has provided a Periodic Review Checklist summarizing amendments made to state laws
and rules. The checklist is included as an attachment to this staff report and provides an easy resource to
review and track the proposed amendments to the City's SMP. The amendments have been cross-referenced
with the row of the checklist.
The proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are the minimum necessary to maintain consistency
with changes to local and state laws, rules, and plans.
ANALYSIS:
The current SMP adopted in 2015 was a multi -year process developed and adopted with extensive citizen
input. The 2015 SMP was comprehensive in scope incorporating the best available science. Since the SMP
was updated just five years ago, the current 2021 review found that the SMP is generally consistent with
currently applicable local and state laws and rules. The majority of changes are minor in nature and include
items like adding exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures to be consistent with changes to
state shoreline laws and rules. Another change is replacing the reference of Community Development
Director with City Manager or designee to be consistent with amendments made by the city in 2016.
A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline
jurisdiction. The general critical area regulations were updated in 2016 through the periodic update of the
Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act and they are currently found in chapter
21.40 SVMC. Staff are proposing to update the shoreline critical areas regulations to remain consistent with
the generally applicable critical areas regulations
Another noted change is to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be permitted in the same way as a
single-family dwelling. Under the existing SMP, ADUs are required to obtain a Substantial Development
Permit, which could present a barrier to provide this more affordable housing type. The 2017
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element encourages additional affordable housing options such as ADUs,
and by allowing ADUs in a similar way as single-family homes the proposed change removes the potential
barrier ADUs.
Overall, staff have determined that the proposed amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC meet the requirement
of the of the SMA to review and revise the City's SMP to maintain consistency with state laws, changes to
local plans and regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information.
A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria
The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that:
i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Page 2 of 3
Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Pan
and is consistent with the following policy and goal:
H-P2
NR-G3
Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing
innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units,
pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing
types.
Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are
based on best available science and are consistent with required
environmental policy.
ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare,
and protection of the environment:
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health,
safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the
SMP were identified after a review of changes to local and state laws and ensure that
the SMP is consistent with all applicable laws and rules. The proposed amendments
implement changes to local and state laws and rules including best available science
for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The proposed
amendments maintain the vision and goals adopted in the SMP and Comprehensive
Plan.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC
17.80.150(F).
2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments
a. Findings:
No public comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
Adequate public noticing was conducted for Periodic Review of the Shoreline Master Program
in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures.
3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments
a. Findings:
No agency comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
Comments have been addressed and no concerns noted.
B. CONCLUSION
The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and
state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations under state law to
review and revise the SMP.
For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed amendments to the SMP are found to be consistent
the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F).
Page 3 of 3
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update
Spokane
jUalley
Planning Commission Public Hearing I March 11, 2021
What is a Shoreline Master Program (SMP)?
• An SMP is a set of policies and regulations required by state law
that has three basic principles:
o Protect the environmental resources of state shorelines
o Promote public access and enjoyment opportunities
o Give priority to uses that require a shoreline ...Iocation
• The City comprehensively updated its
SMP in 2015
It
• The SMP is codified in Spokane Valley;
Municipal Code (SVMC) 21.50
Where does an SMP
apply?
m Ihwood
Applies to "Shorelines of the State," which are
waterbodies that meet certain criteria/size
Landward of the OHWM — 200' and waterward to
the center of the waterbody
As relevant to Spokane Valley, this includes:
o Watercourses greater than 20 cubic feet per
second, mean annual flow — Spokane River
o Lake 20 Acres or greater — Shelley Lake
o Also includes associated wetlands
Spokane River
Ordi
na
Shore
Buffe
r
ry High Water Line imummuni Centennial Trail
ne Jurisdiction City of Spokane Valley
Shelley Lake
What is an SMP periodic update?
• The state requires all SMPs to be reviewed every eight years
• Periodic review is intended to keep SMPs current with:
o Amendments to state law (WAC, RCW)
o Changes in local plans and regulations
o New or improved data and information
o Must be adopted by June 30, 2021
Photo credit: MAKERS architecture & urban design LLC
Gap Analysis Report Purpose
o Consistency with:
1. State legislative amendments
2. Critical areas regulations
3. Comprehensive Plan & municipal code (development regulations)
4. Additional issues) to consider
Proposed amendments — State
Legislative Amendments
• Definitions
o Updating definitions to be consistent y} ``
with those in state law
o Development and Nonconforming lot,
as examples
• Exemptions
o Updating development, pier cost
thresholds, ADA allowances, per
state law
Proposed amendments — State
Legislative Amendments
• Exceptions to SMP
• Rare instances where no local review is
required
• Ensure consistency with Ecology permit
filing procedures
• Add shoreline restoration - setback relief
criteria for associated development
Photo credit: Meenach, Dean. Shelley Lake. Google Earth. Accessed 2020.
Proposed Amendments, SMP Critical Areas
• Incorporate required City-wide Critical Areas Ordinance Updates
• Update wetland buffers within
shoreline jurisdiction.
Proposed Amendments, Critical Areas
Updates to Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas from City-wide CAO
Add Habitat Conservation Area
standards for habitat
management plan requirements.
• Include Ri•arian Mana!ement
.11,,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Proposed Amendments, Development Regulations
• Ensure Accessory Dwelling Units are permitted like single family residences
Replacing Planning Director references with City Manager
A, DerochedADU I Courtesy of accessorydwell nrfs r,rq
SMP Periodic Update - Adoption Timeline
• Post SMP revisions\SEPA Determination on City website —February 9, 2021
• Joint Ecology\City public comment period —February 12 — March 12, 2012
• PC Study Session —February 25, 2021
• Joint Ecology\City public hearing — March 11, 2021
• Submittal to Ecology for Initial Determination — March 2021
• Initial Determination response from Ecology — April 2021
• Planning Commission Adoption of Findings — May 2021
• City Council 15t & 2nd reading June 2021
• Local adoption of the SMP —June 2021
Questions?
Project website: https://www.spokanevalley.org/SMP
Staff contact: Chaz Bates, AICP, Senior Planner
(509) 720-5337, cbates@spokanevalley.org
Sp'okanc
jU•alley
I1IL
WATERSHED
Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
March 11, 2021
I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The
meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting.
II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
Fred Beaulac
Karl Granrath
Walt Haneke
Bob McKinley
Nancy Miller
Paul Rieckers
Sherri Robinson
Erik Lamb, City Attorney
Jenny Nickerson, Building Official
Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant
Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant
III. AGENDA: Commissioner Rieckers moved to approve the March 11, 2021 meeting agenda
as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero
against and the motion passed.
IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the February 25, 2021 minutes as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission Reports.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson commented that City
staff presented the "Accomplishments Report" for 2020 to the City Council. She stated that
the report showed a good year for the City. Senior Planner Chaz Bates showed the
Comprehensive Plan area of Spokane Valley on the City website.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Public Hearing: Shoreline Master Program — Legislative Update.
The public hearing was opened at 6:13 p.m. Senior Planner Chaz Bates introduced Alex
Capron with The Watershed Company, who was hired by the City to assist with the periodic
update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Mr. Bates explained that Washington state
law requires that the SMP be reviewed and updated every eight years so that it remains
consistent with local and state laws. The original SMP was adopted comprehensively in
1
03-11-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
2015 through an in-depth process. Due to that process, the current update includes just the
items that are required by state law. The changes will have very little impact on development
within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Mr. Bates also mentioned that the section regarding gravel pits is not be being amended.
Gravel pits are not regulated by the SMP. However, once those areas go through the
reclamation process, they will become a part of the SMP. None of the City's gravel pits are
currently in the reclamation process.
Mr. Capron gave a presentation explaining the proposed changes to the SMP. He explained
that an SMP is a set of policies and regulations required by state law to protect the
environmental resources of state shorelines, promote public access and enjoyment
opportunities, and give priority to uses that require a shoreline location. The SMP applies to
"Shorelines of the State", which are waterbodies that meet certain criteria and size. In
Spokane Valley, this includes the Spokane River, Shelley Lake, and associated wetlands.
Mr. Capron explained that the state Department of Ecology requires all SMP's to be
reviewed every eight years. This periodic review is intended to keep SMP's current with
amendments to state law, changes in local plans and regulations, and new or improved data
and information. The updated SMP must be adopted by June 30, 2021.
Mr. Capron stated that during the review process they looked at the 27 legislative
amendments, critical areas regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code.
The proposed state legislative amendments include updating definitions, exemptions, and
exceptions to be consistent with those in state law. The proposed amendments to the SMP
critical areas will incorporate required City-wide critical areas ordinance updates. These will
update wetland buffers within shoreline jurisdiction. It will also provide updates to the Fish
and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas by adding standards for habitat management plan
requirements and will include riparian management zone buffers. Previously, the SMP did
not have regulations set up for streams that weren't shoreline. This amendment will establish
those stream regulations. The City received public comment from the Department of Fish
and Wildlife stating that they have published an updated Priority Habitats & Species
document regarding riparian ecosystem. They request that the City work with them during
any future updates to possibly include their recommendations.
Mr. Capron explained that there is an additional "suggested" SMP amendment that the City
has decided to add to their regulations that ensures the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are
permitted like single-family residences. This means that any ADU requests will have to
apply for a shoreline exemption, just like a regular single-family home.
Mr. Bates outlined the adoption timeline. The Planning Commission will make a
recommendation on this matter at the March 25, 2021 meeting (after the public comment
period which closes on March 12, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.). After the recommendation, the
proposed amendment will be submitted to Ecology for initial determination. The initial
determination response from Ecology should be received in April 2021. The Planning
Commission will conduct the adoption of findings in May 2021. The City Council first and
second reading will occur in June 2021 and local adoption of the SMP will occur in by June
30, 2021.
Commissioner Haneke asked why ADU's are exempt from getting a permit. Mr. Bates
answered that ADU's still have to meet all of the requirements and regulations of the SMP.
The proposed amendment will just streamline the process.
2
03-11-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3
Commissioner Haneke asked when the Planning Commission will receive the Ecology
Report for review. He asked if it would be possible for the Commission to receive the report
earlier than a week before the meeting to give additional time to review the documents.
Deputy Attorney Lamb answered that staff will try to get those out as soon as possible but
does want to make sure that staff has a chance to review and make their comments before
sending it out.
No requests to give public comment was received so the public hearing was closed at 6:54
p.m. However, written public comments can be received through March 12, 2021 at 5:00
p.m.
b. Study Session: CTA-2020-0004: Title 24 Update
Building Official Jenny Nickerson gave a presentation regarding the proposed update to Title
24 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The reason for the request is Title 24
adopts the Washington State Building Codes and the 2018 editions of all building codes
replaced the 2015 editions as of February 1, 2021 in the state of Washington. The
amendment will align the language of Title 24 SVMC with the state adoption of the codes.
She explained that the proposed changes are predominantly housekeeping. The public
hearing for this matter will be held on March 25, 2021.
IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Granrath moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the
motion passed.
Bob McKinley, Chair
Deanna Horton, Secretary
7,7,0/
Date signed
3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: March 25, 2021
Item: Check all that apply n old business Fl new business ❑ public hearing
n information n study session ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study session on February 25, 2021; public hearing March 11, 2021.
BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's official document to guide development along the
Spokane River and Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in
the Comprehensive Plan and regulations related to shoreline development that can be found in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
The City is undertaking a periodic review of its SMP, as required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
(SMA), RCW 90.58.080. The SMA requires that the SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, by June 30, 2021. The review
ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other City plans and regulations, and
is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data.
In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. Because the SMP was
recently adopted in 2015 after an extensive multi -year public process, the scope of the 2021 periodic review is limited to
changes required to stay current with local and state laws and rules. A summary of the changes to state laws and rules and
their impacts to the City's SMP regulations can be found in the Gap Analysis completed as part of the 2021 periodic review.
Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. A majority of the changes are minor and
include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified
relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations will need to be updated to be
consistent with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations. These regulations reside in Title 21 SVMC
(Environmental Controls) and Chapter 21.40 SVMC (Critical Areas). The critical area regulations were updated in 2016
through the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act.
On February 25, 2021, staff and the City's consultant provided an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a
summary of the adoption process. On March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the purpose
of taking public testimony on the proposed amendments.
The City has opted to combine the required local and state public comment periods for the draft SMP amendments. The
purpose is to allow a consistent and early public review of the proposed amendments and to streamline the adoption process.
The joint process was open for public comment through Friday, March 12, 2021. After the public hearing on March 11, the
public hearing was closed, except to allow written comments to be submitted by close of business on Friday, March 12.
Tonight, the Planning Commission will conduct deliberations on the proposed amendments to forward to Ecology. Once
Ecology provides an initial review, the Planning Commission will review Ecology's and staffs response and vote on a final
recommendation and findings to forward to City Council, which scheduled for May 13, 2021.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to recommend and forward the proposed SMP amendments to
Ecology as presented for their initial review and determination.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report
2. Presentation (from March 11, 2021)
RPCA Public Hearing for 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 1
Spokane
Valley
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
STAFF REPORT DATE: March 17, 2021
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: The public hearing was held on March 11, 2021, beginning at 6:00
p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley,
Washington 99206.
Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the covid-19 outbreak, and pursuant to Governor
Inslee's Stay Home, Stay Healthy Proclamation (No. 20-25) and Proclamation 20-28 (and associated
extensions), the hearing was be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools. A link to
the Zoom meeting will be provided on the Planning Commission's agenda and posted to the City's
webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planningcommission.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Statutorily required update the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to maintain
consistency with changes in state and local laws and plans. The necessary changes are generally minor and
include items such as exemptions, definitions, administrative procedures, and SMP critical areas
regulations.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria for review and approval for code text amendments.
STAFF CONTACT: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT: Exhibit 1: Public and Agency Comments
APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table
summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal.
Process
Date
Department of Commerce 60-day Notice
February 12, 2021
SEPA — DNS Issued
February 12, 2021
Publish Notice of Public Hearing:
February 12 and 19, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's required program to govern development along waters
of the state. In the City, the waters of the state include the Spokane River and Shelly Lake. The SMP is
required pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (ch. 90.58 RCW) and provides additional protections
for development within shoreline buffers to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The SMP works in
conjunction with and in addition to other applicable development regulations. The SMP consists of a
number of components, including SMP Goals and Policies, Shoreline Environment Designations,
Shoreline Inventory, Shoreline Public Access, Shoreline Restoration Plan, Cumulative Impacts Analysis,
Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update
No Net Loss Report, Public Involvement Plan, and Shoreline Regulations. The SMP was initially
adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-020 and is located on the City's website at
http://laserfiche.spokanevalley.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=69831 &dbid=0&repo=SpokaneValley, and
was again adopted by reference in the Comprehensive Plan in 2016. The Shoreline Regulations are
located in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
The SMP adopted in 2015 was the result of a multi -year extensive public process that incorporated the SMP
rules made by the state in 2003. As part of the statewide shoreline rules, the City is required to review and
revise the SMP to incorporate changes to local and state laws, rules and plans by June 30, 2021.
In order to assist the City in identifying needed changes to SMPs, the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) has provided a Periodic Review Checklist summarizing amendments made to state laws
and rules. The checklist is included as an attachment to this staff report and provides an easy resource to
review and track the proposed amendments to the City's SMP. The amendments have been cross-referenced
with the row of the checklist.
The proposed amendments to Chapter 21.50 SVMC are the minimum necessary to maintain consistency
with changes to local and state laws, rules, and plans.
ANALYSIS:
The current SMP adopted in 2015 was a multi -year process developed and adopted with extensive citizen
input. The 2015 SMP was comprehensive in scope incorporating the best available science. Since the SMP
was updated just five years ago, the current 2021 review found that the SMP is generally consistent with
currently applicable local and state laws and rules. The majority of changes are minor in nature and include
items like adding exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures to be consistent with changes to
state shoreline laws and rules. Another change is replacing the reference of Community Development
Director with City Manager or designee to be consistent with amendments made by the city in 2016.
A noteworthy required change was identified relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline
jurisdiction. The general critical area regulations were updated in 2016 through the periodic update of the
Comprehensive Plan as required by the Growth Management Act and they are currently found in chapter
21.40 SVMC. Staff are proposing to update the shoreline critical areas regulations to remain consistent with
the generally applicable critical areas regulations
Another noted change is to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be permitted in the same way as a
single-family dwelling. Under the existing SMP, ADUs are required to obtain a Substantial Development
Permit, which could present a barrier to provide this more affordable housing type. The 2017
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element encourages additional affordable housing options such as ADUs,
and by allowing ADUs in a similar way as single-family homes the proposed change removes the potential
barrier ADUs.
