Agenda 03/22/2012 �CITYok�..ne
�
Val�e �
�
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
March 22, 2012 6:00 p.m.
L CALL TO ORDER
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IIL ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS-2012 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
B. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Study Session— Shoreline Advisory Group Public Hearing Draft Shoreline
Master Program Goals and Policies
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XL ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR
70HN G.CARROLL SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP
RUSTiN HALL
RoD HIGGINs
STEVEN NEILL
MARCIA SANDS DEANNA GRIFFITH,SECRETARY
JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 22,2012
A. Background:
1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from
November 2nd to November lst of the following year. Applications received prior to November
lst are considered by the Planning Commission in late winter/early spring of the following year,
with a decision by City Council in late spring/early summer.
2. The Community Development Department received seven (7) requests for site-specific
Comprehensive Plan amendments for 2012. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation consistent with the new land use
designation. The 2012 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to four
Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 - Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 —
Capital Facilities and Public Services, and Chapter 7 — Economic Development. The
amendments may also entail minor changes to other elements referencing the proposed
amendments.
B. Findings:
1. Notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February
8, 2012 and each site was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign,with a description of the
proposal.
2. Individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposals were mailed to all property
owners within 400 feet of each affected site.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA —RCW 4321C) environmental checklists
were required for each proposed comprehensive plan map and text amendment.
4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each
comprehensive plan amendment. Optional Determinations of Non-significance (DNS) were
issued for the requested comprehensive plan amendments on February 8, 2012.
5. The DNS's were published in the city's official newspaper on February 8, 2012 consistent with
Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Title 21, Environmental Controls.
6. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 23, 2012. After receiving public
testimony, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA-01-12, CPA-02-12,
CPA-03-12, CPA-04-12, CPA-06-12, CPA-07-12, CPA-08-12, CPA-09-12, CPA-10-12, and
CPA-11-12 to City Council with a recommendation for approval.
7. The Planning Commission voted to continue the deliberations on CPA-OS-12 to the March 8th
meeting to further discuss public testimony and develop a recommendation for City Council.
8. On February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission was provided via email the recorded
development agreement for CPA-01-09 (4th Avenue Apartments), residential zone dimensional
standards, and screening and buffering standards.
9. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on March 8, 2012. The Planning
Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA-OS-12 to City Council with a
recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:
a. Parcel 45133.0109 be designated as Community Commercial
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for 2012 CPAs Page 1 of 2
b. The successful negotiation of a "Developers Agreement" that includes: an expanded
landscape buffer between the proposed development and adjacent residences on Moore, A1ki,
and Sonora streets. Appropriate restrictions on density and height to better blend the two
neighborhoods.
10. The Planning Commission �nds the procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy
Act(SEPA) and Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 21 have been fulfilled.
ll. The Planning Commission �nds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Approval Criteria.
Conclusions:
The proposed 2012 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection
of the environment.
Recommendations:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the proposed 2012
Comprehensive Plan amendments, as attached.
Approved this 22°d day of March,2012
Bill Bates, Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Griffith,Administrative Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for 2012 CPAs Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: March 22,2012
Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business ❑public hearing
� information ❑ admin.repoi�t ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: Shoreline Master Program Update
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study Session—Draft Goals and Policies
BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program update team,with the assistance of a Shoreline
Advisory Group (SAG), completed draft Goals and Policies for the Shoreline Master Program Update in
July 20ll. During the course of Council update on the process,it was determined that legal counsel with
expertise in Shoreline Master Program (SMP) updates would be retained, delaying further work on the
update process Van Ness Feldman GordonDerr was selected in January 2012 to provide special legal
counsel to the City. Now that special legal counsel is on board,the SMP Update process will begin at the
point work was stopped: Public Review of the Draft Shoreline Goals and Policies.
Staff worked with a Shoreline Advisory Group(SAG) to develop the Draft Goals and Policies. The SAG
met eight times between January and June 20ll. The SAG was comprised of property and business
owners, state and local agencies, and other special interest groups and individuals. The SAG's primary
role was to provide input on the development of the draft goals and policies. Goals and Policies are a
critical component of the Shoreline Master Program as they provide the basis for the development
regulations for all land uses within the shoreline jurisdiction.
At this time the Planning Commission is tasked with reviewing the document, conducting a public
hearing, considering public input, and finally providing a recommendation to the City Council. The draft
goals and policies are attached for your review. While it is anticipated that the goals and policies will be
modified through the public review process, the starting point for discussion is the SAG's draft.
Attorney Tadas Kisielius has completed a review of the Goals and Policies and provided written
comments that highlight areas where the draft goals and policies may exceed,meet, or fall below the state
guidelines. The memo, with comments provided in a table format, also addresses the limited amount of
comments received to date. The table will be expanded to include all written and verbal comments
received during the upcoming public review process. The table should be considered a working
document that is subject to change. Mr. Kisielius' comments will be discussed during deliberations, but
are provided at this time to assist the Planning Commission to identify issues for discussion. Mr.
Kisielius will be available during the Planning Commission deliberations to answer questions. A public
hearing is scheduled for April 12, 2012 and the deliberations are tentatively scheduled for April 26,2012.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act(SMA) under RCW 90.58
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Numerous discussions regarding SMP Update.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 de�ne the process for approval of an SMP
and require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Goals and Policies(Clean Version) 4. Doug Pineo's Comments July 22,20ll5.
2. Attorney Tadas Kisielius Memo March 15,2012 5 Power Point Presentation
3. Centennial Properties Comments July 19,2011
1of1
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12 D
r-r
r-r
v
n
General Goals and Policies �
�
�
Goal SMP 1: Enhance the City's shorelines by establishing and implementing goals, policies, and �
regulations which promote a mixture of reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses that improve the
City's character,foster its historic and cultural identity, and conserve environmental resources.
Policies
SMP 1.1 Coordinated Planning
Coordinate shoreline planning between the City of Spokane Valley, agencies with jurisdiction,
adjoining jurisdictions, the State of Washington, and the State of Idaho into which the river basin
extends, and consider the plans of non-government organizations (NGO's) and/or special interest
groups.
SMP 1.2 Consistency with Other Plans and Programs
Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program is consistent with the Washington
State Shoreline Management Act and Growth Management Act, the basic concepts, goals, policies,
and land use plan of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and development regulations,
the City of Spokane Valley Critical Areas Ordinances, and the Shoreline Master Programs of adjacent
jurisdictions.
SMP 1.3 No Net Loss of Ecological Functions
Ensure that all shoreline uses and development are regulated in a manner that guarantees no net loss
of shoreline ecological functions
SMP 1.4 Public Interest and Property Rights
Protect the interests of the public in attaining the goals of the Shoreline Master Program, in a manner
consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private
property.
SMP 1.5 Shoreline Designated Environments
Designate shoreline environments for the City of Spokane Valley shorelines that are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan land uses, shoreline management practices, and shoreline inventory within
each designated area.
SMP 1.6 Use preferences for all Shorelines
Give preference to those shoreline activities which fulfill long range Comprehensive Plan goals and
the Shoreline Management Act policy priorities, as listed and discussed below:
It is the policy of the City to provide for the management of its shorelines by planning for and
fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. Policies are designed to ensure the development of the
City's shorelines in a manner which will promote and enhance the public interest. These policies will
protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land, its vegetation and aquatic life and
wildlife, and the waters of the Spokane River, Shelly Lake and the Sullivan Road and Park Road
Gravel Pits and their aquatic life.
SMP 1.7 Use preferences for Shorelines of State-wide Significance
The State Legislature has declared that the interest and benefit of all of the people shall be paramount
in the management of shorelines of state-wide significance, and therefore preference shall be given to
uses in the following order of preference which:.
1. Recognize and protect statewide interest over local interest
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � �SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline
3. Allow uses that result in long-term over short-term benefits
4. Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines
5. Provide public access to publicly owned areas of shorelines
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines.
Histo�ical, Cultural, Scientific & Educational Element
Goal SMP 2: Goal: Protect the historic, cultural, scientific or educational sites within the
shoreline that reflect our community's unique heritage and create or contribute to our collective
sense of place.
Policies `�
SMP 2.1 Sites and Structures
Identify, preserve, and manage shoreline sites and structures having historical, cultural, scientific or
educational value, and develop regulations that avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse impacts to
these resources.