Overall, staff have determined that the proposed amendments to chapter 21.50 SVMC meet the requirement
of the of the SMA to review and revise the City's SMP to maintain consistency with state laws, changes to
local plans and regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information.
A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria
The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment if it finds that:
Page 2 of 5
Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update
i. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Pan
and is consistent with the following policy and goal:
H-P2
NR-G3
Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing
innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units,
pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing, and other housing
types.
Ensure that Critical Areas and Shoreline Master Program regulations are
based on best available science and are consistent with required
environmental policy.
ii. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare,
and protection of the environment:
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health,
safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the
SMP were identified after a review of changes to local and state laws and ensure that
the SMP is consistent with all applicable laws and rules. The proposed amendments
implement changes to local and state laws and rules including best available science
for wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The proposed
amendments maintain the vision and goals adopted in the SMP and Comprehensive
Plan.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC
17.80.150(F).
2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments
a. Findings:
The City received one public comment during the comment period. The commenter was
seeking whether affordable housing and apartments will be allowed along the shoreline and
what will happen if sewer is not present at the time of development. The commenter also
wanted to ensure that the aquifer and river be protected.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed amendments do not recommend any changes to the allowable shoreline uses, nor
do the amendments change any of the shoreline environmental designations. The existing
regulations allow for a variety of residential uses including multiple family housing. Spokane
Regional Health District requires that all new development connect to the public sewer system.
The intent of the SMP is to afford protect shorelines of the state while allowing reasonable use
of shoreline areas.
Adequate public noticing was conducted for Periodic Review of the Shoreline Master Program
in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures.
3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments
a. Findings:
Page 3 of 5
Staff Report and Recommendation 2021 Periodic SMP Update
The City received one comment from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The comment can be summarized as informing the City of updated science as it relates to
Priority Habitat and Species on riparian ecosystems. The City is not required to incorporate the
updated guidance during this 2021 periodic review.
b. Conclusion(s):
The City will weigh incorporation of the updated science during the next SMP Periodic Review
in 2029. Comments have been addressed and no concerns noted.
B. CONCLUSION
The proposed updates to the SMP are necessary to maintain consistency with changes to local and
state laws and rules. The proposed text amendments fulfill the City's obligations under state law to
review and revise the SMP.
For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed amendments to the SMP are found to be consistent
the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F).
Page 4 of 5
Exhibit 1: Public and Agency Comments
Chaz Bates
From: Connor Lange
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Mike Basinger; Chaz Bates
Cc: Jenny Nickerson
Subject: FW: Shoreline
Comments on the Shoreline.
Thanks
From: CenturyLink Customer <jandbhoward@q.com>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 12:13 PM
To: Planning <planning@spokanevalley.org>
Subject: Shoreline
I would like to know if section 8 housing apartments will be allowed along the Shoreline...or
affordable housing..and if the sewer is not there what will happen.. And how will the Aquifer and the
River be PROTECTED...
Thank You Barb Howard
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
i
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Eastern Region • Region 1 • 2315 North Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, WA 99216-1566
Telephone: (509) 892-1001 • Fax: (509) 921-2440
March 9, 2021
City of Spokane Valley, Economic Development Division
Attn: Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
10210 E. Sprague Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE: Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Amendment
Dear Mr. Bates,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Periodic Review of the City of Spokane Valley's Shoreline
Master Program (SMP). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provides our comments and
recommendations in keeping with our legislative mandate to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish and wildlife and
their habitats for the benefit of future generations - a mission we can only accomplish in partnership with local
governments.
We understand the City has elected to use the optional joint review process with the Department of Ecology and
there will be no additional comment period during the state review process. WDFW would like to take this
opportunity to inform the City that we recently finalized our updated Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
publications on riparian ecosystems. In May 2018, we published the manuscript for PHS Riparian Ecosystems, Vol.
1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications which meets the criteria of being an independently peer
reviewed source of Best Available Science on what riparian ecosystems need in order to be fully functioning habitat
for fish and other aquatic species. In December 2020, we finalized the companion PHS Riparian Ecosystems, Vol.2:
Management Recommendations in which we recommend to local governments and other landowners and land
managers how to apply the science summarized in Volume 1.
The PHS Riparian Ecosystems publications state that rather than simply serving as "buffers" for their adjacent
waterbody, riparian areas are important as ecosystems in and of themselves, warranting levels of protection and
management not based solely on a waterbody's typing according to fish use. While shoreline riparian areas do
function as aquatic buffers by protecting and improving water quality, they also provide terrestrial habitat used by
wildlife for movement, nesting, reproduction, foraging and refugia.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that future updates of the SMP include the review of Site Potential
Tree Height at 200-years (SPTH200) and the Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) as the method in which to determine
the width of the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ). In locations where SPTHzoo information is not available, or is
less than 100 feet, as indicated by this web map, the science informs us that a minimum 100- foot setback is still
appropriate in most instances to ensure the RMZ can adequately provide its pollution removal function. (Certain
site characteristics, including soil type and adjacent land uses, may require an even larger distance to ensure
pollution removal.)
WDFW provides its recommendations through the lens of our agency's mandate. We appreciate that local
governments must weigh many considerations when making decisions about land use plans and activities, and that
tradeoffs sometimes must be made. To that end, WDFW supports site -specific mitigation and decision making
within the context of watershed and other landscape scales as appropriate. We recommend flexibility in mitigation
requirements so that wildlife and human needs are accommodated; in locations where the level of riparian
protection WDFW recommends cannot be observed, such as with setback distances, mitigation which preserves the
functions and values of the RMZ should be developed and applied. WDFW is available and eager to assist the City
of Spokane Valley in these situations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this update process. WDFW understands that our new PHS
Riparian Ecosystem volumes reflect some significant changes to the approach our state has taken to riparian
ecosystem protection for decades, and that local jurisdictions may have additional questions about how best to
implement the new guidance. Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss these guidelines and future
implementation.
Sincerely,
Leslie King
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Le slie.King@a,dfw.wa.gov
509-892-1001 ext. 323
cc:
Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
March 25, 2021
I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The
meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting.
II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
Fred Beaulac
Karl Granrath
Walt Haneke
Bob McKinley
Nancy Miller
Paul Rieckers
Sherri Robinson
Erik Lamb, City Attorney
Jenny Nickerson, Building Official
Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager
Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant
Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant
III. AGENDA: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the March 25, 2021 meeting agenda
as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero
against and the motion passed.
IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Rieckers moved to approve the March 11, 2021 minutes as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Commission Reports.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Deliberations: Shoreline Master Program — Legislative Update.
Senior Planner Chaz Bates requested that the Planning Commission make a motion to
recommend approval to the City Council of the Shoreline Master Program. He explained
that the Department of Ecology did not start their public comment period as planned so
the City is going to move forward with their standard approval process. It will be
submitted to the Department of Ecology after adoption and they will run their own
comment period. The City received two written public comments on this matter. One
was received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and one from a private resident.
Mr. Bates stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to maintain consistency
with state and local policies.
1
03-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
Commissioner Rieckers asked if the comments received from the private resident have
been addressed. Mr. Bates answered that it is not typical to make a formal response to
received comments. They are just included in the documentation for consideration by the
Planning Commission when making their decision.
Commissioner Haneke asked if there would be a way to exclude Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU) from the shoreline in the future. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb
answered that a code text amendment could be done to exclude ADU's but it would have
to go through the formal process. Commissioner Haneke stated that he is not in favor of
ADU's along the shoreline and is concerned about making the process easier.
Commissioner Robinson moved to recommend that the City Council approve the 2021
Shoreline Master Program update. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was
seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
b. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0004: Title 24 Update
The public hearing was opened at 6:22 pm. Building Official Jenny Nickerson gave a
presentation regarding the proposed update to Title 24 of the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC). The reason for the request is Title 24 adopts the Washington State
Building Codes and the 2018 editions of all building codes replaced the 2015 editions as
of February 1, 2021 in the state of Washington. The amendment will align the language
of Title 24 SVMC with the state adoption of the codes. She explained that the proposed
changes are predominantly housekeeping. The current SVMC has some outdated
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) references that need to be corrected and the
language regarding land disturbance needs to be aligned to provide permit processing
consistency. These changes include new language that outlines that a land disturbance
permit may be required when more than 50 cubic yards of fill is removed or four feet of
unsupported excavation occurs.
Joel White, Executive Officer with the Spokane Home Builders Association (SHBA)
stated that the adoption of the 2018 building codes has added a projected $20,000 to the
cost to build a typical single-family home and there is a big concern of the SHBA
regarding all of the new changes based on this adoption. He explained that he is working
with other members to find out how much these proposed changes will affect builders in
the area.
The public hearing was closed at 6:50 p.m.
Commissioner Haneke stated that he would like to know from Mr. White if the SHBA is
still reviewing the repercussions of this adoption.
The public hearing was reopened at 6:52 p.m. to receive additional comment from Mr.
White.
Mr. White responded that there are a few members of the SHBA looking into this matter.
He doesn't feel that these changes are a huge issue but the SHBA is definitely concerned
about the additional single-family home costs and these additional land disturbance
permits could add even more cost.
Commissioner Beaulac and Commissioner Haneke stated they would like to continue the
public hearing to the next meeting to get additional information from the SHBA members
2
03-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
before making a recommendation. The remaining members expressed that they are ready
to move forward with a recommendation
The public hearing was closed again at 7:07 p.m.
Commissioner Miller moved to recommend approval of CTA-2020-0004 to the City
Council. Commissioner Granrath stated that there are some major housing issues that
need to be addressed but this matter is mostly housekeeping and can be sent to City
Council with a recommendation to approve. Commissioner McKinley stated that he is
aware of unintended costs attributed to these types of changes but he agrees that it is a
housekeeping item that does need to be passed along. The vote on the motion was five in
favor, two against, with Commissioner Haneke and Commissioner Beaulac dissenting
and the motion passed.
A brief recess was called at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:32.
c. Study Session: Housing Action Plan
Chaz Bates gave a presentation on the Housing Action Plan (HAP). He explained that
Washington legislation passed a bill (E2SHB 1923) in 2019 encouraging increased
residential capacity through adoption of regulatory mechanisms or adoption of a HAP.
The City decided to develop a HAP and was given a $100,000 grant from the Department
of Commerce to hire the consulting firms to develop it. The HAP identifies strategies
and implementing actions to promote housing for all income levels by providing housing
diversity, housing affordability, and increased access to opportunity for housing. The
plan is developed by the gathering of data and public input. However, the strategies and
action are adopted at a later time. The HAP has four basic elements which includes a
housing needs assessment, a housing policy review, proposed strategies and actions, and
a proposed implementation plan.
Mr. Bates explained that the housing needs assessment provides information on existing
housing inventory, the projected housing needs, population trends, and employment
trends. The assessment shows that the City is lacking diversity in housing stock and will
need at least 6,660 new housing units by the year 2037 to handle new growth. However,
45% of these homes will be occupied by residents who make less than the Area Medium
Income (AMI). This means that there is a growing need for affordable housing and the
HAP is geared towards making sure that there are options for all residents.
Mr. Bates stated that the housing policy review looks to see if the proposed strategies
align with identified needs, align with community vision and engagement, identifies
regulatory barriers, and evaluates available programs. The policy review identified that
there is a need for housing for incomes below the AMI and housing that offer more
affordable ownership options.
Mr. Bates said that the housing strategies and actions outlined in the plan are based on
five criteria. This includes zoning and other regulatory strategies, process improvements,
affordable housing incentives, funding for affordable housing, and mitigating
displacement. The three strategic goals outlined are to preserve affordable housing and
mitigate displacement, increase both market -rate and affordable housing supply by
creating focus zones that allow multifamily and missing -middle housing, and increase
housing options and housing choice. Missing -middle housing includes duplexes, cottages
3
03-25-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4
and townhomes because they provide a spectrum of affordability options. The
implementation plan identifies steps to achieve strategies and a monitoring program.
Commissioner Beaulac asked how the HAP will remain relevant and up-to-date as things
change over time. Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger answered that staff
has policies and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and one of the goals could be
that the HAP is reviewed annually to make sure that it remains consistent with trends.
Also, the long-term strategies included in the HAP will be used to create code text
amendments in the future to implement areas of the plan.
This item will return to the Planning Commission for public hearing on April 8, 2021.
IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Robinson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m.
There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the
motion passed.
Bob McKinley, Chair
Deanna Horton, Secretary
Date signed r/--/
4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: May 13, 2021
Item: Check all that apply n old business Fl new business ❑ public hearing
n information n study session ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58, Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) 173-26-090, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: Study session on February 25, 2021; public hearing March 11, 2021.
BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is the City's official document to guide development along the
Spokane River and Shelly Lake. Finalized in 2015, the SMP includes goals and polices which are adopted by reference in
the Comprehensive Plan and regulations related to shoreline development that can be found in Chapter 21.50 of the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC).
The City is undertaking a periodic review of its SMP, as required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
(SMA), RCW 90.58.080. The SMA requires that the SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, by June 30, 2021. The review
ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules.
In 2020, the City hired the consultant firm The Watershed Company to conduct the periodic review. Because the SMP was
recently adopted in 2015 after an extensive multi -year public process, the scope of the 2021 periodic review is limited to
changes required to stay current with laws and rules. A summary of the changes to laws and rules and their impacts to the
City's SMP regulations can be found in the Gap Analysis completed as part of the 2021 periodic review.
Overall, the SMP was found to be consistent with changes in local and state laws. A majority of the changes are minor and
include items such as exemptions, definitions, and administrative procedures. A noteworthy required change was identified
relating to the critical area regulations within shoreline jurisdiction. These regulations need to be updated to be consistent
with state law and the City's adopted critical area regulations.
On February 12, 2021, the City issued a notice of the public hearing stating that the City was accepting public comments
for 30-days. The City also published all the draft documents on the SMP project webpage and notified the public of their
availability.
On February 25, 2021, an overview of the proposed SMP amendments and a summary of the adoption process was provided
to the Planning Commission. On March 11, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the purpose of
taking public testimony on the proposed amendments.
After the public hearing on March 11, the public hearing was closed, except to allow written comments to be submitted by
close of business on Friday, March 12.
On March 25, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed all public comments and deliberated on the proposed SMP
amendments. After deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the City Council that the draft
SMP amendments be adopted as presented. Tonight, the Planning Commission will formalize their recommendation by
forwarding the attached findings to the City Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to forward the findings and recommendations to the City Council for
the 2021 Shoreline Master Program update.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings and Recommendations for the 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update
2. Final Draft Gap Analysis
3. Final Draft Amendments Chapter 21.50
RPCA Findings and Recommendations for 2021 Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 of 1
Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall
May 13, 2021
I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The
meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting.
II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
Fred Beaulac
Karl Granrath
Walt Haneke
Bob McKinley
Nancy Miller
Paul Rieckers
Sherri Robinson
Erik Lamb, City Attorney
Jenny Nickerson, Building Official
Chaz Bates, Senior Planner
Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant
III. AGENDA: Commissioner Robinson moved to approve the May 13, 2021 meeting agenda as
presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against
and the motion passed.
IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Beaulac stated that the first sentence needed to be changed in the
minutes to reflect that "Vice -Chair Robinson called the meeting to order." Commissioner
Miller moved to approve the April 22, 2021 minutes as amended. There was no discussion.
The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Planning Commission reports.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson stated that she will
present some information regarding condominium weatherization regulations at a future
Planning Commission meeting.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a. Findings Of Fact: Shoreline Master Plan
Senior Planner Chaz Bates presented the Findings of Fact for the Shoreline Master Plan
(SMP) for approval. He stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the proposed SMP at the March 11, 2021 meeting and a formal recommendation of
approval was done at the March 25th meeting. He explained that the approval of the
1
05-13-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2
Findings of Fact will formalize the recommendations that will be made to the City
Council.
Commissioner Robinson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings of Fact
for the Shoreline Master Program update as presented. There was no discussion. The
vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac asked if future Planning Commission
meetings will be held in the Council Chambers. Building Official Nickerson answered that
staff will make a decision regarding public meetings once further direction is received from
Governor Inslee.
X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haneke moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:19 p.m.
There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the
motion passed.
Bob McKinley, Chair Date signed
Marianne Lemons, Secretary
2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Bid Award — Mullan Road Preservation - Broadway
Ave to Mission Ave
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
• May 21, 2019: Administrative Report on the 2020-2021 Six Year Transportation
Improvement Plan, which included this project.
• June 4, 2019: Council passed Resolution 19-008, adopting the 2020-2021 Six Year
Transportation Improvement Plan, which included this project.
• May 5, 2020: Administrative Report on the 2021-2026 Six Year Transportation
Improvement Plan, which included this project.
• May 26, 2020: Council passed Resolution 20-009, adopting the 2021-2026 Six Year
Transportation Improvement Plan, which included this project.
• March 16, 2021: Administrative Report providing an update on 2021 construction projects,
which included this project.
BACKGROUND:
The road preservation project grinds and overlays Mullan Road from Broadway Ave to Mission
Ave. The project includes installation of ADA curb ramps, pavement repairs, channelization,
intelligent transportation system (ITS) conduit, and signal upgrades at the Mission intersection.
The current estimated project budget and cost are shown below:
Project Costs Project Budget
Preliminary Engineering $ 75,500 City Fund 301 $ 797,101
Construction $ 2,006,000 City Fund 311 $ 1,283,899
Total Estimated Costs $ 2,081,000 Total Budget $ 2,081,000
The project was designed in house and advertised on May 21, 2021. Bids will be opened on June
4th, 2021, and as such, inclusion of the Bid Tabulation and recommendation for award is not
available at time of Council Agenda publication. This information and a formal recommendation
will be made at the Council Meeting, the timing of which is necessary to assure timely project
completion.
OPTIONS: Move to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or take other
appropriate action
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Mullan Road Preservation Project
CIP #292 to in the amount of and authorize the
City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget impacts will be discussed with Council at the meeting.
STAFF CONTACT: William Helbig, PE, City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: The Bid Tabulation and award recommendation will be provided at the meeting.
Meeting Date: June 8, 2021
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Department Director Approval: ❑
Check all that apply: ❑ consent n old business ® new business n public hearing
❑ information n admin. report n pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Confirmation of Mayoral Appointments
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Various ordinances, resolutions, state statutes, committee bylaws
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Annually and at other times during the year, the Mayor
makes appointment recommendations to place Councilmembers and citizens on various regional boards
and committees.
HCDAC (Housing & Community Development Advisory Committee). Pending final amendment of
the bylaws, we will be able to appoint an additional representative bringing our total number of
representatives to four, (per attached April 7, 2021 letter from HCDAC Director Kathleen Tortella)
whether Councilmembers or citizens. Terms are for not greater than three years and all
appointments are subject to final approval by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners.
Councilmember Woodard's term expired February 20, 2021. On February 16, 2021, Mayor Wick's
recommendation to appoint Councilmember Woodard for a term ending June 1, 2021, and
Councilmember Thompson for a term ending December 31, 2021, were approved by our Council but
due to a misinterpretation of the HCDAC bylaws, they were not approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. In February of this year we advertised the vacancy of one citizen opening for this
committee, with a deadline to receive applications of February 22, 2021. We received applications from
four citizens, who were interviewed by Mayor Wick June 1, 2021. Our current representation on this
committee includes one citizen, Mr. Tom Hormel, whose term ends October 4, 2022. Since the Board
of County Commissioners did not approve the appointments of Councilmembers Woodard and
Thompson, the openings remain for two representatives, plus the additional representative pending
approval of the bylaws amendment.
SHA (Spokane Housing Authority). Terms for these positions are for five years. Spokane Valley is
allocated two individuals who must work or reside within the city limits of Spokane Valley. One of our
current committee members recently resigned due to conflicts with her work schedule. Consequently
we have one opening for a term to complete the unexpired term ending 12-31-2024. We advertised for
this opening in the newspapers and on our website. Two individuals applied, however, only one met
the residency requirement.
SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council). Terms are for three years subject to re -appointment.
Based on the recent amended and approved Interlocal Agreement, we now have two voting seats on
this committee, both of whom must be elected officials.] Currently Mayor Wick is our only delegate.
OPTIONS: Confirm the Mayoral appointments as listed below, or take other action as appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: [These are three separate motions]
(1) I move to confirm the Mayoral appointments to the HCDAC, with terms of three years effective upon
appointment, of Amanda Tainio and Arielle Anderson; and to further confirm the Mayoral appointment to
the HCDAC of Arne Woodard for a term effective upon appointment and ending December 31, 2021.
(2) I move to confirm the Mayoral appointment of Jenny McClenathen to the SHA, for a term of five years
effective upon appointment.
(3) I move to confirm the Mayoral appointment of Linda Thompson to the SRTC, effective upon
appointment, for the remainder of 2021.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a
STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Chris Bainbridge, Mayor Wick
ATTACHMENTS: April 7, 2021 Letter from HCDAC Director Kathleen Tortella
Spokane County
COMMUNITY SERVICES, HOUSING, AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Kathleen Torella, Director
April 7, 2021
Honorable Ben Wick
City of Spokane Valley
10210 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE: Spokane County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee Appointment
Dear Mayor Wick:
This letter is to officially inform you that the City of Spokane Valley is eligible to appoint an
additional Mayoral appointment to the Spokane County Housing and Community Development
Advisory Committee (HCDAC), bringing the total to four (4) representatives.
The determination was made using 2020 American Community Survey Population of 101, 060,
for the City of Spokane Valley, in formulating Spokane County's Community Development Block
Grant Entitlement, from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
We will amend our by-laws to indicate the change to the City of Spokane Valley's additional
representative, in accordance with Section VIIIC, and in addition to specifying the term for
Mayoral appointments. We will notify you when our by-laws have been amended by the Board
of County Commissioners so that you may appoint the City of Spokane Valley's fourth member
representative. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Torella
Director
TC/tph
cc: Mark Calhoun
Chris Bainbridge
Tami Hennessy
Morgan Koudelka
www.spokanecounty.org/CSHCD
1116 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260
509.477.5722 T 1800.273.5864 1800.833.6384 Relay 1509.477.6827 F
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Boys and Girls Club
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: n/a
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: n/a
BACKGROUND: Mr. Dick Hanlin, Executive Director of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Spokane
County, will give a brief presentation discussing the organization and its mission.
OPTIONS: Discussion only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun
ATTACHMENTS:
BOYS GIRLS CLUBS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY
Our Mission
To empower all young people, especially those who need us most, to
reach their full potential through opportunities to realize Academic
Success, Healthy lifestyles and Good Character and Citizenship.
Dick Hanlin
Executive Director
2010 -Present
Our Reach ----------------.
•
1946
Youth Served
will III
illui
99 Registered
Members
Member Demographics
Volunteers
Boys & Girls Club Sites
in Spokane County
953 Youth S
Communityerved OutreachThrough
82% 18% 35% 65% 46%
Ages 12
and Younger
Teens
Minority Races
or Ethnicities
Qualify for Free
or Reduced -Price
School Lunch
Live in
Single -Parent
Households
BY THE NUMBERS
FUN CLUB FACTS FROM 2020
114
members aged 13-18 participated
in dedicated teen programs
including leadership training and
college and career exploration activities.
The CARE Project, a program to support kids
through their virtual learning, included hids
grades 1-11, represented 34 schools and 6
school districts. We had a lot of learning
going on around the Clubs!
1,700
families were supported through
wellness checks by Club Staff
during the COVID-19 shutdown.
175
families were served during
Worhing Family Care 2020.
41,900
number of breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and nutritious snachs prepared andjserved at the Clubs in 2020.
Cmost hours spent at the Club by a single youth member in 2020,
1,315
249 + 3,000
The Clubs were open For 249 days and 3,000 hours in 2020! That's a 20% increase!
With schools closed ror most of the year, we made ourselves available in any way
possible to ensure the safety ofour communitys youth.
Did you know?
The Spokane County Clubs have the lowest membership dues and program Fee
structure amongst all the Boys 0Cir1s Club organizations in Washington State.
SINCE 2001
Over 36,000 kids and teens have been card-carrying
Club members, an average of over 1,500 each year!
A GREAT FUTURE FOR A GREAT COMMUNITY'S YOUTH
Introducing: The Boys 84 Girls Club at Keystone
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Since 2001, Boys & Girls Clubs have been the answer for over 35,000 children and teens in Spokane
neighborhoods with high need for positive places and programs during critical out -of -school times. After
careful evaluation, planning and strides during the recent five years, we are excited to move forward
with big steps to establish a full -service Boys & Girls Club at the CVSD Family Engagement Center in
Spokane Valley. With hopes for the new Club's Blue Doors to open by Fall 2021, our "to do" list is
challenging, but sure to be rewarding for Valley young people in the decades to come. By expanding to
Spokane Valley with our proven scope of services and programs, we continue our mission to impact kids
and teens throughout Spokane County, especially those who most need a Club in their lives.
Keystone as a Boys & Girls Club
With big thanks to Central Valley School District's
shared vision, the former Keystone Elementary School
(612 5 McDonald) is about to become home of the
Valley's Boys & Girls Club. Approximately 25,O00 sq feet
will be dedicated to safe, quality -driven activities and
services, available to 5-18 year -olds throughout the
year, such as:
o Programs & initiatives for supporting academic
success, healthy lifestyles and developing good
character.
o Regular access to technology, mentoring, fine
and performing arts, indoor/outdoor recreation,
daily meals/snacks, teen engagement, field trips
and summer day camp.
Critical Steps Ahead To Open The
Spokane Valley Boys & Girls Club
Throughout the next 12 to 18 months, intensive
strategic steps will:
a Expand Board and staff fundraising capacity to
sustain projected annual direct program
operations J $500,OOO/year;
o Cultivate a community support to significantly
impact annual funding needs and future growth;
o Generate up to $5 million to fully upgrade and
renovate the former Keystone school.
There are many ways you can invest and participate!
Give us a call at 509-489-07411
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Department Director Approval: IZI
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Union Gospel Mission
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: n/a
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: n/a
BACKGROUND: Mr. Phil Altmeyer with the Union Gospel Mission (UGM), will discuss his
experience with the UGM and how that organization serves the homeless. He will also discuss
and explain the differences between a low barrier shelter and what the UGM provides.
OPTIONS: Discussion only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report — Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan
(CROP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
RCW 70A.205.045 — County and city comprehensive solid waste management plans —
Contents.
RCW 70A.205.070 - Technical assistance for plan preparation —Guidelines —Informational
materials and programs.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
Approval of (SWMP) Solid Waste Management Plan (Resolution No. 14-011) on November 4,
2014.
BACKGROUND:
Recycling is the process of turning waste materials into usable or marketable materials and is
key to the responsible handling of solid waste and reduced mining of natural resources.
Contamination in the recyclables reduces their value and marketability and increases the effort
and processing cost. RCW 70A.205.070(4)(b) states that "Contamination means any material
not included on the local jurisdiction's acceptance list." In SWMP Table 4-2 the City has
identified a list of recyclable materials Items not on that list constitute "contamination" for
purposes of recycling and this CROP.
For decades, China was the world's largest importer of raw recyclables for recycling. However,
up to 30% of the material being imported as "recyclable" was actually garbage (contamination)
and sometimes even included hazardous waste. China ultimately determined they would no
longer accept contaminated material and progressively set up very restrictive import criteria that
in 2018 effectively stopped shipments of many recyclables from the United States to China.
This loss of one of the primary recyclable markets created a crisis. In response, in 2019, the
Washington State legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1543 (ESSHB
1543) (now codified as chapter 70A.240 RCW and RCW 70A.205.045). Among the various
amendments, ESSHB 1543 requires most counties and some cities in the state to include a
CROP in their SWMP by July 1, 2021. Spokane Valley is one of those cities.
The required contents of a CROP are specified in RCW 70A.205.045(10) and include:
a) A list of actions for reducing contamination,
b) A list of key contaminants,
c) A discussion of problem contaminants and the contaminants' impact on the collection
system,
d) An analysis of the costs and other impacts associated with contaminants to the
recycling system, and
e) An implementation schedule and details of how outreach is to be conducted.
Though contamination can come from several sources, per the instructions in the state's CROP
the focus of this CROP is addressing contamination that occurs at the generator.
The draft attached plan is intended to meet the requirements of RCW 70A.205.045(10) and will
be an amendment to the Solid Waste Management Plan.
Subsequent to this plan's adoption, the City will embark on the update of its SWMP during
which a further investigation and development of contamination reduction activities will be
explored.
OPTIONS: Discussion Only.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion Only.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Henry Allen, Senior Engineer; Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative
Analyst
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation
Draft - 4.7 Appended — Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan (CROP)
•
Contamination Reduction
and Outreach Plan (CROP)
June 8, 2021
Henry Allen, PE, Sr. Engineer
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Recycle Cycle
Create List of
Acceptable
Recyclables
enerator
(Supplier of
Materials)
List provided to
Generator
Recyclables to Recyclables into
Market container
(Focus of CROP)
Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF),
SMaRT Center
List modified by
limitations:
• People
• Machinery
• Safety
• Separates
• Cleans
• Bales
Initial recyclable possibilities function of:
• Markets
• Citizen initiation (Plastic Pact)
• Mandates (WA E2SSB 5022)
• Price of recycled vs virgin material
• Material cleanliness
Useable material to new items (which may
become the next recyclables)
or
Contaminated Recyclables + Garbage to
Landfill
Start
•
Proposed CROP
Requirements'
RCW 7oA.2o5.o45(io)(
I II
Met b Current Contract Elements
(a) A list of actions for reducing
contamination in recycling
(b) A list of key contaminants
(c) A discussion of problem
contaminants and the
contaminants' impact on the
collection system
(d) An analysis of the costs and
other impacts associated with
contaminants to the recycling
system
(e) An implementation schedule
and details of how outreach is to
be conducted
In each of the four solid waste contracts are effective actions currently being utilized to address
and reduce recycling contamination.
Plastic bags and film, bagged recyclables, plastic cups, Styrofoam, dirty diapers, wires, ...
Impact:
* Customer frustration from container rejections;
* Increase transport cost due to added weight;
* At the SMaRT Center: slows sorting lines, more personnel needed for hand sorting, increases
downtime and safety issues to remove contamination, more material disposed as garbage
adding cost, reduced marketability of products and mills to rejecting whole loads of material.
SMaRT center has implemented additional processing measures to attempt to reduce
contamination increasing processing costs by about $5o per ton.
Impacts: some recyclables are disposed as garbage, more material unnecessarily placed in
landfills, more raw materials needing to be used for manufacturing, recycling collection rates
may increase, reduced marketability of collected recyclables.
* Schedule for 2021 - 2023 includes continuing current contracted steps.
* Also, in 2022 will be an update of the SWMP in which a further development of contamination
reduction activities will be explored.
Next Steps
• If proposed CROP is approved then amend the Solid Waste Management Plan
• At SWMP Update — revisit CROP and explore a further development of
contamination reduction activities
CHAPTER 4
RECYCLING AND ORGANICS COLLECTION
4.7 Appended — CONTAMINATION REDUCTION AND OUTREACH PLAN
(CROP)
The Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan (CROP) is a plan to address and
reduce the contamination found in Spokane Valley's recyclables. The plan presented
below is intended to meet the requirements of RCW 70A.205.045(10). Subsequent to
this CROP's adoption, the City will embark on the update of its Solid Waste
Management Plan (SWMP) during which a further development of contamination
reduction activities will be explored.
Background
Recycling is the act of turning selected items of solid waste into new, useable products.
For decades, China was the world's largest importer of raw recyclables for recycling.
However, up to 30% of the material being imported as "recyclable" was actually
garbage (contamination) and sometimes even included hazardous waste. China
ultimately determined they would no longer accept what they called yang laji (foreign
trash) and progressively set up very restrictive import criteria that in 2018 effectively
stopped shipments of recyclables from the United States to China.
This loss of one of the primary recyclable markets created a crisis. In response, in 2019,
the Washington State legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1543
(ESSHB 1543) (now codified as chapter 70A.240 RCW and RCW 70A.205.045). Among
the various amendments, ESSHB 1543 requires most counties and some cities in the
state to include a CROP in their Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) by July 1, 2021.
Spokane Valley is one of those cities.
The required contents of a CROP are specified in RCW 70A.205.045(10) and are
provided below.
Recycling Definition and Benefits
RCW 70A.205.015(18) provides "Recycling" means transforming or remanufacturing waste
materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill disposal or incineration.
Benefits of recycling include:
• Recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions, conserves energy and landfill space, provides
jobs and valuable feedstock materials to industry, promotes health, and protects the
environment. RCW 70A.240.010(1)(a)
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-1 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
• Washington's environment and economy will benefit from expanding the number of
industries that process recycled materials and use recycled feedstocks in their manufacturing.
RCW 70A.240.010(1)(e).