SMP 2.2 Sites and Building Acquisition
Public acquisition through gifts, bequests, grants, or donations of buildings or sites having cultural,
scientific, educational, or historical value should be encouraged.
SMP 2.3 Development Impacts
Discourage public or private development and redevelopment activities on any site, area, or building
identified as having historical, cultural, educational or scientific value.
SMP 2.4 Cooperation and Consultation
Ensure constant cooperation and consultation with affected agencies and tribes for projects that could
potentially impact cultural and historical resources.
SMP 2.5 Inventory of Sites
Work with tribal, state, federal and local governments as appropriate to maintain an inventory of all
known significant local historic, cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of applicable state
and federal laws protecting such information from public disclosure.
SMP 2.6 Site Inspection and Evaluation
Ensure early and continuous site inspection, consultation or evaluation by a professional archaeologist
in coordination with affected tribes for all permits issued in areas documented to contain �
archaeological resources. v
�
S
Utilities Element �
�
r-r
Goal SMP 3: Maintain and provide adequate utility services within the shoreline environment N
while preserving and enhancing the natural environment and ecology of the shoreline.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � �SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
Policies
SMP 31 Location
Locate new public facilities and utilities, including, but not limited to, utility production, processing,
distribution, and transmission facilities outside of the shoreline jurisdiction whenever feasible.
SMP 3.2 Place Underground
Require new utilities and facilities that must be located within the shoreline to be built underground,
if feasible, and utilize low impact, low profile design and construction methods to the maximum
extent possible.
SMP 3.3 Existing Rights-of-way
Require new utilities and facilities to be located in existing rights-of-way whenever possible.
SMP 3.4 Maintenance Design
When e�sting utilities located within shoreline jurisdiction require maintenance or other
improvements, the maintenance/improvement should be designed and implemented to minimize
additional impacts on the shoreline environment and,if possible, to correct past impacts caused by the
utility.
SMP 3.5 Preference to Existing Facilities and Utilities
Give preference to established utility corridors and rights-of-way for upgrades and reconstruction of
e�sting utilities and facilities, unless a location with less potential to impact the shoreline
environment is available.
SMP 3.6 Stormwater Facilities
Stormwater utilities will be designed and located as to minimize environmental impacts within the
shoreline jurisdiction. If located within the shoreline jurisdiction they shall require the use of best
management practices (e.g. biofiltration measures) and landscaping with native vegetation to provide
habitat, ecological restoration, and aesthetic improvements. All stormwater facilities must protect
water quality,manage runoff and address erosion control and sedimentation.
Circulation Element
Goal SMP 4: Provide a safe, convenient, and multimodal circulation system which will minimize
disruption to the shoreline environment
Policies
SMP 4.1 Transportation Access
Ensure that a system of arterials, scenic drives,pathways,public transit routes, and bikeways adjacent
to and within the shoreline areas provide appropriate access to the Spokane River in a way that meets
the needs and desires of the community as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan,while also preserving
ecological function of the shorelines.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
SMP 4.2 Location of New Streets or Street Expansions
Locate new streets or street expansions outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, unless no other options
are available or feasible. In all cases, streets should be on the landward side of development.
SMP 4.3 Consolidation of Corridors
Encourage the consolidation of transportation and utility corridors crossing the shoreline environment
in order to minimize the number of crossings, and encourage the collocation of utilities on bridges or
in transportation rights of way whenever possible by considering the needs during the design of
bridge and corridor upgrades.
SMP 4.4 Transportation Facilities
Plan, locate, and design proposed transportation facilities where routes will have the least possible
adverse effect on shoreline ecological functions, will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions, or adversely impact e�sting or planned water dependent uses.
SMP 4.5 Stormwater Treatment All development within the shoreline jurisdiction area shall
provide stormwater treatment for all new and redeveloped pollution generating impervious surfaces.
SMP 4.6 Parking Facilities for Public Access
Parking facilities for public access to the shoreline and water should be kept as far from the shorelines
as feasible
SMP 4.7 Parking Facilities not a Primary Use.
Parking facilities should only be allowed as necessary to support permitted shoreline uses, and not as
a primary use, and must be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction area if other options are
available and feasible.
SMP 4.8 Impacts of Parking Facilities
Minimize the environmental and visual impacts of parking facilities where allowed.
SMP 4.9 Retain Unused Public Rights-of-way for Visual and Physical Access
Retain unused public rights-of-way within the shoreline area to provide visual and physical access to
the shoreline unless:
• The street vacation enables the City to acquire the property for beach or water access
purposes, boat moorage or launching sites, park, public view, recreation, or educational
purposes, or other public uses or the City declares that the street or alley is not presently
being used and is not suitable for the above purposes; or
• The street vacation enables the City to implement a plan, that provides comparable or
improved public access to the same shoreline area to which the streets or alleys sought to be
vacated,had the properties included in the plan not been vacated.
D
r-r
SMP 4.10 Improve Non-Motorized Access to Shoreline �
S
Improve non-motorized access to the shoreline by developing,where appropriate,pathways, trails and �
�
bikeways along and adjacent to the shoreline. Connectivity between non-motoriaed access points is rt
N
encouraged.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies �
- . � �SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
SMP 4.11 Recognition of Centennial Trail
Recognize the importance and uniqueness of the Spokane River Centennial Trail to the City of
Spokane Valley, the region, and the state, Future trail development including trail extensions, new
access points,whether public or private, shall be designed to have the least adverse impact.
SMP 4.12 New Rail Lines
Allow new rail lines and the expansion of existing rail corridors within the shoreline jurisdiction only
for the purpose of connecting to existing rail lines or rights-of-way. Construct new rail lines within an
existing rail corridor where possible.
SMP 4.13 Rail Lines affecting Public Access
Construct, where feasible, all new rail lines so that they do not compromise the public's ability to
access the shoreline safely.
Economic Development Element
Goal SMP 5: Encourage and support water dependent,water oriented, and water related economic
activities within the shorelands of the City of Spokane Valley that will be an asset to the economy of
the area and that will protect and maintain the ecological functions of the shoreline environment
Policies
SMP 51 Location of Economic Development
Give preference to economic development within the shoreline jurisdiction that is particularly
dependent on their location on or use of the shoreline. Encourage new development to locate in areas
that have intensive prior use and can be upgraded or redeveloped. Encourage new economic
development to cluster into areas of the shoreline whose current use is compatible.
SMP 5.2 Design of Economic Development
Development should be designed to minimize the impacts to the shoreline aesthetic through
architectural, landscape, and other design features. All non-shoreline dependent elements of the
development should be placed inland. Encourage design that seeks to restore damaged or
compromised shoreline through incentives.
SMP 5.3 Provisions for Physical and Visual Availability to Water
Historic areas, overlook points, structures, and points of public access to the waterfront should be
incorporated in economic development site-planning.
SMP 5.4 Encourage Regional Tourism
Strengthen regional tourism by expanding and developing neighborhood and regional linkages and
improvements that use the shoreline areas.
SMP 5.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations
Proposed economic development in the shoreline should be consistent with the City of Spokane
Valley Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Upland uses on adjacent lands outside of
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
immediate SMA jurisdiction (in accordance with RCW 90.58.340) should protect the preferred
shoreline uses from being impacted by incompatible uses.
SMP 5.6 Evaluation of Economic Gain
Require that the short-term economic gain or convenience of development be evaluated against the
long-term and potentially costly impairments to the natural environments and state-wide interest that
may result.
SMP 5.7 Provisions for Shoreline Protection
Require that development provide adequate provisions for the protection of water quality, erosion
control, landscaping, aesthetic characteristics, stormwater systems, fish and wildlife habitat, views,
archaeological sites, and normal public use of the water.
SMP 5.8 Promote Recreational Uses
Promote recreational uses of the shorelines to contribute to the economic attractiveness of the city.
Seek opportunities to partner with public and privafe property owners to increase public recreational
opportunities in the shoreline.
SMP 5.9 Water-Enjoyment Areas
Promote the identification and establishment of water-enjoyment areas, such as parks, view points,
beaches and pathways as attractions.
SMP 5.10 Business and Industry Operations
Encourage shoreline industries and businesses to maintain a well kept appearance and to operate in a
manner that will not cause negative environmental impacts to the community.