Recycling Services in Spokane Valley
RCW 70A.205.010 states "It is the intent of the legislature that local governments be
encouraged to use the expertise of private industry and to contract with private industry to the
fullest extent possible to carry out solid waste recovery and/or recycling programs." Consistent
with this, Spokane Valley handles its recycling services through four contracts with
private industry which are:
• One collection contract with Waste Management (WM) which includes collecting
recyclables from single-family residences, Multifamily Complex residences and
commercial establishments. Residential recycling collection is bundled with
resident's garbage collection. The contract term commenced April 1, 2018, and
expires March 31, 2028 with two options for renewal.
• Two drop -box contracts - one with Waste Management and one with Sunshine
Recyclers - which include collecting recyclables from subscribing Multifamily
Complex Customers that utilize Drop -box Container Garbage service. Both contract
terms commenced April 1, 2018, and expire March 31, 2028 with two options for
renewal.
• One disposal contract with Sunshine Recyclers where, at the University Road
transfer station, source -separated recyclables are accepted at no charge from the
public. The contract term commenced June 4, 2014, and expires December 31, 2024
with two options for renewal.
Each contract is for an initial ten-year term during which the Contractor is responsible
for handling all operations and meeting all City, State and Federal requirements.
Subscription to solid waste collection is voluntary in the City. The recycling collection
method in the City is single stream where the recyclables are separated from the rest of
the solid waste at the generator (house, apartment, business, etc.) and are placed in a
single container. Residential collection containers are 96-gallon (default, other sizes
available) carts placed at curbside. Multifamily Complex and commercial containers
are primarily detachable containers (1 to 8 cubic yard capacity) or drop -boxes (10 or
more cubic yard capacity) placed within the property.
Alternatively, source -separated recyclables can be taken to the University Road transfer
station.
The contracts require the contractor to collect and recycle the recyclables but do not
specify where they are to be taken for recycling. Currently, both contractors take the
collected recyclables to Waste Management's 62,000-square-foot Materials Recovery
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-2 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
Facility (MRF) in Spokane, known as the SMaRT Center, where they are sorted, baled
and sent out to the markets.
Recycling Contamination
RCW 70A.205.070(4)(b) states Contamination means any material not included on the local
jurisdiction's acceptance list. The City has identified a list of recyclable materials as part
of the SWMP (see SWMP, Table 4-2). Items not on that list constitute "contamination"
for purposes of recycling and this CROP. Further, listed items may constitute
contamination if they are too wet or dirty for processing, or if they are broken such that
they cannot be separated from other types of recyclables. For example, glass is
currently a listed recyclable, but if it breaks, the glass shards may contaminate other
recyclables such as cardboard and plastic.
Lists of materials that should be in the recycling container can also be found at the
websites of Waste Management (http://www.wmnorthwest.com/spokanevalley/) and
Sunshine Disposal (https://sunshinedisposal.com/).
Some other impacts of contamination include:
• Creates unsafe working conditions.
• Reduces the efficiency and increases the cost and effort of processing recyclables
(which may eventually increase collection costs) as the contamination has to be
picked out of the desired material and disposed. This goes against the State's goal of
Steps should be taken to make recycling at least as affordable and convenient to the ratepayer
as mixed waste disposal (RCW 70A.205.005(11)).
• Good, useable recyclable material could end up not being marketable and also could
get disposed as garbage.
• Contamination that is missed ends up in the material that manufacturers buy, thus
reducing the recyclable's value and marketability.
At the SMaRT center, contamination makes up about 10% by weight of the collected
recyclables. At the University Road transfer station, contamination is less than 2% by
weight.
Though contamination can come from several sources, per the state CROP, the focus of
this CROP is addressing contamination that occurs at the generator. Main causes of
contamination here are:
• Confusion over what should be recycled,
• Desire to not add more to the landfill so if the waste appears to have any value then
it is put into the recycle container,
• Items that the generator feels could have some recycle -value are placed into the
recycle container in hope that someone will figure out how to recycle it, and,
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-3 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
• The rare person who purposely uses the recycle container as a second garbage can to
save cost on their garbage bill.
CROP Contents
A recycling contamination reduction and outreach plan must include the five elements
listed in RCW 70A.205.045(10)(a-e), which are listed below.
The City's fulfillment of the CROP's requested information is found within the scope of
the contracts mentioned above and in the details of the Contractor's daily operations.
Information provided below was obtained from pertinent portions of our contracts and
requesting data and operational information from our contractors.
1) RCW 70A.205.045(10)(a) A list of actions for reducing contamination in recycling
programs for single-family and multiple family residences, commercial locations, and drop
boxes depending on the jurisdictions system components;
Within each of the four solid waste contracts mentioned above are effective actions
currently being employed by the contractors on behalf of the City to address and reduce
recycling contamination. In general, the actions include proactive education and
outreach coupled with looking for and addressing occurrences of contamination when
it is found. Addressing contamination involves alerting the customer either in person or
by not collecting the container and leaving an educational tag on the container so the
contamination can be removed and service resumed. Pertinent contract excerpts
describing current actions are provided below.
Waste Management Single-family, Multifamily, and Commercial Collection Contract:
Specific actions provided in this contract include outreach and education, tagging
instances of contamination and rejecting contaminated containers:
Section 3.1.10 Missed Collections
If Garbage, Recyclables, or Compostables are set -out inappropriately, improperly
prepared, or contaminated with unacceptable materials, the Contractor shall place in a
prominent location a written notification tag that identifies the specific problem(s) and
reason(s) for rejecting the materials for collection.
Section 3.1.12 Requirement to Recycle and Compost; Maintaining Quality Assurance
Through Monitoring
Visually obvious contaminants included with either Source -separated Recyclables or
Compostables shall not be collected, and shall be left in the Customer's Container with a
prominently displayed written notification tag explaining the reason for rejection and
stating that the Customer may either remove the contaminated materials to meet the
standards for Recyclables or Compostables or that if the contaminated materials are not
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-4 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
removed, the Cart shall be collected on the next regular collection cycle as Garbage and
charged to the Customer as an Extra Unit.
Section 3.2.5.3 Specific Collection Requirements - Multifamily Complex
The Contractor and City shall jointly develop a protocol to address Multifamily
Complex recycling contamination issues. The protocol shall address thresholds for
when contamination levels trigger Customer contact, when to put a Customer on "
probation" for possible discontinued collection, when to suspend collection service and
remove the subject Container, and finally, procedures for allow a Customer to resume
service after it has been suspended due to contamination. The Contractor shall
implement the protocol consistently for all Customers and shall notify the City via e-
mail of any Customer being handled under the protocol.
Note - a specific protocol has not yet been developed but the contractor does contact
Multifamily Complex managers when contamination is found and discusses solutions
with them. Waste Management does discuss with the City unusual or difficult
situations encountered and how they were resolved.
Section 3.3.5 Promotion and Education
The Contractor, at its own cost and at the direction and approval of the City, shall have
primary responsibility for developing, designing, executing, and distributing public
promotion, education, and outreach programs. The Contractor shall also provide at its
cost annual service -oriented information and outreach to Customers, distribution of
City -developed promotional and educational pieces at the City's direction, and
implementation of on -going recycling promotions, education, and outreach programs at
the direction of the City.
The Contractor shall contact, at the City's request, the manager or owner of Multifamily
Complex sites to encourage recycling participation, address concerns, space or
contamination problems, provide outreach to residents, and inform the manager or
owner of all available services and ways to decrease Garbage generation. The
Contractor shall coordinate and work cooperatively with City staff and/ or consultants
hired to conduct outreach and education, and provide technical assistance.
Any additional promotional, educational, and informational materials provided by the
Contractor to Customers in connection with the Contract shall be designed, developed,
printed, and delivered by the Contractor, at the Contractor's cost, and subject to the
City's final written or emailed approval as to form, content, and method of delivery.
Also, as part of their operations, Waste Management provides the following resources
and actions:
• Cart Decals: all recycle containers/carts are identified with a list of proper
recyclables, a telephone number and a website to obtain more information.
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-5 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
• Annual Service Guide: every residential customer receives a direct mail annual
service guide with recycling preparation instructions.
• Website: www.wmnorthwest.com/spokanevalley is an excellent resource for
customers to find information about recycling and contamination reduction.
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thinkgreenspokanevalley/ is used to update
customers on how to recycle right.
• Email: recycleinlandnw@wm.com was created for customers to ask recycling
questions and get answers tailored to Spokane Valley's program.
• Oops Tags: WM drivers use Oops tags to notify customers when they have placed
the wrong items in a recycling cart.
Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal Drop Box Contracts:
Specific actions provided in these contracts include outreach and education, tagging
instances of contamination and rejecting contaminated containers:
Section 3.1.9 Missed Collections
If Garbage or Recyclables are set -out inappropriately, improperly prepared, or
contaminated with unacceptable materials, the Contractor shall either contact the
Customer or place in a prominent location a written notification tag that identifies the
specific problem(s) and reason(s) for rejecting the materials for collection.
Section 3.1.10 Requirement to Recycle; Maintaining Quality Assurance Through
Monitoring
A Container with visually obvious contaminants included with Source- separated
Recyclables shall not be collected, and the Container shall be left with either (1) a
prominently displayed written notification tag, or (2) with the Contractor contacting the
Customer directly, explaining the reason for rejection and stating that the Customer
may either remove the contaminated materials to meet the standards for Recyclables or
that if the contaminated materials are not removed, the Container shall be collected on
the next regular collection cycle as Garbage at the rate specified in Attachment B. In
either case, materials shall be collected on the next regular collection cycle unless the
Customer pays for a return trip.
Section 3.2.1.3 Specific Collection Requirements - Multifamily Complex Recyclables
The Contractor and City shall jointly develop a protocol to address Multifamily
Complex recycling contamination issues. The protocol shall address thresholds for
when contamination levels trigger Customer contact, when to put a Customer on "
probation" for possible discontinued collection, when to suspend collection service and
remove the subject Container, and finally, procedures for allow a Customer to resume
service after it has been suspended due to contamination. The Contractor shall
implement the protocol consistently for all Customers and shall notify the City via e-
mail of any Customer being handled under the protocol.
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-6 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
Note - a specific protocol has not yet been developed but the contractor does contact
Multifamily Complex managers when contamination is found and discusses solutions
with them. The contractors do discuss with the City unusual or difficult situations
encountered and how they were resolved.
Section 3.3.5 Promotion and Education
The Contractor shall contact, at the City' s request, the manager or owner of Multifamily
Complex sites to which it provides Drop -box Container service to encourage recycling
participation, address concerns, space or contamination problems, provide outreach to
residents, and inform the manager or owner of all available services and ways to
decrease Garbage generation. The Contractor shall coordinate and work cooperatively
with City staff and/ or consultants hired to conduct outreach and education, and
provide technical assistance.
Also, as part of their drop box operations, Waste Management and Sunshine provide
the following resources and actions:
• WM provides durable bags for Multifamily Complex residents to collect and store
their recyclable inside until they are ready to be emptied in the outdoor recycling
containers. The bags include the list of recyclables and preparation instructions.
• Sunshine provides for Multifamily Complex residents educational brochures, call
center assistance and website access.
Sunshine Recyclers Disposal Contract:
Specific actions provided in this contract include education and outreach, inspection
and public assistance:
Section 2.1 M. Provision of Solid Waste Services
The Contractor has the ability to and will inspect, accept, process, transfer, transport,
dispose of, recycle, and compost all Acceptable Waste, Recyclables, Organics, C& D
Waste, and Special Waste received by Contractor in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
Section 3.6 Education
Upon request by the City, the Contractor shall assist the City in providing solid waste
education, including but not limited, public outreach to educate City residents and
businesses regarding the transition to the use of the Contractor's Transfer Facility,
education regarding options for recycling, Organics, and MRW, and other educational
outreach efforts identified by either Party as set forth in Exhibit " B"; provided, the City
shall be responsible for all costs of providing education.
Section 17.9 Exhibits
Exhibit "B", Education and Public Outreach Programs
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-7 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
Contractor shall work with City to assist it in providing ongoing education on recycling
and waste diversion options, which may include providing materials and outreach
visits to schools within the City, brochures, and material on the website.
Exhibit "C", Performance Standards
5. Contractor shall ensure a sufficient number of employees shall be provided, on hand
and working at all times so as to handle all Solid Waste being directed to the Transfer
Facility, including a sufficient number of employees to accept and process MRW and
Recyclables, to efficiently and safely operate the Transfer Facility, and to assist Self
Haulers with the proper unloading of Solid Waste.
Exhibit "D", Customer Service Plan
Spotter/ Screener
It is the function of the Spotter/ Screener to make sure all customers are disposing of
items that Contractor can legally accept. In the event that an item cannot be disposed,
the onsite manager will be contacted to discuss this issue with the customer. The
ultimate goal of the conversation is to find a solution to their disposal needs.
It is also the responsibility of the spotter/ screener to educate and assist customers with
recycling, directing traffic and assuring that safety policies related to the public and
commercial customers are being followed.
Recyclables brought to the transfer station are source -separated out by the generator. As
part of their operations, Sunshine provides the following resources and actions at the
transfer station:
• Staff available to answer questions;
• Public informational brochures available that explain what recyclables are accepted
and how they need to be prepared;
• Website informational access;
• Call Center assistance; and;
• The recycling drop-off area is under supervision during operation hours thus
minimizing contamination issues.
2) RCW 70A.205.045(10)(b) A list of key contaminants identified by the jurisdiction or
identified by the department;
Some of the main contaminants observed at the SMaRT center include:
• Plastic bags and film (clog the machinery),
• Bagged recyclables (which makes the material difficult to separate),
• Plastic cups,
• Polystyrene (includes Styrofoam containers and cups),
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-8 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
• Tanglers - hoses, wire, Christmas lights, tire chains,
• Dirty diapers,
• Miscellaneous household items (clothes, small appliances, etc.),
• Medical waste,
• Containers partially filled with food or liquids,
• Garage waste (batteries, paint, liquids, etc.), and,
• Hazardous waste - propane tanks, car batteries, liquids.
3) RCW 70A.205.045(10)(c) A discussion of problem contaminants and the contaminants'
impact on the collection system;
The contaminants mentioned above cause many problems:
• At the customer's site, the contaminated recycling container may not be collected
and the customer must remove the contaminants. This can create confusion and
frustration for the customer which may result in reduced participation in recycling.
• Contaminants add weight and volume to the load which can add cost to
transporting the materials.
• At the SMaRT Center contamination causes:
o Sorting lines to be slower and less efficient;
o More personnel needed for hand sorting;
o Downtime and safety issues as plastic bags and film that are wrap around the
sorting equipment have to be cut out;
o Bagged recyclables to be disposed as garbage adding cost;
o Some entire loads to be ruined by motor oil and other liquids;
o Reduced marketability and possibility of closing the door to some markets that
require cleaner material; and
o Mills to reject whole loads of material due to contaminants found in baled
recyclables.
• At the transfer station, the bin for receiving plastics sometimes gets so contaminated
with non -desirable plastics that the contents end up having to be disposed as
garbage adding time and cost. Also, due to the ongoing possibility of
contamination, the incoming material has to be inspected and contamination
removed which also adds time and expense.
4) RCW 70A.205.045(10)(d) An analysis of the costs and other impacts associated with
contaminants to the recycling system;
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-9 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
• Contaminants cause marketable recyclables to be disposed as garbage resulting in
loss of good material for manufacturing, more material unnecessarily placed in
landfills and more raw materials needing to be used for manufacturing.
• Costs of servicing properties may increase as the customer has to pay for disposal of
contaminants on top of the cost of recycling.
• The public becomes frustrated and disillusioned with recycling.
• At the SMaRT center, WM has implemented additional processing measures to
attempt to reduce contamination. These measures have resulted in an increase of
processing costs of approximately $50 per ton.
• Contamination reduces:
o The number of markets desiring the material,
o The marketability of the processed material within receptive markets, and,
o The price manufacturers will pay for the material.
5) RCW 70A.205.045(10)(e) An implementation schedule and details of how outreach is to be
conducted. Contamination reduction education methods may include sharing community -
wide messaging through newsletters, articles, mailers, social media, web sites, or community
events, informing recycling drop box customers about contamination, and improving
signage.
The following CROP implementation schedule for outreach and education activities is
based on what is currently being performed:
Year 1 - 2021
Continuously
• WM - Container Decals: placed on all recycle containers with a list of proper
recyclables, a telephone number and a website to obtain more information.
• WM Email & Text: Customers may opt in to receive email or text notices related to
contamination or other service related information.
• WM website: www.wmnorthwest.com/spokanevalley is a comprehensive resource
for customers to find information about recycling and contamination reduction.
Reviewed quarterly.
• WM Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thinkgreenspokanevalley/ is used to
update customers on how to recycle right. Weekly posts on relevant topics.
• WM Email: recycleinclandnew@wm.com was created for customers to ask the hard
recycling questions and get answers tailored to Spokane Valley's program. Response
daily Monday through Friday.