SMP 5.11 Redevelopment
Encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment of existing sites that includes points of public
access, areas designed for public enjoyment, improve fish and wildlife habitat, or improve fish
passage.
SMP 5.12 Building Orientation
New public and private shoreline uses and developments should be planned and designed to attract
the public to the waterfront.
SMP 5.13 Design Feature Incentives
Incentives should be created to encourage developers to incorporate design features into the waterside
of the building.
SMP 5.14
Support and maintain the existing aggregate mining industry as a significant component of the area
economy.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies .
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
Conse�vation
Goal SMP 6: Preserve for the future those natural resources, including the unique, fragile and
scenic qualities of the shoreline, which cannot be replaced. Achieve no net loss of ecological D
functions of the shoreline. �
S
POliCies: �
�
�
r-r
SMP 6.1. Areas to be Preserved N
Areas that provide open spaces, scenic vistas, contribute to shoreline aesthetics, natural vegetation
and, fish and wildlife habitat should be preserved
SMP 6.2 Protect Vegetative Buffers and Setbacks
Protect existing vegetation and shoreline ecological function by designating buffers and setbacks that
are supported by the 2010 Shoreline Inventory.
SMP 6.3 Acquisition of Unique Shoreline Areas
Acquire and maintain, through conservation futures, donations, grants, general funds, or other
sources, shoreline areas containing natural elements especially worthy of preservation or especially
attractive to the public, such as beaches, forest covers, trees, wildlife populations, vistas and other
scenic features.
SMP 6.4 Preserve Ecological Connectivity
Protect and preserve ecological viability and connectivity through use of habitat islands and corridors
within the shoreline area.
SMP 6.5 Incentives for Retention of Resources Lands
Retain existing open space and environmentally sensitive areas on private property through the e use
of incentives.
SMP 6.6 Mitigation of Negative Impacts
Development shall avoid and if avoidance is not possible, mitigate negative impacts to steep banks,
surface and ground water quality, ecological functions, fish and wildlife habitat,vegetative cover, and
erosion of the soil.
SMP 6.7 Cumulative Impacts
Regulations shall assure that the commonly occurring and foreseeable cumulative impacts of
development do not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline.
Restor�tion
Goal SMP 7: Restore habitat and the natural systems to improve shoreline ecological functions.
Policies
SMP 7.1 Restoration Plan
Develop a Restoration Plan that will identify degraded areas and provide a framework for restoration
efforts to improve the existing ecological function and provide a mechanism for mitigation of
unavoidable and unforeseeable future development
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
SMP 7.2 City Stewardship
Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley assumes a primary stewardship role through restoration
efforts on city-owned and controlled land. Manage the City's programs, services, and operational
infrastructure in a manner that achieves no net loss of ecological or shoreline functions.
SMP 7.3 Incentives for Restoration and Enhancement Projects
Provide incentives for projects that include restoration and enhancement components by
implementing tools which may include but are not limited to: modifying the shoreline setback area
that would apply to the restored areas or allowing a greater range of uses or flexible development
standards (e.g., setbacks) on properties providing restoration and or enhancement.
SMP 7.4 Gravel Pit Restoration Plans
Assist the Gravel Pits in the development and implementation of restoration plans for pits that are
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program and the Department of Natural Resources .
SMP 7.5 Cooperative Restoration Programs
Encourage cooperative restoration programs between local, state, and federal public agencies, tribes,
non-profit organizations, and landowners.
Critical Areas Element
Goal SMP 8: Preserve and protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes
within wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
geologically hazardous areas and frequently flooded areas. Ensure no net loss of ecological function
within these critical areas.
Policies
SMP 8.1 Consistency with Critical Areas Goals and Policies
Ensure the critical area goals and policies for the Shoreline Master Plan are consistent with the critical
areas goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
SMP 8.2 No net loss of ecological function
Ensure regulatory protection measures developed for the shoreline area assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by Washington State
Department of Ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060
SMP 8.3 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Wetlands through protective measures.
Rate wetlands based on the quality of the wetland and the ecological function they serve. Develop
protective measures tailored to the wetland quality and function and that consider the characteristics
and setting of the buffer and the impacts on adjacent land use.
SMP 8.4 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Wetlands through mitigation measures.
Base wetland mitigation on the wetland rating and require mitigation sequencing. Only allow
compensatory mitigation after mitigation sequencing has been applied and higher priority means of
mitigation have been deemed infeasible.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12 D
r-r
v
n
S
SMP 8.5 Protect people and property from risk associated with critical areas defined as �
Geologically Hazardous Areas. �
Limit development that would cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or
property. Do not allow development that will require structural shoreline stabilization except in the
limited cases where it is necessary to protect an allowed use and no alternative location is available.
Allow structural shoreline stabilization to protect existing homes only when relocation or
reconstruction is infeasible. Do not allow structural shoreline stabilization that will result in a net loss
of ecological function.
SMP 8.6 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
areas
Develop measures that assure no net loss of ecological functions of river, lake and stream corridors
associated with fish and wildlife habitat. Integrate the protecfion of �sh and wildlife habitat with
flood hazard reduction and other fish and wildlife management provisions. Develop measures that
authorize and facilitate habitat restoration projects.
SMP 8.7 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
Protect the hydrologic connections between water bodies, water courses, and associated wetlands.
Integrate the protection of critical aquifer recharge areas with jurisdictional and non jurisdictional
aquifer protection measures such as Watershed Management Plans, Wellhead Protection Plans,
Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices, and others as appropriate.
SMP 8.8 Protect people and property from risk associated with critical areas defined as
Frequently Flooded Areas
Limit development that would cause foreseeable risk to people and property from frequent flooding.
Ensure frequently flooded areas are fully addressed in the goals and policies of the Flood Hazard
Reduction element of this plan.
Flood Hazc�rd Reduction Element
Goal SMP 9: Prevent and reduce flood damage in shoreline areas to protect ecological functions,
shoreline habitat,lives, and public and private property.
Policies
SMP 9.1 Development within the Shoreline
Prohibit development within the shorelines that would intensify flood hazards or result in cumulative
significant adverse effects to other properties, as regulated by Chapter 2130, Floodplain Regulations,
of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code.
SMP 9.2 Coordination among agencies
Coordinate flood hazard reduction planning among the applicable agencies.
SMP 9.3 Structural Flood Hazard Reduction
Allow new structural flood hazard reduction measures only:
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies •
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
• Where scientific and engineering analysis has demonstrated it to be necessary, and when non-
structural methods are infeasible and mitigation is accomplished; and
• Landward of associated wetlands and buffer areas except where no alternative e�sts, as
documented in an engineering analysis; and
• When consistent with current best management practices, using natural materials whenever
feasible.
Note: An example of a structural flood hazard reduction measure is a structure placed by humans
within a stream or river waterward of the ordinary high mark such as,but not limited to a diversion or
modification of water flow to control flooding.
SMP 9.4 Removal of Gravel
Allow removal of gravel for flood control only if biological and geomorphological study
demonstrates a long-term benefit to flood haaard reduction and no net loss of ecological functions.
This does not apply to the permitted gravel mining operations underway at the time of SMP adoption
and approval.
SMP 9.5 Natural Vegetative Buffers
Maintain, protect, and restore natural vegetative buffers that are within the floodplain of the Spokane
River that function to reduce flood hazards.
SMP 9.6 Alternate Flood Control Measures
When evaluating alternate flood control measures, consider the removal or relocation of structures in
floodplain areas.
Public Access Element
Goal SMP 10: Provide diverse, reasonable, and adequate public access to the shorelines of the state
consistent with the natural shoreline character, private property rights, public rights under the
Public Trust Doctrine, and public safety while maintaining no net loss of ecological function.
Policies
SMP 10.1 Public Interest and Private Property
Promote and enhance the public interest with regard to rights to access waters held in public trust by
the state,while protecting private property rights and public safety.
SMP 10.2 Shoreline Development by Public Entities
Require public entities, including local governments, state agencies and public utility districts, to
include public access as part of each development project unless such access is incompatible due to
reasons of safety, security or impact to the shoreline environment.
SMP 10.3 Shoreline Development
Require the dedication and improvement of public access in developments for water-enjoyment,
water-related and non water-dependent uses and for the subdivision of land into more than four
parcels,with exceptions as allowed by WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii).
SMP 10.4 Public Access Maintenance and Improvements
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies �
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
When improving and maintaining existing public access points, minimize additional impacts on the
shoreline environment and, if possible, correct past adverse environmental impacts caused by the
public access.
SMP 10.5 Access Plan
Develop a formal Public Access Plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system that
identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access that includes visual and
physical access. The plan should identify access opportunities and circulation for pedestrians
(including disabled persons),bicycles, and vehicles between shoreline access points.
SMP 10.6 Design of Access Measures
Require that public access measures have a design appropriate to the site, adjacent property, and
general nature of the proposed development, while protecting and providing views. Public access
facilities should be designed with provisions for persons with disabilities,where appropriate.
SMP 10.7 Motor Vehicle Access
Where access to the water's edge by motor vehicles is necessary, parking areas should be kept as far
from the shorelines as possible. Parking facilities shall implement a design appropriate for the
shoreline environment.
SMP 10.8 Access Design and Spacing
Access design and spacing of access points should be based on the biophysical capabilities of the
shoreline features and should protect fragile shoreline environment.
SMP 109 Impacts on Views
Minimize the impacts to existing views where the view is taken from the water or shoreline, public
property or substantial numbers of residences. Water-dependent shoreline uses and physical public
access shall have priority over maintaining a view when a conflict between them is irreconcilable.
SMP 10.10 Permitted Uses
Regulate the design, construction, and operation of permitted uses in the shorelines of the state to
minimize,insofar as practical,interference with the public's use of the water.
SMP 10.11 Incentives
Incentives such as densiry or bulk and dimensional bonuses should be considered if development
proposals include additional public access beyond that required by this SMP.
SMP 10.12 Non-Motorized Access
Preference shall be given to the development , or improvement, of access for non-motorized
recreational activities.
Recreation Element
Goal SMP 1L• Increase and preserve recreational opportunities on the shorelines of the City of
Spokane Valley
Policies
SMP 11.1 Preserve Shorelines for Public Recreational Use
Encourage appropriate public agencies to preserve shorelines for public use and to dedicate or
transfer appropriate shoreline land for recreational uses.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
SMP 11.2 Encourage Passive and Active Recreation
Both passive and active recreation should be encouraged for appropriate shorelines.
SMP 11.3 Recreational Areas Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions
Recreational areas should be located, designed, developed, managed and maintained in a manner that
protects shoreline ecological functions and processes.
SMP 11.4 Linkages to Recreation Areas
Hiking paths, bicycle paths, easements and scenic drives should link shoreline parks, recreation areas
and public access points.
SMP 11.5 Public Access Priority
Public use and access to the water should be a priority in recreational development.
SMP 11.6 Recreational Opportunities for All
Ensure that recreational planning takes into account the differences in use groups, physical
capabilities, and interests among the public in order to provide opportunities for safe and convenient
enjoyment of the shorelines.
SMP 11.7 Adequate Support Facilities
Create adequate support facilities of uses such as parking areas, maintenance buildings, and rest
rooms to meet shoreline recreational demands.
SMP 11.8 Non-Motorized Recreation
Preference shall be given to non-motorized recreational activities.
Shoreline Use Element
Goal SMP 12: Consider the use and development of shorelines and adjacent land areas for
housing, business, industry, transportation, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds,
utilities and other categories of public and private land uses in relation to the natural
environment and ensuring no net loss of ecological function.
Policies
Gene�al Use Policies
SMP 12.1 Shoreline Use Priorities
Give preference to water-dependent and single family residential uses that are consistent with
preservation of shoreline ecological functions and processes. Secondary preference should be given to
water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Non-water-oriented uses should be allowed only when
substantial public benefit is provided with respect to the goals of the SMA for public access and
ecological restoration.
SMP 12.2 Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions
Ensure no net loss of ecological functions through the use of specific standards for setbacks, buffers,
density, and shoreline stabilization.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12 D
r-r
v
n
S
SMP 12.3 Public Access in Development �
�
Ensure that shoreline development includes visual and physical public access to the shorelines, while �
avoiding,minimizing, or mitigating negative impacts to the shoreline including views.
SMP 12.4 Preserving Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Encourage new development to contribute to the creation or preservation of open space and/or fish
and wildlife habitat along the shorelines through the use of tools such as conservation futures,
conservations easements,transferable development rights, and planned unit developments.
SMP 12.5 Non-conforming Use and Development
Legally established uses and developments that were erected and maintained in lawful condition prior
to the effective date of this Master Program, shall be allowed to continue as legal non-conforming
uses provided that future development or redevelopment does not increase the degree of non-
conformity with this program.
SMP 12.6 Mitigation Sequencing
Avoid and reduce significant ecological impacts from shoreline uses and modification activities
through mitigation sequencing.
Residential Use �� � �`
SMP 12.7 Subdivided Lots
Require new subdivided lots to be designed, configured, and developed to:
• Prevent the net loss of ecological functions at full build-out
• Prevent the need for new shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures ; and
• Be consistent with the applicable environment designations and standards.
SMP 12.8 Over-Water Residences
Prohibit new over-water residences and floating homes
Comme�cial tlse
SMP 12.9 Priorities for Commercial Use
Give preference to commercial uses in the following order:
• First priority is given to water-dependent commercial uses,
• Second priority is given to water-related and water-enjoyment commercial uses.
SMP 12.10 Non-Water Oriented Commercial Uses
Prohibit new non-water oriented commercial uses unless they are part of a mixed-use project or the
use provides a signi�cant public benefit, such as public access and ecological restoration.
SMP 12.11 Non-Water Dependent Commercial Uses
Prohibit non-water dependent commercial uses over the water
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
SMP 12.12 Mitigation of Shoreline Impacts
Public access and ecological restoration collectively should be considered as potential mitigation of
impacts to shoreline resources and values for all water-related or water-dependent commercial
development unless such improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or inappropriate.
Industrial Uses
SMP 12.13 Priorities for Industrial Use
Give priority to industrial uses in the following order:
• First priority is given to water-dependent industrial uses
• Second priority is given to water-related industrial uses
• The e�sting legally permitted gravel pits are considered water dependent uses.
SMP 12.14 Non-Water Oriented Industrial Uses
Prohibit new non-water oriented industrial uses ��
SMP 12.15 Industrial Use in Impaired Shoreline Areas
Encourage industrial uses and redevelopment to locate where environmental cleanup and restoration
is needed and can be accomplished.
SMP 12.16 Water Dependent and Water Related Industrial Uses
Water dependent and water related industrial uses within shoreline jurisdiction should be prohibited
in areas that are susceptible to erosion and flooding and where there are impacts to ecological
functions.
SMP 12.17 Control Pollution and Damage
Designate and maintain appropriate areas for protecting and restoring shoreline ecological functions
and processes to control pollution and prevent damage to the shoreline environment and/or public
health.
SMP 12.18 Uses Consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Ensure shoreline uses are consistent with the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and satisfy the
economic, social, and physical needs of the city..
Shoreline Modifications
SMP 12-19 Shoreline Modifications
Allow structural shoreline modifications only where they are:
• Demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally
e�sting shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage; and
• Necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for mitigation or enhancement purposes.
SMP 12-20 Modification Impacts and Limitations
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies �
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
Reduce the adverse effects of allowed shoreline modi�cations and, as much as possible, limit allowed �
shoreline modifications in number and extent. �
�
S
SMP 12-21 Appropriate Modifications �
�
Allow only shoreline modifications that are appropriate to the shoreline environment designations and �
environmental conditions for which they are proposed.
SMP 12-22 Modifications and No Net Loss of Ecological Functions
Assure that shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of
ecological functions by:
• Giving preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have the least impact on
ecological function; and
• Requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications.
SMP 12-23 Shoreline Modifications Regulations
Base shoreline modi�cation regulations on scienti�c and technical information of reach conditions
for the Spokane River, Shelley Lake, Central Pre-mix and Flora Pit
SMP 12-24 Restoration of Impaired Ecological Functions
Plan for the restoration of impaired ecological functions where feasible and appropriate, while
accommodating permitted uses.
SMP 12-25 Measures to Protect Ecological Functions
Incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide
processes as shoreline modifications occur.
Piers ancl Docks
SMP 12-26 Dock Restrictions
Allow new docks only for public water-dependent uses, single-family residences, and public access
on the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. The e�sting gravel pit operations are allowed docks if it is
necessary for operations and as permitted operating permits.