• WM - Email: pnwrsservices@wm.com - customer service available Monday through
Friday, 7-6 and Saturday 9-1.
• WM - Recycle by mail:
https://www.thinkgreenfromhome.com/ThinkGreenFromHome.cfm
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan
4-10 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
• At the transfer station - provide public informational brochures. Also, on the website
is information explaining what materials are acceptable at the transfer station and
how they are to be prepared.
• City website for recycling lists the benefits of recycling and provides links to WM
and Sunshine.
As needed
• WM and Sunshine - Oops Tags, direct contact then container rejection are used by
drivers to notify customers when they have placed the wrong items in a recycling
cart or drop -box. Often contamination is buried in the bottom of the container and
not seen until the container is emptied.
• WM and Sunshine for Multifamily Complexes -
o Contact the manager or owner of Multifamily Complex sites to encourage
recycling participation; address concerns, space or contamination problems;
provide outreach to residents and inform the manager or owner of all available
services and ways to decrease Garbage generation.
o WM provides durable bags for Multifamily Complex residents which include the
list of recyclables and preparation instructions.
o Sunshine provides for Multifamily Complex residents educational brochures, call
center assistance and website access.
• WM media releases: Recycling service media releases are produced as needed.
• At the transfer station, the spotter/screener educates and assists customers with
recycling.
• Sunshine provides materials and outreach visits to schools within the City, as well
as brochures, and material on their website.
Quarterly
• Monitoring amount of residue handled at the SMaRT Center for discussion with
WM.
At events (as pandemic measures allow)
• WM participates in events providing literature about correct recycling practices and
also responds to citizen's questions.
Semi-annually
• City magazine: in the city's semi-annual magazine - Spokane Valley View - is a
section dedicated to solid waste news. Occasionally articles about recycling and
how to prevent its contamination are featured.
Annually
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan
4-11 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
• The Contractor provides annual service -oriented information and outreach to
Customers.
• In winter - WM Annual Service Guide: Every residential customer receives by direct
mail an annual service guide with pictures of acceptable recyclables and recycling
preparation instructions.
• Sunshine Recyclers - updates of public informational brochures and website
information.
Year 2 - 2022
Continuously
• WM - Container Decals: placed on all recycle containers with a list of proper
recyclables, a telephone number and a website to obtain more information.
• WM Email & Text: Customers may opt in to receive email or text notices related to
contamination or other service related information.
• WM website: www.wmnorthwest.com/spokanevalley is a comprehensive resource
for customers to find information about recycling and contamination reduction.
Reviewed quarterly.
• WM Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thinkgreenspokanevalley/ is used to
update customers on how to recycle right. Weekly posts on relevant topics.
• WM Email: recycleinclandnew@wm.com was created for customers to ask the hard
recycling questions and get answers tailored to Spokane Valley's program. Response
daily Monday through Friday.
• WM - Email: pnwrsservices@wm.com - customer service available Monday through
Friday, 7-6 and Saturday 9-1.
• WM - Recycle by mail:
https://www.thinkgreenfromhome.com/ThinkGreenFromHome.cfm
• At the transfer station - provide public informational brochures. Also, on the website
is information explaining what materials are acceptable at the transfer station and
how they are to be prepared.
• City website for recycling lists the benefits of recycling and provides links to WM
and Sunshine.
As needed
• WM and Sunshine - Oops Tags, direct contact then container rejection are used by
drivers to notify customers when they have placed the wrong items in a recycling
cart or drop -box. Often contamination is buried in the bottom of the container and
not seen until the container is emptied.
• WM and Sunshine for Multifamily Complexes -
o Contact the manager or owner of Multifamily Complex sites to encourage
recycling participation; address concerns, space or contamination problems;
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-12 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
provide outreach to residents and inform the manager or owner of all available
services and ways to decrease Garbage generation.
o WM provides durable bags for Multifamily Complex residents which include the
list of recyclables and preparation instructions.
o Sunshine provides for Multifamily Complex residents educational brochures, call
center assistance and website access.
• WM media releases: Recycling service media releases are produced as needed.
• At the transfer station, the spotter/screener educates and assists customers with
recycling.
• Sunshine provides materials and outreach visits to schools within the City, as well
as brochures, and material on their website.
Quarterly
• Monitoring amount of residue handled at the SMaRT Center for discussion with
WM.
At events (as pandemic measures allow)
• WM participates in events providing literature about correct recycling practices and
also responds to citizen's questions.
Semi-annually
• City magazine: in the city's semi-annual magazine - Spokane Valley View - is a
section dedicated to solid waste news. Occasionally articles about recycling and
how to prevent its contamination are featured.
Annually
• The Contractor provides at its cost annual service -oriented information and outreach
to Customers
• In winter - WM Annual Service Guide: Every residential customer receives by direct
mail an annual service guide with pictures of acceptable recyclables and recycling
preparation instructions.
• Sunshine Recyclers - updates of public informational brochures and website
information.
Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) revision
As part of the SWMP revision, evaluate and update the CROP details which may
include:
• Updating the acceptable recyclables list to include those materials that:
o Can be efficiently processed at the SMaRT Center (which is the current
destination of collected recyclables),
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-13 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
o Have a solid, relatively stable market, and,
o Correspond with those materials in the lists of other local jurisdictions (creating a
coordinated list throughout the region which will reduce confusion).
• Developing and implementing steps to reduce contamination at the curb such as:
o Utilize recommendations presented in the Recycling Partnership's 2020 State of
Curbside Recycling report: "The Recycling Partnership endorses complementary
strategies for educating residents as close to the recycling behavior as possible
with direct feedback to improve material quality in a recycling program.
Residential education alone is not enough to tackle contamination at the curb;
curbside feedback through the use of cart inspection and tagging is crucial for
reinforcing good recycling behaviors and informing residents about what they
are doing wrong and right when recycling."
• Based on this recommendation, pursue a lid -lift container inspection program
which has been shown to be more effective than simply tagging carts with
recycle -right messaging. With this program provide:
- Cart tags that give direct feedback by identifying specific contaminants
found in the container, and,
- Rewards to subscribers with consistently clean recyclables.
o Including cart removal as an option for repeat contamination offenders and have
the cart only be returned after the subscriber successfully completes relevant
training.
• Messaging -
o As messaging tends to be forgotten and thus needs to be reinforced, make the
education and outreach activities continuous with fresh information delivered to
subscribers in each route every six months.
o Ensure recycling messages are simple and multi-lingual.
• Regular reporting of contamination instances, how they are addressed and their
outcomes to document that all contamination -reduction activities are being
regularly utilized.
• Separating out recycling costs in the billing to make it visible to customers so they
realize recycling is not free. Alternatively, have recycling subscriptions be
independent of garbage subscriptions so only those who really want to recycle and
appreciate it will subscribe.
• Evaluating pros and cons of different collection systems.
• Glass recycling - study the pros, cons, opportunities and constraints of glass
recycling both locally and regionally and determine whether to continue glass
collection.
'Year 3 - 2023
Note - the following list may change as a result of the 2022 CROP update.
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-14 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
Continuously
• WM - Container Decals: placed on all recycle containers with a list of proper
recyclables, a telephone number and a website to obtain more information.
• WM Email & Text: Customers may opt in to receive email or text notices related to
contamination or other service related information.
• WM website: www.wmnorthwest.com/spokanevalley is a comprehensive resource
for customers to find information about recycling and contamination reduction.
Reviewed quarterly.
• WM Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thinkgreenspokanevalley/ is used to
update customers on how to recycle right. Weekly posts on relevant topics.
• WM Email: recycleinclandnew@wm.com was created for customers to ask the hard
recycling questions and get answers tailored to Spokane Valley's program. Response
daily Monday through Friday.
• WM - Email: pnwrsservices@wm.com - customer service available Monday through
Friday, 7-6 and Saturday 9-1.
• WM - Recycle by mail:
https://www.thinkgreenfromhome.com/ThinkGreenFromHome.cfm
• At the transfer station - provide public informational brochures. Also, on the website
is information explaining what materials are acceptable at the transfer station and
how they are to be prepared.
• City website for recycling lists the benefits of recycling and provides links to WM
and Sunshine.
As needed
• WM and Sunshine - Oops Tags, direct contact then container rejection are used by
drivers to notify customers when they have placed the wrong items in a recycling
cart or drop -box. Often contamination is buried in the bottom of the container and
not seen until the container is emptied.
• WM and Sunshine for Multifamily Complexes -
o Contact the manager or owner of Multifamily Complex sites to encourage
recycling participation; address concerns, space or contamination problems;
provide outreach to residents and inform the manager or owner of all available
services and ways to decrease Garbage generation.
o WM provides durable bags for Multifamily Complex residents which include the
list of recyclables and preparation instructions.
o Sunshine provides for Multifamily Complex residents educational brochures, call
center assistance and website access.
• WM media releases: Recycling service media releases are produced as needed.
• At the transfer station, the spotter/screener educates and assists customers with
recycling.
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan 4-15 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
• Sunshine provides materials and outreach visits to schools within the City, as well
as brochures, and material on their website.
Quarterly
• Monitoring amount of residue handled at the SMaRT Center for discussion with
WM.
At events (as pandemic measures allow)
• WM participates in events providing literature about correct recycling practices and
also responds to citizen's questions.
Semi-annually
• City magazine: in the city's semi-annual magazine - Spokane Valley View - is a
section dedicated to solid waste news. Occasionally articles about recycling and
how to prevent its contamination are featured.
Annually
• The Contractor provides at its cost annual service -oriented information and outreach
to Customers
• In winter - WM Annual Service Guide: Every residential customer receives by direct
mail an annual service guide with pictures of acceptable recyclables and recycling
preparation instructions.
• Sunshine Recyclers - updates of public informational brochures and website
information.
Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan
4-16 Chapter 4: Recycling and Organics Collection
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
as of June 3, 2021; 10:00 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
June 15, 2021, Budget Workshop 2022 Budget 8:30 am to approximately 3: 00 pm
June 15, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Cancelled
AWC Conference: June 22-25 — live and recorded webinars
June 22, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Second Reading Ordinance 21-007 Adopting Shoreline Master Plan
3. Resolution 21-003 Adopting Contamination Reduction & Outreach
4. Admin Report: Orchard Avenue Park — John Bottelli
5. Admin Report: Gang Violence — Assistant Chief Richey, et al
6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
7. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports
June 29, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. Capital Improvement Program — Gloria Mantz
2. Code Enforcement — Jenny Nickerson, et al
3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
July 6, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
Proclamation: July is Parks & Recreation Month
1. Potential Grant Opportunity, Transportation Improvement Board -
2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
[due Tue June 15]
(5 minutes)
— Chaz Bates (10 minutes)
Plan (CROP)—E.Lamb, M.Koudelka (10 min)
(15 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 65 mins]
[due Tue June 22]
(30 minutes)
(60 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 95 mins]
[due Tue June 29]
Adam Jackson
[*estimated meeting:
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
mins]
July 13, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 6]
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunity, Transportation Improvement Board — A.Jackson (5 min)
3. Admin Report: Council Goals & Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax — Chelsie Taylor
4. Admin Report: American Rescue Plan Act — Chelsie Taylor, Erik Lamb
5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
(10 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 45 mins]
July 20, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 13]
1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick (5 minutes)
Spokane Valley State of the City: July 21, 2021
July 27, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Motion Consideration: Council Goals & Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax — Chelsie Taylor
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports
August 3, 2021: Tentative National Night Out
Aug 3, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. (tentatively cancelled)
[due Tue July 20]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: mins]
Draft Advance Agenda 6/3/2021 1:33:16 PM Page 1 of 2
Aug 10, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
Aug 17, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. Council 2022 Budget Goals — Chelsie Taylor
2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
Aug 24, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Admin Report: 2022 Budget -Estimated Revenues & Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated
Aug 31, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
Sept 7, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
Proclamation: Alcohol & Drug Recovery Month
1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
Sept 14, 2021, Formal Meeting, 6:00 p.m.
Proclamation: Constitution Week- Sept 17-23
1. PUBLIC HEARING #1: 2022 Budget Revenues, Property Taxes — Chelsie Taylor
2. Motion Consideration: Set Budget Hearing for October 12, 2021 — Chelsie Taylor
3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
[due Tue Aug 3]
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Aug 10]
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Aug 17]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
meeting: mins]
[due Tue Aug 24]
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Aug 31]
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Sept 7]
[*estimated meeting:
Sept 21, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. Proposed draft ordinance adopting 2022 property taxes — Chelsie Taylor
2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
Sept 28, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
Oct 5, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m.
1. City Manager Presentation of 2022 Preliminary Budget — Mark Calhoun
2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Wick
*time for public or Council comments not included
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Appleway Trail Amenities
Arts Council Sculpture Presentations
Artwork & Metal Boxes
Consolidated Homeless Grant
Core Beliefs Resolution
Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt.
No Parking Zones
Park Lighting
PFD Presentation
Residency
Ridgemont Area Traffic
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
mins]
[due Tue Sept 14]
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Sept 21]
(5 minutes)
[due Tue Sept 28]
(30 minutes)
(5 minutes)
St. Illumination (owners, cost, location)
St. O&M Pavement Preservation
TPA
Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact
Water Districts & Green Space
Way Finding Signs
Sp kane
Valley
Memorandum
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
10210 E Sprague Avenue • Spokane Valley WA 99206
Phone: (509) 720-5000 • Fax: (509) 720-5075 •
www.spokanevalley.org
To: Mark Calhoun, City Manager
From: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
Date: June 2, 2021
Re: Finance Department Activity Report — April 2021
Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of April 2021
and included herein is an updated 2021 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and
Expenditures through the end of April.
2020 Year-end Process
The 2020 books were closed during April. We have begun the preparation of the annual financial
report and will have it completed by the end of May. We hope to have the State Auditor's Office
on site by early June to begin the audit of 2020.
2021 Budget Amendment
As we have progressed through 2021 the need for a number of budget amendments has arisen.
Council review will take place at the following meetings:
• May 4 Admin Report
• May 18 Public Hearing
• May 18 First reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2021 Budget
• May 25 Second reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2021 Budget
2022 Budget Development
The 2022 Budget development process began in the Finance Department in early March, and
on April 6th we sent detailed budget requests to all departments to complete by mid -May. By the
time the budget is scheduled to be adopted on November 9th, the Council will have had an
opportunity to discuss the budget on seven occasions including three public hearings.
• June 15 Council budget workshop
• August 17 Admin report on 2022 revenues and expenditures
• September 14 Public hearing #1 on the 2022 revenues and expenditures
• September 21
• October 12
• October 26
• November 9
• November 9
City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2022 Budget
Public hearing #2 on 2022 Budget
First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2022 Budget
Public hearing #3 on the 2022 Budget
Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2022 Budget
P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202112021 04 30.docx Page 1
Budget to Actual Comparison Report
A report reflecting 2021 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which
a 2021 Budget was adopted is located on pages 5 through 18. Because we attempt to provide
this information in a timely manner, this report is prepared from records that are not formally
closed by the Finance Department at month end or reconciled to bank records. Although it is
realistic to expect the figures will change over subsequent weeks, I believe the report is materially
accurate.
We've included the following information in the report:
• Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and
by type in all other funds.
• A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General
Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund.
• The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund
balance figures are those that are reflected in our 2020 Annual Financial Report.
• Columns of information include:
o The 2021 Budget as adopted
o April 2021 activity
o Cumulative 2021 activity through April 2021
o Budget remaining in terms of dollars
o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed
A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 5):
Recurring revenues collections are currently at 27.08% of the amount budgeted with 33.33% of
the year elapsed.
• Property taxes are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April 30 and
October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser
amounts typically remitted in June and December. Property taxes received thus far in 2021
are $809,514 or 6.36% of the amount budgeted.
• Sales tax collections represent only 3-months of collections thus far because taxes collected
in April are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter part of May. Collections are
currently at $7,118,873 or 32.04% of the amount budgeted.
• Gambling taxes are at $175,142 or 45.61% of the amount budgeted. Gambling taxes are
paid quarterly with first quarter payments due by April 30.
• Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month
following a calendar year quarter. So far in 2021 we have received $345,119 or 28.40% of the
amount budgeted.
• State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items
such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal
justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a
calendar quarter. Through April we've received remittances totaling $611,752 or 34.76% of
the amount budgeted.
• Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County
with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine and false alarm
fees. Through April we've received remittances through the month of March with receipts of
$231,364 or 22.90% of the amount budgeted.
• Community and Public Works service revenues are largely composed of building permit and
plan review fees as well as right of way permits. Revenues are currently at $2,091,600 or
109.58% of the amount budgeted.
P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202112021 04 30.docx Page 2
• Recreation program revenues are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks
and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in -season), and CenterPlace.
Currently, revenues total $29,094 or 4.52% of the amount budgeted.
Recurring expenditures are currently at $32,509,456 or 27.92% of the amount budgeted with
100.00% of the year elapsed.
Investments (page 19)
Investments at April 30 total $77,657,651 and are composed of $72,578,992 in the Washington
State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,078,659 in bank CDs.
Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 20)
Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through April and total $7,951,703 including
general, criminal justice, and public safety taxes. This figure is $1,479,586 or 22.86% greater than
the same three-month period in 2020.
Economic Indicators (pages 21 — 23)
The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax
revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy.
1. Sales taxes (page 21) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending
on the purchase of goods.
2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area
by tourists or business travelers.
3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 23) provide us with a sense of real estate sales.
Page 21 provides a 10-year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or
criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2012.
• Compared with calendar year 2020, 2021 collections have increased by $1,400,768 or
24.50%.
• Tax receipts reached an all-time high in 2020 of $25,238,481, besting the previous record
year of 2019 when $24,204,762 was collected.
Page 22 provides a 10-year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning
January 2012.
• Compared with calendar year 2020, 2021 collections have decreased by $17,050 or 16.30%.
• Collections reached an all-time high in 2019 of $743,851, and subsequently decreased to
$443,243 in 2020.
• The decrease from prior year reflects the effects of COVID-19 on the economy.
Page 23 provides a 10-year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail
beginning January 2012.
• Compared with calendar year 2020, 2021 collections have increased by $399,716 or 60.64%.
• Collections reached an all-time high in 2018 of $3,800,432, and subsequently decreased to a
range of approximately $3,334,000 to $3,658,000 in the years 2019 through 2020.
Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 24)
This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General
Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the
City currently has outstanding.
• The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value
for property taxes which for 2021 is $11,553,065,482. Following the December 1, 2020 debt
P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202112021 04 30.docx Page 3
service payments, the City has $11,120,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which
represents 6.42% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.28% of our total debt capacity for all
types of bonds. Of this amount:
o $4,100,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds
are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1 % sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public
Facilities District.
o $450,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace.
The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City.
o $6,570,000 remains on bonds issued for construction of the new City Hall. The bonds are
to be repaid with General Fund revenues.
Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 25 and 26)
The last two charts reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101.
These include:
Page 25 provides a 10-year history of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections with monthly detail
beginning January 2012.
• Compared with calendar year 2020, 2021 collections have decreased by $57,185 or 12.18%.
• Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at just approximately $2.1 million, and subsequently decreased
to a range of approximately $1,847,000 to $1,745,000 in the years 2012 through 2020.
• The decrease from prior year reflects the effects of COVID-19 on the economy.
Page 26 provides a 10-year history of Telephone Utility Tax collections with monthly detail
beginning January 2012.
• Compared with 2020, 2021 collections have decreased by $102,905 or 28.05%. Unlike tax
revenues collected by the State and remitted monthly, these taxes are paid to the City directly
by the service provider. Consequently there is not a "clean cutoff' in terms of when a vendor
pays the tax.
• Tax receipts peaked in 2009 at $3,054,473 and have decreased each year since, due to what
we suspect is the reduction in land lines by individual households.
• The 2021 budget was adopted with a revenue estimate of $1,431,000. We will watch actual
receipts closely as the year progresses.
P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1202112021 04 30.docx Page 4
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
#001 - GENERAL FUND
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
Revenues
Property Tax 12,724,200 499,013 809,514 (11,914,686) 6.36%
Sales Tax 22,220,000 2,317,671 7,118,873 (15,101,127) 32.04%
Sales Tax - Public Safety 1,054,800 91,154 301,671 (753,129) 28.60%
Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 1,862,400 162,614 531,159 (1,331,241) 28.52%
Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 384,000 92,290 175,142 (208,858) 45.61%
Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,215,000 305,146 345,119 (869,881) 28.40%
State Shared Revenues 1,760,000 336,396 611,752 (1,148,248) 34.76%
Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 1,010,200 98,385 231,364 (778,836) 22.90%
Community and Public Works 1,908,719 441,049 2,091,600 182,881 109.58%
Recreation Program Revenues 643,600 4,408 29,094 (614,506) 4.52%
Miscellaneous Department Revenue 21,000 57 20,554 (446) 97.88%
Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 592,500 10,306 36,798 (555,702) 6.21%
Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax-CP advertising) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00%
Total Recurring Revenues 45,426,419 4,358,489 12,302,641 (33,123,778) 27.08%
Expenditures
City Council 631,566 103,485 211,366 420,200 33.47%
City Manager 1,158,089 88,140 322,108 835,981 27.81%
City Attorney 718,593 55,823 220,757 497,836 30.72%
Public Safety 28,101,615 2,207,403 8,622,313 19,479,302 30.68%
Deputy City Manager 284,844 20,236 82,869 201,975 29.09%
Finance / IT 1,500,659 104,644 437,385 1,063,274 29.15%
Human Resources 318,540 26,933 102,680 215,860 32.23%
City Hall Operations and Maintenance 301,093 44,681 100,900 200,193 33.51%
Community & Public Works - Engineering 2,098,642 137,632 529,467 1,569,175 25.23%
Community & Public Works - Econ Dev 1,045,762 57,812 261,333 784,429 24.99%
Community & Public Works - Bldg & Plan 2,487,066 181,416 782,758 1,704,308 31.47%
Parks & Rec - Administration 356,467 26,756 112,523 243,944 31.57%
Parks & Rec - Maintenance 940,003 3,847 268,761 671,242 28.59%
Parks & Rec - Recreation 328,534 11,572 46,634 281,900 14.19%
Parks & Rec - Aquatics 510,053 1,849 6,717 503,336 1.32%
Parks & Rec - Senior Center 35,403 2,702 9,952 25,451 28.11%
Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 972,214 55,164 218,858 753,356 22.51%
General Government 1,297,380 77,738 254,628 1,042,752 19.63%
Transfers out - #204 ('16 L TGO bond debt service) 401,500 0 0 401,500 0.00%
Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 160,000 0 0 160,000 0.00%
Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 991,843 0 0 991,843 0.00%
Transfers out - #501 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 0 0 36,600 0.00%
Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 425,000 0 0 425,000 0.00%
Total Recurring Expenditures 45,101,466 3,207,832 12,592,010 32,509,456 27.92%
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures 324,953 1,150,657 (289,369) (614,322)
Page 5
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
#001 - GENERAL FUND - continued
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Grant Proceeds
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
25,000 0 0 (25,000)
0.00%
Total Nonrecurring Revenues 25,000 0 0 (25,000) 0.00%
Expenditures
Public Safety (replace handguns) 37,500 0 0 37,500 0.00%
Public Safety (radar trailer) 11,400 0 0 11,400 0.00%
Public Safety (Precinct access control gate) 20,000 0 0 20,000 0.00%
Public Safety (Precinct fire panel replacement) 10,000 0 0 10,000 0.00%
City Hall Chambers (east wall repairs) 0 40,469 107,011 (107,011) 0.00%
Community & Public Works (Ecology SMP Update) 25,000 5,048 9,735 15,265 38.94%
Community & Public Works (Housing Action Plan) 0 4,993 52,039 (52,039) 0.00%
General Government - IT capital replacements 212,800 0 0 212,800 0.00%
General Government (Covid-19 Related Costs) 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Transfers out - #101 (Street Fund operations) 1,859,600 0 0 1,859,600 0.00%
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 2,176,300 50,510 168,785 2,007,515 7.76%
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures (2,151,300) (50,510) (168,785) 1,982,515
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures (1,826,347) 1,100,148 (458,154)
Beginning fund balance 42,516,032 42,516,032
Ending fund balance 40,689,685 42,057,878
1,368,193
Page 6
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
#101 - STREET FUND
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
Revenues
Telephone Utility Tax 1,431,000 100,611 263,920 (1,167,080) 18.44%
Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax 2,062,000 117,289 410,512 (1,651,489) 19.91 %
Multimodal Transportation 130,600 0 32,710 (97,890) 25.05%
Right -of -Way Maintenance Fee 70,000 3,849 3,849 (66,151) 5.50%
Investment Interest 4,000 35 105 (3,895) 2.64%
Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 0 324 (9,676) 3.24%
Total Recurring Revenues 3,707,600 221,785 711,421 (2,996,179) 19.19%
Expenditures
Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 1,127,920 74,890 385,060 742,860 34.14%
Supplies 156,050 31,653 57,093 98,957 36.59%
Services & Charges 2,525,828 99,378 260,428 2,265,400 10.31 %
Snow Operations 751,652 46,897 312,047 439,605 41.51 %
Intergovernmental Payments 935,000 48,424 89,027 845,973 9.52%
Transfers out - #501 (non -plow vehicle rental) 10,250 0 0 10,250 0.00%
Transfers out - #501 (plow replace) 60,500 0 0 60,500 0.00%
Total Recurring Expenditures 5,567,200 301,242 1,103,655 4,463,545 19.82%
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures (1,859,600) (79,457) (392,234) 1,467,366
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Insurance Proceeds (traffic signal cabinet) 0 0 16,601 16,601 0.00%
Utilities Tax Recovery 0 0 50,472 50,472 0.00%
Transfers in - #001 1,859,600 0 0 (1,859,600) 0.00%
Total Nonrecurring Revenues 1,859,600 0 67,073 (1,792,527) 3.61 %
Expenditures
Emergency Traffic Control Repairs 0 3,773 11,500 (11,500) 0.00%
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 0 3,773 11,500 (11,500) 0.00%
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,859,600 (3,773) 55,573 (1,804,027)
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures 0 (83,231) (336,661) (336,661)
Beginning fund balance 759,299 759,299
Ending fund balance 759,299 422,638
#103 - PATHS & TRAILS
Revenues
Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax
Investment Interest
8,700 495 1,731 (6,969) 19.90%
200 2 5 (195) 2.65%
Total revenues 8,900 496 1,737 (7,163) 19.51%
Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 8,900 496 1,737 (7,163)
Beginning fund balance 21,516 21,516
Ending fund balance 30,416 23,252
Page 7
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
#104 - TOURISM FACILITIES HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND
Revenues
Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel Tax 213,000 19,824 56,843 (156,157) 26.69%
Investment Interest 24,000 212 705 (23,295) 2.94%
Transfers in - #105 453,840 0 0 (453,840) 0.00%
Total revenues
Expenditures
Capital Outlay
Total expenditures
690,840 20,036 57,548 (633,292) 8.33%
0
0 0 0 0.00%
0
0 0 0 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 690,840 20,036 57,548 (633,292)
Beginning fund balance 2,986,573 2,986,573
Ending fund balance 3,677,413 3,044,121
#105 - HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND
Revenues
Hotel/Motel Tax 346,000 30,536 87,582 (258,418) 25.31%
Investment Interest 6,000 62 201 (5,799) 3.35%
Total revenues
352,000 30,597 87,783 (264,217) 24.94%
Expenditures
Transfers out - #001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00%
Transfers out - #104 453,840 0 0 453,840 0.00%
Tourism Promotion 224,400 0 0 224,400 0.00%
Total expenditures 708,240 0 0 708,240 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures (356,240) 30,597 87,783 (972,457)
Beginning fund balance 798,716 798,716
Ending fund balance 442,476 886,499
#106 - SOLID WASTE
Revenues
Solid Waste Administrative Fees 225,000 18,382 335,988 (110,988) 149.33%
Solid Waste Road Wear Fee 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0.00%
Investment Interest 12,000 72 353 11,647 2.94%
Total revenues 1,737,000 18,453 336,341 1,400,659 19.36%
Expenditures
Transfers out - #311 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0.00%
Education & Contract Administration 237,000 2,462 14,699 222,301 6.20%
Total expenditures 1,737,000 2,462 14,699 1,722,301 0.85%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 15,991 321,642 (321,642)
Beginning fund balance 726,788 726,788
Ending fund balance 726,788 1,048,430
#107 - PEG FUND
Revenues
Comcast PEG Contribution
Investment Interest
79,000 18,435 18,435 60,565 23.34%
0 13 42 (42) 0.00%
Total revenues 79,000 18,448 18,478 60,522 23.39%
Expenditures
PEG Reimbursement - CMTV 39,500 0 0 39,500 0.00%
Capital Outlay 33,500 38 38 33,462 0.11%
Total expenditures 73,000 38 38 72,962 0.05%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 6,000 18,410 18,440 (12,440)
Beginning fund balance 181,773 181,773
Ending fund balance 187,773 200,213
Page 8
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
#108 - AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TAX FUND
Revenues
Affordable & Supportive Housing Tax 193,000 12,961 54,437 138,563 28.21%
Investment Interest 0 14 44 (44) 0.00%
Total revenues
193,000 12,976 54,482 138,518 28.23%
Expenditures
Affordable & Supportive Housing Program 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 193,000 12,976 54,482 138,518
Beginning fund balance 152,033 152,033
Ending fund balance 345,033 206,515
#120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest
Transfers in
0
0
0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0 0.00%
Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Expenditures
Operations
Total expenditures
0
0 0 0 0.00%
0
0 0 0 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000
Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000
#121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest
Transfers in
0
0
0 0 0 0.00%
0 0 0 0.00%
Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Expenditures
Operations
Total expenditures
0
0 0 0 0.00%
0
0 0 0 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000
Ending fund balance 5,500,000 5,500,000
#122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest
Transfers in - #001
1,900 11 26 (1,874) 1.38%
0 0 0 0 0.00%
Subtotal revenues 1,900 11 26 (1,874) 1.38%
Expenditures
Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00%
Transfers out - #101 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Total expenditures 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures (498,100) 11 26 (501,874)
Beginning fund balance 160,043 160,043
Ending fund balance (338,057) 160,069
Page 9
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
#204 - DEBT SERVICE FUND
Revenues
Spokane Public Facilities District 480,800 0 0 (480,800) 0.00%
Transfers in - #001 401,500 0 0 (401,500) 0.00%
Transfers in - #301 80,775 0 0 (80,775) 0.00%
Transfers in - #302 80,775 0 0 (80,775) 0.00%
Total revenues
1,043,850 0 0 (1,043,850) 0.00%
Expenditures
Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace 480,800 0 0 480,800 0.00%
Debt Service Payments - Roads 161,550 0 0 161,550 0.00%
Debt Service Payments -'16 LTGO Bond 401,500 0 0 401,500 0.00%
Total expenditures 1,043,850 0 0 1,043,850 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 (2,087,700)
Beginning fund balance 0 0
Ending fund balance 0 0
Page 10
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
#301 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
REET 1 - Taxes
Investment Interest
Total revenues
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
1,000,000 248,987 529,465 (470,535) 52.95%
25,000 180 677 (24,323) 2.71%
1,025,000 249,167 530,141 (494,859) 51.72%
Expenditures
Transfers out - #204 80,775 0 0 80,775 0.00%
Transfers out - #303 316,620 0 0 316,620 0.00%
Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 827,278 0 0 827,278 0.00%
Total expenditures 1,224,673 0 0 1,224,673 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures (199,673) 249,167 530,141 (1,719,532)
Beginning fund balance 2,048,068 2,048,068
Ending fund balance 1,848,395 2,578,210
#302 - SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
REET 2 - Taxes 1,000,000 248,987 529,465 (470,535) 52.95%
Investment Interest 25,000 397 1,340 (23,660) 5.36%
Total revenues
1,025,000 249,384 530,805 (494,195) 51.79%
Expenditures
Transfers out - #204 80,775 0 0 80,775 0.00%
Transfers out - #303 1,662,684 0 0 1,662,684 0.00%
Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 827,279 0 0 827,279 0.00%
Transfers out - #314 1,127,387 0 0 1,127,387 0.00%
Total expenditures 3,698,125 0 0 3,698,125 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures (2,673,125) 249,384 530,805 (4,192,320)
Beginning fund balance 5,165,924 5,165,924
Ending fund balance 2,492,799 5,696,729
Page 11
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
#303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Developer Contribution 53,703 0 0 (53,703) 0.00%
Grant Proceeds 6,843,308 0 209,469 (6,633,839) 3.06%
Transfers in - #301 316,620 0 0 (316,620) 0.00%
Transfers in - #302 1,662,684 0 0 (1,662,684) 0.00%
Investment Interest 0 63 168 168 0.00%
Total revenues
8,876,315 63 209,637 (8,666,678) 2.36%
Expenditures
205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 329,453 154 5,028 324,425 1.53%
249 Sullivan & Wellesley Intersection 1,020,522 1,067 60,721 959,801 5.95%
259 North Sullivan ITS Project 0 64 1,185 (1,185) 0.00%
267 Mission SW - Bowdish to Union 11,310 0 0 11,310 0.00%
275 Barker Rd Widening - River to Euclid 1,132,320 25,368 355,410 776,910 31.39%
285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 7,210 0 0 7,210 0.00%
293 2018 CSS Citywide Reflective Signal BP 74,250 373 7,087 67,163 9.54%
294 Citywide Reflective Post Panels 17,875 170 1,766 16,109 9.88%
299 Argonne Rd Concrete Pvmt Indiana to Mont 2,392,450 16,446 62,759 2,329,691 2.62%
300 Pines & Mission Intersection Improvements 498,000 833 11,963 486,037 2.40%
301 Park & Mission Intersection Improvements 693,000 290 8,069 684,931 1.16%
303 S. Conklin Road Sidewalk 0 0 162 (162) 0.00%
310 Sullivan Rd Overcrossing UP RR Deck Rep. 317,625 1,135 5,375 312,250 1.69%
313 Barker Road/Union Pacific Crossing 1,312,500 5,000 19,962 1,292,538 1.52%
318 Wilbur Sidewalk: Boone to Mission 50,000 592 11,680 38,320 23.36%
320 Sullivan Preservation: Sprague-8th 19,800 80 1,600 18,200 8.08%
Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0.00%
Total expenditures 8,876,315 51,574 552,765 8,323,550
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (51,510) (343,129) (16,990,228)
Beginning fund balance 67,402 67,402
Ending fund balance 67,402 (275,727)
Note: Work performed in the Street Capital Projects Fund for preservation projects is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were bid
with the pavement preservation work.