SMP 12-27 Dock Location
Docks shall be allowed only in locations where they will not pose a public safety hazard or adversely
impact shoreline ecological functions or process and limited as follows:
• Spokane River - only in reservoir areas, where flow conditions least resemble the natural
free-flowing river;
• Shelley Lake;
• Gravel pits; or
• Severely ecologically impacted shoreline areas with adequate public access
SMP 12-28 Dock Size
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � jSHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
Restrict the size of new docks to the minimum necessary to serve a proposed water-dependent use.
SMP 12-29 Demonstrate Need
Permit new docks only when specific need is demonstrated, except for single-family residences.
SMP 12-30 Expansion and Multiple Use
Encourage multiple use and expansion of existing docks over the addition and/or proliferation of new
single dock facilities.
SMP 12-31 Joint Use and Community Docks
Require residential development of more than two dwellings to provide community docks, rather
than individual docks.
SMP 12-32 Design and Construction
Design and construct all piers and docks to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to ecological
processes and functions.
Shoreline Fill
�. �.
SMP 12-33 Design and Location
Shoreline fills shall be designed, located, and constructed to protect shoreline ecological function and
ecosystem-wide processes, including channel migration, wildlife habitat, water quality, water
currents, surface water drainage, and flood hazard protection measures.
SMP 12-34 Limitations on Fill
Fill waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark shall require a conditional use permit and shall only
be allowed under limited circumstances.
SMP 12-35 Fill Proposal Plan
Require a plan that addresses species removal, replanting, irrigation, erosion, and sedimentation
control and other methods of riparian corridor protection with all fill proposals.
Streambank Protection
SMP 12-36 Streambank Protection Measures
The term "streambank" shall apply to all shoreline banks within Spokane Valley. Prohibit new
streambank protection measures, except when necessity is documented through a geotechnical
analysis of the site and shoreline characteristics. When necessity is demonstrated and conditions
require, only allow streambank protection for existing primary structures, water-dependent
development,new development, and ecological restoration or to�c clean-up remediation projects.
SMP 12-37 Design and Location of New Development
Design and locate new development and lots created through subdivision, particularly those located
on steep slopes and bluffs, to prevent the need for future streambank protection measures during the
life of the structure.
SMP 12-38 Public Access
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies .
- . � �SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
Incorporate ecological restoration and public access as part of publicly funded streambank protection �
r-r
proj ects. �
S
SMP-12-39 Integrated Approach to Streambank Protection �
�
r-r
Require an integrated approach to streambank protection. Select and design streambank protection �
measures using an integrated approach requiring an analysis of the reason for the erosion; fish and
wildlife habitat characteristics, needs and potential; and the current and future risks associated with
erosion and bank protection to property,infrastructure, �sh and wildlife habitat and public safety.
SMP 12-40 Dredging
Site and design new development to avoid the need for new or maintenance dredging.
SMP 12-41 Dredging Restrictions
Prohibit dredging except when necessary for projects that restore ecological functions and to maintain
e�sting structures. Dredging is allowed as part of the permitted aggregate mining operations in the
gravel pits.
SMP 12-42 Dredging Materials
Prohibit the use or disposal of dredging materials within the shoreline except for projects that benefit
shoreline resources and except for permitted aggregate mining operations in the gravel pits.
SMP 12-43 In-Stream Structures
Site in-stream structures to protect and preserve ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and
cultural resources, including but not limited to fish and fish passage, wildlife and water resources,
shoreline critical areas, hydro-geological processes, and natural scenic vistas.
SMP 12-44 In-Stream Structure Location
Consider the full range of public interests, watershed functions and processes, and environmental
concerns when planning and locating in-stream structures, with special emphasis on protecting and
restoring priority habitats and species.
SMP 12-45 Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Locate and design boat ramps and other boating facilities to meet health, safety, and welfare
requirements and to minimize adverse affects upon geo-hydraulic processes, fragile shoreline
features,natural wetlands, and aquatic and wildlife habitats.
SMP 12-46 Development of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Assure no net loss of ecological functions as a result of boat ramp or other boating facility
development.
SMP 12-47 Aesthetic Impacts of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Avoid or mitigate impacts to shoreline aesthetics as a result boat ramp or other boating facility
development.
SMP-12-48 Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
- . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12
Advocate and foster habitat and natural system enhancement projects which restore the natural
character and function of the shoreline provided they are consistent with the Restoration Plan.
G�avel Pits
SMP12-49 Gravel Pit Onerations
Allow e�sting gravel pit operations to continue to operate and expand consistent with operational
permits. Operational uses include both above water and below water gravel extraction, processing,
and crushing. Accessory uses include, but are not limited to, concrete batch plants, hot mix asphalt
plants, aggregate processing and recycling plants, customer service (truck dispatching) offices,
maintenance facilities, truck & equipment parking, stockpiles, scale houses, retail product stores, and
quality control facilities.
SMP 12-50 Water Dependent Uses
Existing Gravel Pit Operations are considered water dependent uses.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
� Valr�l\Tess D
Market Place Tower �
Fel �
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 3
GorclonL�err Seattle,Washington 98121-3140 �
ATTO R N E YS AT LAW (206)382-9540 P N
(206)626-0675 F
S�ATTLE, WA • WASHINGTON, pC
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hohman, Community Development Director
CC: Cary Driskell, Lori Barlow, Scott Kuhta
FROM: Tadas Kisielius
DATE: March 15, 2012
RE: Goals and Policies Document
We have been asked to review and comment on the draft "General Goals and Policies"
document prepared by the Shoreline Advisory Group ("SAG") in order to identify where the
Shoreline Management Act allows for more discretion and different choices than the policy
approach recommended by the SAG.
This document includes general observations and guidance immediately below
addressing issues that arise in several places throughout the Goals and Policies document.
Additionally, this document includes a chart with comments on specific policy language
proposed by the SAG. In addition to the review and comment on the SAG's proposed
language, this memorandum also provides comments on some of the changes to the Goals and
Policies proposed by Centennial Properties ("Centennial") by letter dated July 19, 2011.
In general and unless expressly indicated in the memorandum, this document is not
intended as a recommendation to reject or approve the SAG's recommended language for
specific policies nor is it intended as a judgment on the appropriateness of the SAG's policy
direction. Rather, the document is designed primarily to identify sections where the Planning
Commission and, ultimately, the City Council, may have more choices for a different policy
approach than what was presented in the draft Goals and Policies. The ultimate decision
regarding whether to pursue the policy choice advanced by the SAG or to explore other
alternative approaches lies with the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the City Council. The
viability of other choices may depend, in part, on whether the supporting documentation,
including the science and the City's Inventory support the approach.
Additionally, this memorandum does not describe the context for or explanation of the
SAG's proposed language, which may be valuable when weighing whether to accept the SAG's
proposed language. We understand staff will be prepared to provide explanation at the study
session and the public hearings of the context and reasoning behind the SAG's specific
language, should those questions arise.
The Seattle Office of Van Ness Feldman,A Professional Corporation
Memorandum - 2 - March 15, 2012
Finally, this document is not a comprehensive response to comments. The public
process and more opportunities for review and comment on the Goals and Policies and other
aspects of the City's SMP are forthcoming. Prior to deciding on a policy choices, the Planning
Commission and the City Council will weigh the public comment received to-date and in the
coming weeks and provide an opportunity for staff review of and response to those comments.
A. General Substantive and Procedural Context for the Goals and Policies.
As a preliminary matter, it is important to recognize the role and purpose of these Goals
and Policies. The Goals and Policies are meant to be a broad statement of the City's vision that
will help shape the City's overall approach with respect to the shoreline. See WAC 173-26-
186(3). As noted in the Ecology guidance, not all policies must be implemented by regulation:
The planning policies of master programs (as distinguished from the
development regulations of master programs) may be achieved by a number of
means, only one of which is the regulation of development. Other means, as
authorized by RCW 90.58.240, include, but are not limited to: The acquisition of
lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift,
either alone or in concert with other local governments; and accepting grants,
contributions, and appropriations from any public or private agency or individual.
Additional other means may include, but are not limited to, public facility and park
planning, watershed planning, voluntary salmon recovery projects and incentive
programs.
WAC 173-26-186(4). Thus these Goals and Policies are an important preliminary step, but they
will not necessarily translate directly into regulations and may be intended as policy statements
that can be implemented by the other described, non-regulatory means.
B. Standard of protection for critical areas - "No net loss."
The standard for protection of critical areas in shorelines is established by statute.
Specifically, RCW 36.70A.470 confirms that critical areas within the shoreline are governed by
the City's updated SMP rather than the City's GMA critical areas regulations and that the
updated SMP "shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the
state that assures no net /oss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline
natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW
90.58.060."
Throughout the Goals and Policies the SAG used several alternate phrases to describe
the level of protection required of shoreline ecological functions. For example, in policy 1.3 the
SAG suggested that the shorelines should be "regulated in a manner that guarantees no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions." See a/so Policy SMP 4.1 ("...preserving ecological
function..."); Goal SMP 8 ("Preserve and protect existing ecological functions..."); SMP Policy
6.4 ("Protect and preserve ecological viability"); Policy SMP 6.6 (Development shall "avoid" or
"mitigate" negative impacts on shoreline ecological functions and various critical areas).
Similarly, the changes proposed by Centennial in several locations offer other formulations.
See Centennial's Proposed revisions to SMP 1.3 ("protects no net loss of the current shoreline
ecological functions to the greatest extent possible"). While the use of alternate phrases may
be an effort to interpret or explain the "no net loss" standard, the use of alternate phrases could
Memorandum - 3 - March 15, 2012 �
�
�
v
�
�
�
m
�
�
lead to confusion and might suggest an attempt to impose a different standard. Mirroring the ^'
language from the statutory standard will ensure consistency with the statute and will also give
the City the benefit of any forthcoming court or growth management hearings board
interpretations of the standard. Alternatively, if the City intends to try to articulate its
interpretation of "no net loss," as may have been the intention of the SAG's and Centennial's
language, it is important to articulate that intent clearly to avoid confusion.
Similarly, several of the Goals and Policies require consistency with the City's existing
and generally applicable critical areas regulations or suggest that those regulations will be
incorporated into the SMP. See SMP 1.2 ("Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline
Master Program is consistent with... the City of Spokane Valley Critical Areas Ordinances...");
SMP 8.1 ("Ensure the critical area goals and policies for the Shoreline Master Plan are
consistent with the critical areas goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan"). As
noted above, critical areas regulations within the shoreline are protected by the City's updated
SMP and not the more generally applicable critical areas regulations. RCW 36.70A.480(3)(d).
Moreover, the legal standard for protection of critical areas within the shoreline is governed by a
different standard than protection of critical areas. Compare RCW 36.70A.172 ("in designating
and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best
available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions
and values of critical areas") with RCW 36.70A.480(4) (SMPs shall "provide a level of protection
to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions"). While the City's critical areas regulations may ultimately provide the
necessary level of protection of critical areas under the applicable no net loss standard, the City
must review existing regulations to ensure they are necessary to ensure no net loss and satisfy
the correct legal standard.
C. Balancinq between SMA directives and constitutional protections.
In general, state and federal constitutional provisions provide some protection of private
property rights against application of development regulations. The most critical constitutional
limit on development conditions is the doctrine of "regulatory takings," which requires local
government to show a "nexus" and "rough proportionality" for conditions imposed on
development (also known as the "Nollan/Dolan" analysis). These principles, which originated
under a federal constitutional takings analysis have similarly been applied in a Washington
constitutional context:
• Nexus. The City must show that an "essential nexus" exists between a legitimate state
interest and the permit condition. The focus here is on the nature of the permit condition
and the need to show that its nature is related to an adverse impact of the proposed
development.
• Rouqh proportionality. The City must show that the degree of the exactions demanded
by the permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the
proposed development. The focus here is on the deqree of the permit condition and the
need to show that its degree is related to the extent of the adverse impact.
Shoreline conditions on development may raise other constitutional issues, such as substantive
due process and equal protection, but the takings evaluation outlined above typically addresses
Memorandum - 4 - March 15, 2012
most issues related to shoreline conditions. A publication providing guidance on these and
other legal issues has been produced by the Washington Attorney General's Office pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.370. When the City proceeds to consider and adopt shoreline regulations, the
City should evaluate those regulations under the takings framework described in the Attorney
General Guidance to satisfy the requirements of RCW 36.70A.370. See WAC 173-26-186(5).
Generally, these constitutional protections will be a more significant consideration when drafting
the implementing shoreline regulations and are less of an issue during this stage of the City's
process because, as noted in the guidelines, development regulations are only one mechanism
to implement the City's policies. WAC 173-26-186(4). Nevertheless, to the extent any of the
policies describe a preferred regulatory framework, the provisions must adequately recognize
constitutional limitations.
The current draft Goals and Policies document includes policy 1.4 that appropriately
acknowledges these constitutional protections. Given the level of abstraction in the Goals and
Policies, policy 1.4 adequately captures these important constitutional concepts in sufficient
detail.
In addition to this general acknowledgment, Centennial Properties has proposed a new
policy 1.8 that seeks to ensure that the "regulatory burden" of "enhancing" and "protecting the
ecological functions" of the shoreline is shared by shoreline property owners and the community
as a whole. This proposed policy blends several concepts and may gloss over important
nuances related to the reach of the constitutional protections. It discusses both protection and
restoration of shoreline ecological functions. As noted above, with respect to protection of
ecological functions, it does not violate the constitution to place the burden of a regulation on
the applicant/owner so long as the degree of the "regulatory burden" is roughly proportional to
and has a nexus with an impact of any proposed development. However, with respect to
restoration, additional requirements imposed on a property owner to restore beyond the impact
created by the development may raise constitutional concerns. The policy proposed by
Centennial Properties seems to blur these distinctions and proposes that the public should
share the burden of regulations in all instances. It is within the City's discretion to choose to
share in the regulatory burden and dedicate public funds towards defraying regulatory costs
imposed on individuals, but it is not required by statute or the constitution. We assume that the
impact on the City's budget may be a barrier towards implementing Centennial's proposed
policy 1.8.
By the same token, to the extent that several other policies in the SAG draft seek to
require restoration as a condition of development these policies may raise constitutional
concerns. See, e.g., Policy SMP 3.4 (design and implementation of utility maintenance and
improvements should "correct past impacts caused by the utility"); Policy SMP 3.6 (stormwater
utilities shall require BMPs and landscaping to provide "ecological restoration"); Policy SMP
10.4 ("correct past adverse environmental impacts caused by the public access"). It is important
to note that these constitutional protections do not apply to public entities, so to the extent these
policies could apply to public entities (e.g., public utilities) there are no takings issues.
D. Comments on Specific Policv Lanquaqe.
In addition to the general comments described above, the attached chart includes
specific comments on identified policies.
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Coordinate shoreline planning between Coordinate shoreline planning between RCW 90.58.130 sets out the legal standard for
o, the City of Spokane Valley,agencies the City of Spokane Valley,agencies participation and the City has some discretion in
�� with jurisdiction,adjoining jurisdictions, with jurisdiction,adjoining jurisdictions, choosing how to implement the standard. According to
� the State of Washington,and the State the State of Washington,and the State the statute the City should"invite°and"actively
a of Idaho into which the river basin of Idaho into which the river basin encourage"the participation of the general public,
� extends,and consider the plans of non- extends,and consider the plans of private groups,and local and state agencies.
m government organizations(NGO's) adiacent iurisdiction, propertv owners, Moreover,the statute directs local governments and
� and/or special interest groups. the Citv vision,non-government state agencies to take advantage of the opportunity
0 organizations(NGO's)and/or special and actively participate. Thus to some degree the City
U interest groups. can choose how it encourages the participation of
these various groups. "Coordination"suggests a
a broad version of participation,but this is within the
� City's discretion to choose this path.
�
Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley See Memo section B for discussion of consistency with
� � Shoreline Master Program is consistent Shoreline Master Program is consistent GMA critical areas regulations.
�3 m with the Washington State Shoreline with the Washington State Shoreline
� o Management Act and Growth Management Act and Growth With respect to consistency with the SMPs of
� a Management Act,the basic concepts, Management Act,the basic concepts, neighboring jurisdictions,the City is required to invite
N � goals,policies,and land use plan of the goals,policies,and land use plan of the and encourage participation including municipal and
� � City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive public corporations,having interests or responsibilities
N � Plan and development regulations,the Pl,an andMdevelopment regulations�e relating to the shorelines of the state
. a City of Spokane Valley Critical Areas
a a�
Ordinances,and the Shoreline Master ^•^"^�^^^° ^'�4h..c�,..,.�,..,, nn,�t,..