6.23%
Page 12
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
#309 - PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Grant Proceeds 480,530 0 27,909 (452,621) 5.81%
Transfers in - #001 160,000 0 0 (160,000) 0.00%
Transfers in -#312 565,150 0 0 (565,150) 0.00%
Investment Interest 0 9 20 20 0.00%
Total revenues 1,205,680 9 27,929 (1,177,751) 2.32%
Expenditures
268 Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan 0 0 2,033 (2,033) 0.00%
304 CenterPlace West Lawn Phase 2 0 790 2,626 (2,626) 0.00%
305 CenterPlace Roof Repair 0 301 13,858 (13,858) 0.00%
314 Balfour Park Frontage Improvements 565,150 1,687 12,149 553,001 2.15%
315 Brown's Park 2020 Improvements 499,805 16,069 35,541 464,264 7.11%
316 Balfour Park Improvements - Phase 1 0 928 2,554 (2,554) 0.00%
Install stage fill speakers Great Room 6,346 0 0 6,346 0.00%
Repair failed pixels Great Room 6,505 0 0 6,505 0.00%
Reprogram Great Room NV system 12,499 0 0 12,499 0.00%
Repair/replace siding at Mirabeau restroom 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00%
Total expenditures 1,120,305 19,775 68,760
Revenues over (under) expenditures 85,375 (19,767) (40,831)
Beginning fund balance 75,577 75,577
Ending fund balance 160,952 34,746
#310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest
1,051,545
(2,229,295)
6.14%
3,100 59 198 (2,902) 6.39%
Total revenues 3,100 59 198 (2,902) 6.39%
Expenditures
Transfers out - #312 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 3,100 59 198 (2,902)
Beginning fund balance 842,964 842,964
Ending fund balance 846,064 843,163
Note: The fund balance includes $839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed
in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,285.10.
Page 13
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
#311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION FUND
Revenues
Transfers in - #001 991,843 0 0 (991,843) 0.00%
Transfers in - #106 1,500,000 0 0 (1,500,000) 0.00%
Transfers in - #301 827,278 0 0 (827,278) 0.00%
Transfers in - #302 827,279 0 0 (827,279) 0.00%
Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Investment Interest 0 401 1,093 1,093 0.00%
Total revenues
4,146,400 401 1,093 (4,145,307) 0.03%
Expenditures
Pre -Project GeoTech Services 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00%
Pavement Preservation 4,676,350 0 0 4,676,350 0.00%
285 Indiana Ave Pres - Evergreen to Sullivan 0 65 8,129 (8,129) 0.00%
286 Broadway Preservation: Havana to Fancher 0 0 281 (281) 0.00%
292 Mullan Preservation: Broadway -Mission 0 3,081 3,721 (3,721) 0.00%
309 Local Access Streets: Barker Homes 0 0 (2,389) 2,389 0.00%
320 Sullivan Preservation: Sprague-8th 0 0 130 (130) 0.00%
323 Evergreen Road Preservation Project 0 7,571 21,564 (21,564) 0.00%
325 2021 Local Access Streets: South Park Rd 0 10,351 28,368 (28,368) 0.00%
Total expenditures 4,726,350 21,068 59,803 4,666,547 1.27%
Revenues over (under) expenditures (579,950) (20,667) (58,710) (8,811,853)
Beginning fund balance 5,792,145 5,792,145
Ending fund balance 5,212,195 5,733,436
#312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Transfers in - #309 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Transfers in - #310 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Investment Interest 100,000 601 2,043 (97,957) 2.04%
Proceeds from Sale of Land 0 0 109,403 109,403 0.00%
Total revenues 100,000 601 111,446 11,446 111.45%
Expenditures
Transfers out - #309 565,150 0 0 565,150 0.00%
Transfers out - #314 725,774 0 0 725,774 0.00%
Land Acquisition 759,600 0 0 759,600 0.00%
Total expenditures 2,050,524 0 0 2,050,524 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,950,524) 601 111,446 (2,039,078)
Beginning fund balance 8,503,764 8,503,764
Ending fund balance 6,553,240 8,615,211
Page 14
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS -continued
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
#314 - RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Grant Proceeds
Investment Interest
Leasehold Excise Tax
Transfers in - #302
Transfers in - #312
Miscellaneous Revenues
11,508,819 0 143 (11,508,676) 0.00%
0 67 215 215 0.00%
0 193 770 770 0.00%
1,127,387 0 0 (1,127,387) 0.00%
725,774 0 0 (725,774) 0.00%
0 1,307 5,230 5,230 0.00%
Total revenues 13,361,980 1,567
Expenditures
143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation 9,396,870 63,936
223 Pines Rd Underpass 4,149,450 4,461
311 Sullivan Rd./SR 290 Interchange Project 250,000 301
6,359 (13,355,621)
(321,306) 9,718,176
145,495 4,003,955
24,963 225,037
0.05%
-3.42%
3.51%
9.99%
Total expenditures 13,796,320 68,699 (150,848)
Revenues over (under) expenditures (434,340) (67,132) 157,207
Beginning fund balance 793,526 793,526
Ending fund balance 359,186 950,733
#315 - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
Revenues
Transportation Impact Fees
Investment Interest
0
0
13,947,168
(27,302,789)
-1.09%
10,080 101,970 101,970 0.00%
7 16 16 0.00%
Total revenues 0 10,087 101,986 101,986 0.00%
Expenditures
Transfers out 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 10,087 101,986 101,986
Beginning fund balance 0 0
Ending fund balance 0 101,986
Page 15
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
#402 - STORMWATER FUND
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
Revenues
Stormwater Management Fees 1,900,000 83,196 143,977 (1,756,023) 7.58%
Investment Interest 40,000 158 537 (39,463) 1.34%
Miscellaneous Revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Total Recurring Revenues 1,940,000 83,354 144,514 (1,795,486) 7.45%
Expenditures
Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 538,864 26,470 107,292 431,572 19.91 %
Supplies 14,750 928 1,854 12,896 12.57%
Services & Charges 1,320,643 78,472 138,354 1,182,289 10.48%
Intergovernmental Payments 45,000 0 0 45,000 0.00%
Vehicle Rentals - #501 6,750 0 0 6,750 0.00%
Total Recurring Expenditures 1,926,007 105,870 247,500 1,678,507 12.85%
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures 13,993 (22,516) (102,986) (116,979)
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Grant Proceeds
100,000 0 0 (100,000) 0.00%
Total Nonrecurring Revenues 100,000 0 0 (100,000) 0.00%
Expenditures
Capital - various projects 500,000 3,122 3,122 496,878 0.62%
300 Pines & Mission Intersection Improvement 0 0 468 (468) 0.00%
309 Local Access Streets: Barker Homes 0 862 821 (821) 0.00%
Watershed Studies 100,000 0 0 100,000 0.00%
Stormwater Comprehensive Plan 100,000 0 0 100,000 0.00%
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 700,000 3,984 4,411 695,589 0.63%
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures (600,000) (3,984) (4,411) 595,589
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures (586,007) (26,500) (107,397) 478,610
Beginning working capital 2,159,796 2,159,796
Ending working capital 1,573,789 2,052,400
Note: Work performed in the Stormwater Fund for preservation projects is for stormwater improvements that were bid
with the pavement preservation work.
#403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA
Revenues
Spokane County 460,000 0 0 (460,000) 0.00%
Grant Proceeds 2,122,045 0 0 (2,122,045) 0.00%
Investment Interest 15,000 137 473 (14,527) 3.15%
Total revenues
2,597,045 137 473 (2,596,572) 0.02%
Expenditures
Capital - various projects 2,378,109 70,122 176,799 2,201,310 7.43%
Total expenditures 2,378,109 70,122 176,799 2,201,310 7.43%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 218,936 (69,985) (176,326) (4,797,883)
Beginning working capital 2,120,365 2,120,365
Ending working capital 2,339,301 1,944,039
Page 16
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
#501 - ER&R FUND
Revenues
Interfund vehicle lease - #001 31,300 0 0 (31,300) 0.00%
Interfund vehicle lease - #101 10,250 0 0 (10,250) 0.00%
Interfund vehicle lease - #101 (plow replace) 60,500 0 0 (60,500) 0.00%
Interfund vehicle lease - #402 6,750 0 0 (6,750) 0.00%
Transfers in - #001 (CenterPlace kitchen reserve) 36,600 0 0 (36,600) 0.00%
Investment Interest 10,000 97 320 (9,680) 3.20%
Total revenues
155,400 97 320 (155,080) 0.21%
Expenditures
Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 0 677 1,937 (1,937) 0.00%
Small tools & minor equipment 10,000 0 0 10,000 0.00%
Vehicle purchase 130,000 0 0 130,000 0.00%
Total expenditures 140,000 677 1,937 138,063 1.38%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 15,400 (580) (1,617) (293,143)
Beginning working capital 1,387,962 1,387,962
Ending working capital 1,403,362 1,386,345
#502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Transfers in - #001 425,000 0 0 (425,000) 0.00%
Total revenues
Expenditures
Auto & Property Insurance
Unemployment Claims
Total expenditures
425,000 0 0 (425,000) 0.00%
425,000 0 365,384 59,616 85.97%
0
1,785 1,785
(1,785) 0.00%
425,000 1,785 367,169 57,831 86.39%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (1,785) (367,169) (482,831)
Beginning working capital 340,484 340,484
Ending working capital 340,484 (26,685)
Page 17
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021 \2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
#632 - PASSTHROUGH FEES & TAXES
Revenues
Passthrough Fees & Taxes
Total revenues
Expenditures
Passthrough Fees & Taxes
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning working capital
Ending working capital
Budget Year
Elapsed =
2021
33.33%
2021
Budget
Actual Actual through Budget
April April 30 Remaining
% of
Budget
0
0 0 0 0.00%
0
0 0 0 0.00%
0
0 (6,001) 6,001 0.00%
0
0 (6,001) 6,001 0.00%
0
313
313
0
6,001 (6,001)
313
6,314
SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS
Total of Revenues for all Funds
Per Revenue Status Report
Difference
90,086,029
90,086,029
5,276,217
5,276,217
15,302,430
15,302,430
Total of Expenditures for all Funds 97,968,784 3,909,409 15,212,982
Per Expenditure Status Report 97,968,784 3,909,409 15,212,982
Difference -
Total Capital expenditures (included in
total expenditures) 32,554,699 235,259 711,729
Page 18
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021\2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Investment Report
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
Beginning
Deposits
Withdrawls
Interest
Ending
001 General Fund
101 Street Fund
103 Trails & Paths
104 Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel
105 Hotel/Motel
106 Solid Waste Fund
107 PEG Fund
108 Affordable & Supportive Housing
120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve
121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve
122 Winter Weather Reserve
301 Capital Projects
302 Special Capital Projects
303 Street Capital Projects Fund
309 Parks Capital Project
310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects
311 Pavement Preservation
312 Capital Reserve Fund
313 City Hall Construction Fund
314 Railroad Grade Separation Projects
315 Transportation Impact Fees
402 Stormwater Management
403 Aquifer Protection Fund
501 Equipment Rental & Replacement
502 Risk Management
632 Passthrough Fees & Taxes
"Local Government Investment Pool
5/14/2021
LGI P"
NW Bank
CD #2068
Banner
CD #9161
Total
Investments
$ 72,262,133.36 $ 3,078,658.52 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 77,340,791.88
3,110, 811.60 0.00 0.00 3,110, 811.60
(2,800,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (2,800,000.00)
6,047.13 0.00 0.00 6,047.13
$ 72,578,992.09 $ 3,078,658.52 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 77,657,650.61
matures: 7/23/2021 12/9/2021
rate: 0.40%
0.40%
Balance
Earnings
Current Period
Year to date
Budget
$ 41,003,736.90 $ 3,451.44
423,825.67 35.31
19,454.89 1.62
2,546,984.73 212.21
741,725.06 61.80
862,120.68 71.83
152, 091.97 12.67
172,789.27 14.40
0.00 0.00
5, 500, 000.00 0.00
133, 928.40 11.16
2,157,161.79 179.73
4,766,394.94 397.13
758,357.54 63.18
103, 898.85 8.66
705,465.50 58.78
4,809,470.92 400.72
7,209,775.98 600.70
0.00 0.00
803,532.78 66.95
85, 330.66 7.11
1,901,163.64 158.40
1, 640, 333.13 136.67
1,160,107.31 96.66
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11,596.10 $ 500,000.00
105.41 4,000.00
5.29 200.00
705.14 24, 000.00
201.09 6,000.00
352.98 12, 000.00
42.40 0.00
44.49 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
26.15 1,900.00
676.85 25, 000.00
1,340.15 25, 000.00
167.97 0.00
19.66 0.00
198.05 3,100.00
1,093.43 0.00
2,043.16 100, 000.00
0.00 0.00
215.42 0.00
16.02 0.00
537.00 40, 000.00
472.51 15, 000.00
319.82 10, 000.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
$ 77,657,650.61 $ 6,047.13 $ 20,179.09 $ 766,200.00
Page 19
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2021\2021 04 30
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Sales Tax Receipts
For the Four -Month Period Ended April 30, 2021
Month
Received
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
2020
2,559,296.59
2,015,206.15
1, 897, 614.47
6,472,117.21
1,847,551.89
1, 875, 335.44
2, 570, 769.98
2, 677, 467.88
2,682,700.17
2, 540, 248.50
2, 731, 249.99
2,602,181.93
2, 451, 245.65
2021
2,934,890.06
2,445,374.71
2,571,438.34
5/14/2021
Difference
375, 593.47
430,168.56
673, 823.87
7,951,703.11 1,479, 585.90
28,450,868.64 7,951,703.11
14.68%
21.35%
35.51%
22.86%
Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice
sales tax and public safety tax.
The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane
Valley is 8.9%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the
vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to
the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.9% tax rate to
the agencies is as follows:
- State of Washington
- City of Spokane Valley
- Spokane County
- Spokane Public Facilities District
- Criminal Justice
- Public Safety
- Juvenile Jail
- Mental Health
- Law Enforcement Communications
- Spokane Transit Authority
6.50%
0.85%
0.15%
0.10% *
0.10%
0.10% *
0.10% *
0.10% *
0.10% *
0.80% *
8.90%
Indicates voter approved sales taxes
2.40% local tax
In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of
the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is
computed as follows:
Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the
State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder
allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County.
Public Safety: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the
State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder
allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County.
Page 20
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Sales Tax\2021\sales tax collections 2021
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Sales Tax Collections -
For the years 2012 through 2021
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
January 1,589,887 1,671,269 1,677,887 1,732,299 1,863,225 1,992,273 2,078,412 2,240,908 2,253,852
February 1,009, 389 1,133, 347 1,170, 640 1,197, 323 1,316, 682 1,369,740 1,536, 252 1,648, 657 1,776, 898
March 1,067, 733 1,148, 486 1,201, 991 1,235, 252 1,378, 300 1,389, 644 1,564, 282 1,549, 275 1,687, 355
2,615,326
2,185, 876
2,317, 671
5/19/2021
2020 to 2021
Difference
$
361,474
408,978
630,316
ok
16.04%
23.02%
37.36%
Collected to date 3,667,009 3,953,102 4,050,518 4,164,874 4,558,207 4,751,657 5,178,946 5,438,840 5,718,105 7,118,873 1,400,768 24.50%
April 1,277,621 1,358,834 1,448,539 1,462,096 1,640,913 1,737,933 1,926,551 1,955,470 1,627,596 0
May 1,174,962 1,320,449 1,400,956 1,373,710 1,566,178 1,564,119 1,762,119 1,946,112 1,651,937 0
June 1,290,976 1,389,802 1,462,558 1,693,461 1,641,642 1,751,936 1,871,077 2,067,987 2,291,842 0
July 1,302,706 1,424,243 1,545,052 1,718,428 1,776,653 1,935,028 2,053,961 2,232,342 2,368,495 0
August 1,299,678 1,465,563 1,575,371 1,684,700 1,746,371 1,877,899 1,980,940 2,121,051 2,393,597 0
September 1,383,123 1,466,148 1,552,736 1,563,950 1,816,923 1,946,689 2,019,198 2,223,576 2,258,489 0
October 1,358,533 1,439,321 1,594,503 1,618,821 1,822,998 1,898,067 2,005,836 2,134,985 2,431,920 0
November 1,349,580 1,362,021 1,426,254 1,487,624 1,652,181 1,768,817 1,925,817 2,064,504 2,317,685 0
December 1,323,189 1,408,134 1,383,596 1,441,904 1,664,983 1,856,989 1,918,411 2,019,895 2,178,815 0
Total Collections 15,427,377 16,587,617 17,440,083 18,209,568 19,887,049 21,089,134 22,642,856 24,204,762 25,238,481 7,118,873
Budget Estimate 14,210,000 15,250,000 16,990,000 17,628,400 18,480,500 19,852,100 20,881,900 22,917,000 21,784,000 22,220,000
Actual over (under) budg 1,217,377 1,337,617 450,083 581,168 1,406,549 1,237,034 1,760,956 1,287,762 3,454,481 (15,101,127)
Total actual collections
as a % of total budget 108.57% 108.77% 102.65% 103.30% 107.61 % 106.23% 108.43% 105.62% 115.86% n/a
% change in annual
total collected 3.89% 7.52% 5.14% 4.41% 9.21% 6.04% 7.37% 6.90% 4.27% n/a
% of budget collected
through March 25.81% 25.92% 23.84% 23.63% 24.66% 23.94% 24.80% 23.73% 26.25% 32.04%
% of actual total collected
through March 23.77% 23.83% 23.23% 22.87% 22.92% 22.53% 22.87% 22.47% 22.66% n/a
Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of March
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1
March
March
■ February
■ January
2012 2013
2014 2015 2016 2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Page 21
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax \2021 \105 hotel motel tax 2021
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - March
Actual for the years 2012 through 2021
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
January 21,442
February 21,549
March 25,655
Total Collections
24,185
25,975
27,739
25,425
26,014
29,384
27,092
27,111
32,998
31,887
27,773
34,330
27,210
26,795
31,601
28,752
28,878
31,906
31,865
32,821
40,076
36,203
31,035
37,395
26,006
31,041
30,536
5/19/2021
2020 to 2021
Difference
(10,197) (28.17%)
6 0.02%
(6,859) (18.34%)
68,646 77,898 80,823 87,201 93,991 85,606 89,536 104,762 104,633 87,583 (17,050) (16.30%)
April 52,130 40,979 48,246 50,455 52,551 52,242 57,664 59,117 24,959 0
May 37,478 40,560 41,123 44,283 50,230 50,112 51,777 53,596 16,906 0
June 43,971 47,850 52,618 56,975 55,060 60,637 62,048 73,721 28,910 0
July 52,819 56,157 61,514 61,809 65,007 69,337 71,865 84,628 41,836 0
August 57,229 63,816 70,384 72,697 73,700 76,972 79,368 91,637 49,772 0
September 64,299 70,794 76,100 74,051 70,305 80,173 79,661 97,531 59,116 0
October 43,699 43,836 45,604 49,880 55,660 56,631 61,826 77,932 50,844 0
November 39,301 42,542 39,600 42,376 46,393 47,090 52,868 59,252 39,694 0
December 30,432 34,238 33,256 41,510 33,478 37,180 40,363 41,675 26,573 0
Total Collections 490,004 518,672 549,267 581,237 596,374 615,980 646,976 743,851 443,243 87,583
Budget Estimate 430,000 490,000 530,000 550,000 580,000 580,000 580,000 600,000 346,000 346,000
Actual over (under) budg 60,004 28,672 19,267 31,237 16,374 35,980 66,976 143,851 97,243 (258,417)
Total actual collections
as a % of total budget 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% 105.68% 102.82% 106.20% 111.55% 123.98% 128.10% n/a
% change in annual
total collected 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% 5.82% 2.60% 3.29% 5.03% 14.97% (40.41%) n/a
% of budget collected
through March
15.96% 15.90% 15.25% 15.85% 16.21% 14.76% 15.44% 17.46% 30.24% 25.31%
% of actual total collected
through March
14.01% 15.02% 14.71% 15.00% 15.76% 13.90% 13.84% 14.08% 23.61% n/a
Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of March
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1
March
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
• March
• February
■ January
Page 22
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\REET\2021\301 and 302 REET for 2021
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
1st and 2nd 1/4% REET Collections through March
Actual for the years 2012 through 2021
2012
2013 I 2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
January 46,359
February 56,115
March 71,730
56,898
155,226
72,172
61,192
67,049
81,724
96,141
103,508
165,868
104,446
83,583
220,637
153,661
124,514
282,724
239,437
146,892
310,562
120,809
199,209
193,913
212,512
242,927
203,774
277,311
283,644
497,974
Collected to date 174,203
284,296 209,964
365,517 408,667
560,899 696,891
513,931 659,213 1,058,929
April 86,537 90,377 105,448 236,521 205,654 169,060 218,842 347,528 197,928 0
May 111,627 116,165 198,870 165,748 192,806 202,734 646,397 263,171 258,784 0
June 124,976 139,112 106,676 347,421 284,897 248,768 277,424 465,044 329,801 0
July 101,049 128,921 208,199 217,375 248,899 449,654 302,941 327,636 234,040 0
August 106,517 117,150 172,536 202,525 231,200 472,420 261,626 300,312 365,838 0
September 63,517 174,070 152,323 179,849 178,046 187,348 259,492 335,824 381,224 0
October 238,095 117,806 123,505 128,833 253,038 207,895 584,792 225,216 381,163 0
November 104,886 78,324 172,227 129,870 186,434 229,800 263,115 319,161 370,449 0
December 74,300 75,429 117,682 157,919 164,180 278,995 288,912 235,726 479,586 0
Total distributed by Spokane County 1,185,707 1,321,650 1,567,429 2,131,578 2,353,822 3,007,573 3,800,432 3,333,549 3,658,026 1,058,929
Budget estimate 875,000 975,000 1,100,000 1,400,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 2,800,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Actual over (under) budget 310,707 346,650 467,429 731,578 353,822 1,007,573 800,432 533,549 1,658,026 (941,071)
Total actual collections
as a % of total budget 135.51% 135.55% 142.49% 152.26% 117.69% 150.38% 126.68% 119.06% 182.90% n/a
% change in annual
total collected
% of budget collected
through March
% of actual total collected
through March
23.22% 11.47% 18.60% 35.99% 10.43% 27.77% 26.36% (12.28%) 9.73% n/a
19.91% 29.16% 19.09% 26.11% 20.43% 28.04% 23.23% 18.35% 32.96% 52.95%
14.69% 21.51%
13.40% 17.15%
17.36% 18.65% 18.34% 15.42% 18.02% n/a
Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of March
5/19/2021
2020 to 2021
Difference
64,799
40,717
294,200
30.49%
16.76%
144.38%
399,716 60.64%
March
• March
1,200,000
• February
1,000,000
800,000
• Janua ry
600,000
2016
2018
■
2017
400,000
II
200,000
0
2019
2012
2013
2014
2015
2020 2021
Pa
ge 23
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Debt Capacity\2021\debt capacity 2021
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Debt Capacity
3/22/2021
2020 Assessed Value for 2021 Property Taxes 11,553,065,482
Voted (UTGO)
Nonvoted (LTGO)
Voted park
Voted utility
1.00% of assessed value
1.50% of assessed value
2.50% of assessed value
2.50% of assessed value
Maximum
Outstanding
Remaining
Debt
as of
Debt
ok
Capacity
12/31/2020
Capacity
Utilized
115,530,655
173,295,982
288,826,637
288,826,637
866,479,911
0 115,530,655
11,120,000 162,175,982
0 288,826,637
0 288,826,637
11,120,000 855,359,911
0.00%
6.42%
0.00%
0.00%
1.28%
2014 LTGO Bonds
Road &
LTGO Bonds
Period
Street
2016 LTGO
Grand
Ending
CenterPlace
Improvements
Total
Bonds
Total
12/1/2014
Bonds 12/1/2015
Repaid 12/1/2016
12/1/2017
12/1/2018
12/1/2019
12/1/2020
225,000
175,000
185,000
190,000
230,000
255,000
290,000
135,000
125,000
130,000
130,000
135,000
140,000
140,000
360,00
300,00
315,000
320,000
365,000
395,000
430,000
0
0
75,000
150,000
155,000
160,000
165,000
360,000
300,000
390,000
470,000
520,000
555,000
595,000
1,550,000 935,000
2,485,000 705,000 3,190,000
12/1/2021 320,000 145,000 465,000 170,000
12/1/2022 350,000 150,000 500,000 175,000
12/1/2023 390,000 155,000 545,000 180,000
12/1/2024 430,000 0 430,000 185,000
12/1/2025 465,000 0 465,000 195,000
12/1/2026 505,000 0 505,000 900,000
12/1/2027 395,000 0 395,000 '05,000
12/1/2028 300,000 0 300,000 15,000
12/1/2029 245,000 0 245,000 2'0,000
12/1/2030 225,000 0 225,000 2. ,000
Bonds 12/1/2031 180,000 0 180,000 23.,000
Remaining 12/1/2032 130,000 0 130,000 246,000
12/1/2033 165,000 0 165,000 250,000
12/1/2034 0 0 0 260, 1 00
12/1/2035 0 0 0 270,000
12/1/2036 0 0 0 280,0 0
12/1/2037 0 0 0 290,0 0
12/1/2038 0 0 0 305,00
12/1/2039 0 0 0 315,00
12/1/2040 0 0 0 330,000
12/1/2041 0 0 0 340,000
12/1/2042 0 0 0 355,000
12/1/2043 0 0 0 365,000
12/1/2044 0 0 0 375,000
12/1/2045 0 0 0 390,000
635,000
675,000
725,000
615,000
660,000
705,000
600,000
515,000
465,000
450,000
415,000
370,000
415,000
260,000
270,000
280,000
290,000
305,000
315,000
330,000
340,000
355,000
365,000
375,000
390,000
4,100, 000
450,000 4,550,000 6,570,000 11,120,000
5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 7,275,000 14, 310, 000
Page 24
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\MVFT\2021 \motor vehicle fuel tax collections 2021
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Collections - March
For the years 2012 through 2021
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
January 159,607
February 135,208
March 144,297
Collected to date
146,145
145,998
135,695
152,906
148,118
131,247
152,598
145,455
140,999
163,918
163,037
145,537
150,654
164,807
138,205
162,359
175,936
139,826
148,530
181,823
131,009
152,686
170,461
146,280
143,576
150,882
117,784
5/19/2021
2020 to 2021
Difference
$ %
(9,110)
(19,579)
(28,496)
(5.97%)
(11.49%)
(19.48%)
439,112 427,838 432,271 439,052 472,492 453,666 478,121 461,362 469,427 412,242 (57,185) (12.18%)
April 153,546 156,529 156,269 157,994 167,304 168,000 168,796 144,080 90,589 0
May 144,670 151,595 156,850 156,259 171,829 174,211 193,986 185,669 130,168 0
June 159,827 167,479 161,965 164,872 157,737 174,838 144,308 175,985 128,359 0
July 160,565 155,348 157,805 168,205 177,427 177,019 194,267 169,733 138,932 0
August 164,050 173,983 172,308 186,277 177,567 195,780 205,438 195,107 136,633 0
September 171,651 195,397 173,299 174,505 194,640 184,342 180,874 180,605 195,550 0
October 153,022 133,441 160,539 161,520 166,369 163,780 158,062 162,187 160,272 0
November 162,324 164,303 165,871 181,771 176,178 194,814 199,282 196,240 175,980 0
December 138,223 142,140 141,298 153,338 152,787 154,298 148,960 155,728 119,282 0
Total Collections 1,846,990 1,868,053 1,878,475 1,943,793 2,014,330 2,040,748 2,072,094 2,026,696 1,745,192 412,242
Budget Estimate 1,905,800 1,868,900 1,866,400 1,867,700 2,013,400 2,048,900 2,061,100 2,039,500 1,715,000 2,062,000
Actual over (under) budg (58,810) (847) 12,075 76,093 930 (8,152) 10,994 (12,804) 30,192 (1,649,758)
Total actual collections
as a % of total budget 96.91 % 99.95% 100.65% 104.07% 100.05% 99.60% 100.53% 99.37% 101.76% n/a
% change in annual
total collected (0.58%) 1.14% 0.56% 3.48% 3.63% 1.31% 1.54% (2.19%) (13.89%) n/a
% of budget collected
through March 23.04% 22.89% 23.16% 23.51% 23.47% 22.14% 23.20% 22.62% 27.37% 19.99%
% of actual total collected
through March 23.77% 22.90% 23.01% 22.59% 23.46% 22.23% 23.07% 22.76% 26.90% n/a
Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of March
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
1
1
March
March
• February
January
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2020 2021
Page 25
P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Telephone Tax\2021\telephone utility tax collections 2021
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Telephone Utility Tax Collections - March
For the years 2012 through 2021
January
February
March
Collected to date
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total Collections
Budget Estimate
Actual over (under) budg
Total actual collections
as a % of total budget
% change in annual
total collected
% of budget collected
through March
% of actual total collected
through March
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
193,818
261,074
234,113
217,478
216,552
223,884
210,777
205,953
208,206
177,948
212,845
174,738
182,167
173,971
177,209
162,734
163,300
162,536
130,196
164,060
158,416
136,615
132,538
138,727
123,292
121,596
121,938
7,399
155,911
100,611
689,005
229,565
227,469
234,542
226,118
228,789
227,042
225,735
225,319
221,883
2,735,467
3,000,000
(264,533)
657,914
214,618
129,270
293,668
213,078
211,929
210,602
205,559
212,947
213,097
2,562,682
2,900,000
(337,318)
624,936
206,038
210,010
210,289
205,651
205,645
199,193
183,767
213,454
202,077
2,461,060
2,750,000
(288,940)
565,531
214,431
187,856
187,412
190,984
185,172
183,351
183,739
175,235
183,472
2,257,183
2,565,100
(307,917)
533,347
171,770
174,512
170,450
174,405
171,909
170,476
166,784
166,823
168,832
2,069,308
2,340,000
(270,692)
488,570 452,672 407,880
157,285 146,519 126,455
161,506 149,434 135,704
156,023 150,780 129,602
157,502 147,281 130,723
150,644 148,158 127,303
155,977 141,290 128,018
153,075 142,925 127,214
151,208 139,209 125,027
161,115 140,102 126,226
1,892,905 1,758,370 1,564,152
2,000,000 1,900,000 1,600,000
(107,095) (141,630) (35,848)
366,826
120,016
118,018
117,905
120,922
112,351
91,866
90,272
88,212
92,242
1,318,630
1,521,000
(202,370)
5/19/2021
2020 to 2021
Difference
ok
(115,893)
34,315
(21,327)
(94.00%)
28.22%
(17.49%)
263,921 (102,905) (28.05%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
263,921
1,431,000
(1,167,079)
91.18% 88.37% 89.49% 88.00% 88.43% 94.65% 92.55%
97.76% 86.69% n/a
(8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) (8.28%) (8.32%) (8.52%) (7.11%) (11.05%) (15.70%) n/a
22.97% 22.69% 22.72% 22.05% 22.79% 24.43% 23.82% 25.49% 24.12% 18.44%
25.19% 25.67% 25.39% 25.05% 25.77% 25.81% 25.74% 26.08% 27.82% n/a
Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of March
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2012
2013
2014
2015
March
2016 2017
1
2018
1
2019
2020 2021
March
• February
• January
Page 26