� O Programs of adjacent jurisdictions. .
Ensure that all shoreline uses and Ensure that all shoreline uses and See discussion of critical areas in section B of the
� development are regulated in a manner development are regulated in a manner memo. It may be simpler and more clear to simply use
� .� that guarantees no net loss of shoreline that g�+a�awtees protects no net loss of the language of the statutory standard for protection of
z o ecological functions the current of shoreline ecological critical areas.
z c°� �, functions to the qreatest extent
� o � o�.
U
� y C
O �
(n J LL
Attachment 2
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
5
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Protect the interests of the public in Protect the interests of the public in See section C of the memo.
� attaining the goals of the Shoreline attaining the goals of the Shoreline
a� Master Program,in a manner Master Program, in a manner
� o consistent with all relevant °�°'��„^',^,�'"that protects all relevant
� � constitutional and other legal limitations constitutional and other legal limitations
a � on the regulation of private property. on the regulation of private property.
v
� � N
a � t
� w. .rn
� � �
Designate shoreline environments for Designate shoreline environments for Policy 1.5 articulates one of the fundamental planning
the City of Spokane Valley shorelines the City of Spokane Valley shorelines steps involved in the SMP development and
that are consistent with the that allow for flexibilitv and that are recognizes the importance of the inventory to the
Comprehensive Plan land uses, consistent with the Comprehensive designation process. It is part of the required shoreline
shoreline management practices,and Plan land uses,shoreline management process.
� shoreline inventory within each practices,and shoreline inventory
°' designated area. within each designated area. Allow for It is not clear what Centennial is requesting in its
� flexibilitv in the desiqnation of shoreline revision calling for"flexibility"in the environments.
�� environments based upon specific More explanation or inquiry may be beneficial before
p detailed shoreline inventorv within each weighing the benefit of this comment. For example,
� desiqnated area. the regulations do allow for flexibility to some degree.
�� They allow for"parallel environments"that divide
� � shorelands into different sections generally running
cn � parallel to the shoreline or along a physical feature
�? � such as a bluff or railroad right of way,which allows for
� ° more stratification of the shoreline. WAC 173-26-
� � 211(4)(c).
cn w
Attachment 2
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
6
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Give preference to those shoreline - Both Policies 1.6 and 1.7 reflect most but not all of the
activities which fulfill long range policy language from RCW 90.58.020,and as such,
Comprehensive Plan goals and the the Policy is consistent with the statute. Although all of
Shoreline Management Act policy the statutory provisions apply regardless of whether
priorities,as listed and discussed incorporated into the Goals and Policies,if the City is
below: choosing to incorporate some aspects of RCW
� 90.58.020,it may help to include some of the
�� It is the policy of the City to provide for remaining key concepts from RCW 90.58.020 to
� the management of its shorelines by acknowledge the SMA's balanced approach. For
cn planning for and fostering all example,the City might consider including in a new
� reasonable and appropriate uses. policy the language from 90.58.020 regarding priority
o Policies are designed to ensure the uses(e.g.,single family residences,ports,shoreline
�, development of the City's shorelines in recreational uses,water dependent industrial and
c°', a manner which will promote and commercial developments)and the general recognition
u�i enhance the public interest.These of shoreline alterations.
w policies will protect against adverse
Q effects to the public health,the land,its
N vegetation and aquatic life and wildlife,
� and the waters of the Spokane River,
� Shelly Lake and the Sullivan Road and
a Park Road Gravel Pits and their aquatic
� life.
�
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
7
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
The State Legislature has declared that - See comments accompanying Policy 1.6 above.
� the interest and benefit of all of the
� people shall be paramount in the
� management of shorelines of state-
o wide significance,and therefore
� preference shall be given to uses in the
�� following order of preference which:.
0 1. Recognize and protect
� statewide interest over local interest
�
0 2. Preserve the natural character
�, of the shoreline
c°', 3. Allow uses that result in long-
u�i term over short-term benefits
w 4. Protect the resources and
Q � ecology of shorelines
a� � 5. Provide public access to
� �� publicly owned areas of shorelines
� m 6. Increase recreational
� � opportunities for the public on the
a u�
� � shorelines.
� 3
Ensure that the requlatorv burden of See memo section C.
enhancina the shoreline environment
� protectinq the ecoloqical functions and
`6 usinp the shoreline is born not iust bv
U �
� � the propertv owners subiect to the
a � Shoreline Requlations,but bv the
� 00 communitv as a whole with a series of
� °' offsettinq benefits and flexibilitv in
a �
� �� administerinq the proqram.
cn a
Attachment 2
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
8
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Ensure early and continuous site - This Policy is consistent with state law,but the extent
o inspection,consultation or evaluation to which it is required or is more than what is required,
�� by a professional archaeologist in depends on the amount of documented archaeological
? coordination with affected tribes for all sites in the vicinity. Protection of archaeological
wpermits issued in areas documented to resources is governed by statute. It is unlawful to
-6 contain archaeological resources. disturb archeological resource or site without a permit
� from DAHP. RCW 27.53.060 The statute primarily
o addresses discovered archaeological resources.
�� However,many local jurisdictions have chosen to
Q include a pre-project site inspection under SEPA
� authority and/or because there are known
� archaeological resources in the area. Additionally,the
u� DAHP publishes a list of locations where a permit is
� required in advance. See RCW 27.53.130. Thus early
N site inspection is only required where there is evidence
a
� or documentation of archaeological resources in the
�
area.
When existing utilities and/or utility When existing utilities located within See Memo Section C regarding the language
o, corridors located within shoreline shoreline jurisdiction require addressing requirements to restore.
�� jurisdiction require maintenance or maintenance or other improvements,
0 other improvements,the the maintenance/improvement should
� maintenance/improvement should be be designed and implemented to
� designed and implemented to minimize minimize additional impacts on the
a� additional impacts on the shoreline shoreline environment�essi�
�� environment and, if possible,to correct
� past impacts caused by the utility. "'�'�'r.[Should also show"`��'^'�^^
� Vegetation Management Plans should ^^�^�^^^^^^'o'�^°°"^��'^'"^
M be recognized as maintenance �^^'� �^'^^�^^^�^'�.,�'�^°°
a
� activities. as deleted,but doesn't.]
�
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
9
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Give preference to established utility Give preference to established utility The City's language is within the range of discretion
o, corridors and rights-of-way for corridors and rights-of-way for provided to the City for ensuring no net loss. If the
� upgrades and reconstruction of existing upgrades and reconstruction of existing There is some confusion over the intent of the
�X utilities and facilities,unless a location utilities and facilities, language in the SAG's draft. If the SAG's intent is to
w with less potential to impact the �^��+"'°°°^^'°^'�°"^�m^°^'+"° require use of a location with less potential impact to
0
� � shoreline environment is available. °"^•^'�^^^^.,�•^^^^^^'�°�.,��'�"'^ the shoreline over use of the existing utility corridor,
� := then the policy may be more restrictive than what is
�' � required,if the utility can show continued use of the
w �
� -a existing corridor ensures no net loss. If the SAG's
a` m intent was to allow equal preference to alternate
M � locations,then Centennial's proposed revision appears
a = to delete flexibility by allowing relief from the
� � preference given to existing corridors and rights-of-
� " way.
Stormwater utilities will be designed Stormwater utilities will be designed See memo section C. Restoration is an aspiration,but
and located as to minimize and located as to minimize should not be a requirement to avoid constitutional
environmental impacts within the environmental impacts within the implication.
� shoreline jurisdiction. If located within shoreline jurisdiction. If located within
:� the shoreline jurisdiction they shall the shoreline jurisdiction they shall
� require the use of best management ;�^�"ti use e�best management
� practices(e.g.biofiltration measures) practices(e.g.biofiltration measures)
� and landscaping with native vegetation and landscaping with native vegetation
� to provide habitat,ecological � �
� restoration,and aesthetic �c4nrn4ir.r. ,..,��..�4h..1i..
o �
u� improvements.All stormwater facilities �'�.All stormwater facilities
� must protect water quality,manage must protect water quality,manage
M runoff and address erosion control and runoff and address erosion control and
a
� sedimentation. sedimentation.
�
Provide a safe,convenient,and Provide a safe,convenient,and The change proposed by Centennial replaces the
multimodal circulation system which will multimodal circulation system which will undefined phrase(disruption)with a phrase that has
� minimize disruption to the shoreline minimize d+sr��ien neqative impacts to more legal interpretation and understanding.
E environment the shoreline environment
�
w �
� a
.o �
m �
� —
U N
i O
U (7
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
10 Attachment 2
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Ensure that a system of arterials, Ensure that a system of arterials, See memo section B.
o scenic drives,pathways,public transit scenic drives,pathways,public transit
�� routes,and bikeways adjacent to and routes,and bikeways adjacent to and
o within the shoreline areas provide within the shoreline areas provide
N appropriate access to the Spokane appropriate access to the Spokane
� River in a way that meets the needs River in a way that meets the needs
� and desires of the community as and desires of the community as
� N reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, reflected in the Comprehensive Plan,
a � while also preserving ecological while also�ese+�ia�protectinq
� a function of the shorelines. ecological function of the shorelines.
Plan,locate,and design proposed Plan,locate,and design proposed The revision proposed by Centennial eliminates
transportation facilities where routes transportation facilities where routes language that mirrors the applicable statutory standard
will have the least possible adverse will have the least possible adverse for protection of critical areas. The standard applies
o effect on shoreline ecological functions, effect on shoreline ecological functions, whether or not it appears in the Goals and Policies,but
m will not result in a net loss of shoreline �•^"^^'•^°��"�^�^^"^°°^{°"^�^'�^^ to the extent that Centennial's proposed revision
� o � ecological functions,or adversely � ,or adversely suggests that it does not apply,the revision is
� N'= impact existing or planned water impact existing or planned water inconsistent with state law. For clarity the City can
a � —
� � � dependent uses. dependent uses. choose to include the reference.
� H �
Parking facilities should only be Parking facilities should only be The language regarding location of parking facilities
allowed as necessary to support allowed as necessary to support outside the shoreline is a policy choice the City can
°�' permitted shoreline uses,and not as a permitted shoreline uses,and not as a make that reflects the guidance in 173-26-241(3)(k). It
Y `6 primary use,and must be located primary use, is based on the assumption that runoff from parking
a � � outside of the shoreline jurisdiction ���+�;,�e nf+he�h,,.e�;,,e;,,.;�,�;,.+;,,,, facilities can impact shoreline functions. However,the
� � �, area if other options are available and °�°°�f^+"°•^^+�^^°°�°°„°�'°"'°°^^' City might be able to ultimately choose a different
a " � feasible. #easik�le. approach so long as the approach is supported by
� m �c science and can demonstrate no net loss.
cn � a
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
11
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Retain unused public rights-of-way Retain unused public rights-of-way Centennial's proposed revision appears to eliminate
within the shoreline area to provide within the shoreline area to provide flexibility by deleting one of the available options to
° visual and physical access to the visual and physical access to the overcome the preference for retaining rights of way in
� shoreline unless: shoreline unless: the shoreline. By pursuing the proposed revision,the
The street vacation enables the The street vacation enables the City would be making the policy more rigid.
° City to acquire the property for beach City to acquire the property for beach
t or water access purposes,boat or water access purposes,boat
� moorage or launching sites, park, moorage or launching sites, park,
� public view,recreation,or educational public view,recreation,or educational
� N purposes,or other public uses or the purposes,or other public uses^.�h^
a � City declares that the street or alley is ��t„�+^^��•^�4h�4 Ih..�t.,.,.t,. ,u,.,,,�
� � not presently being used and is not ^^'^ ^"„"^�^^� °^^'�^^'�°^^'
N U
� Q suitable for the above purposes;or ;or
� � The street vacation enables the The street vacation enables the
� �T City to implement a plan,that provides City to implement a plan,that provides
:° a comparable or improved public access comparable or improved public access
� -a to the same shoreline area to which the to the same shoreline area to which the
� m streets or alleys sought to be vacated, streets or alleys sought to be vacated,
a � had the properties included in the plan had the properties included in the plan
� .�n not been vacated. not been vacated.
cn >
Recognize the importance and Recognize the importance and The City's discussion and description of the public
� uniqueness of the Spokane River uniqueness of the Spokane River access provided by the Centennial trail is one of the
�� Centennial Trail to the City of Spokane Centennial Trail to the City of Spokane general areas where there is significant room for policy
a� Valley,the region,and the state, Valley,the region,and the state, choices that will allow the City to recognize the
� Future trail development including trail Future trail development including trail significant public access already available to the
U extensions,new access points, extensions,new access points, Spokane River within the City. Much of the discussion
� whether public or private,shall be whether public or private,shall be and description may be better addressed in the
o designed to have the least adverse designed to have'"^�^�°'minimal forthcoming public access plan that is currently under
�� impact. adverse impact while at the same time development rather than in these goals and policies.
o provide both visual and phvsical access
� to the shoreline. The purpose of Centennial's proposed edit is not clear.
It appears to be more restrictive in that it suggests that
� public access must be designed to include both visual
� and physical access. When required,public access
a —
� � does not always result in physical access to the water.
� H
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
12
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Allow new rail lines and the expansion Allow new rail lines and the expansion Both policies in SMP 4.12 and 4.13 may be preempted
of existing rail corridors within the of existing rail corridors within the by federal law. The general jurisdiction provision of
� shoreline jurisdiction only for the shoreline jurisdiction e�4y�for the the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act
� purpose of connecting to existing rail purpose of connecting to existing rail of 1995(ICCTA)provides that the jurisdiction of the
a� lines or rights-of-way.Construct new lines or rights-of-way so lona as thev Surface Transportation Board(STB)over rail
z rail lines within an existing rail corridor enhance the viabilitv of the shoreline transportation and the remedies provided under the
N
where possible. and its ecoloqical functions.Construct ICCTA are exclusive"and preempt the remedies
au, new rail lines within an existing rail provided under Federal or State law." 49 U.S.C.§
� .� corridor where possible. 10501(b). The courts have interpreted this language
� � broadly,frequently holding that the ICCTA preempts
Construct,where feasible,all new rail - the application of local land use laws. See, e.g., City
lines so that they do not compromise ofAuburn v. United States, 154 F.3d 1025(9th Cir.
the public's ability to access the 1998),cert.denied,527 U.S. 1022(1999). The ICCTA
�' shoreline safely. preempts any local requirements that otherwise would
�� be applied to facilities that are an integral part of the
w railroad's interstate operations.
N Applying this test,the STB has specifically held that
� "zoning ordinances and local land use permit
� requirements are preempted where the facilities are an
�m N integral part of the railroad's interstate operations."
M � Thus the City may choose to preserve these policies to
� Q reflect the City's policy choice that can be taken into
a s consideration with the understanding that their may be
� � legal constraints in their implementation.
cn a
Attachment 2
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
13
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Give preference to economic Give preference to economic The language in policy 5.1 is derived in part from the
development within the shoreline development within the shoreline language in RCW 90.58.020 which gives priority to a
jurisdiction that is particularly jurisdiction that is water dependent, range of uses,including"industrial and commercial
dependent on their location on or use water oriented or water related developments which are particularly dependent on
of the shoreline. Encourage new ^��*�^��'�•'„^'^^^^^'^^'^^4h'"''^^�'�^^ their location on or use of the shorelines of the state."
development to locate in areas that ^^{'"^°"^•^'�^^ Encourage So long as"economic developmenY'encompasses
have intensive prior use and can be new development to locate in areas only commercial and industrial development and does
upgraded or redeveloped. Encourage that have intensive prior use and can not include other listed uses(such as development of
new economic development to cluster be upgraded or redeveloped. single family homes),then the policy language is
into areas of the shoreline whose Encourage new economic development consistent with the statute.
current use is compatible. to cluster into areas of the shoreline
whose current use is compatible. Centennial's proposed revisions propose expanding
the policy to use three defined terms in the guidelines.
� See WAC 173-26-020. See also WAC 173-26-
°' 201(2)(d). These types of uses are allowed within the
E
o shoreline and are included in the preferred order of
� uses. See 173-26-201(2)(d). The guidelines give
o water dependent uses the highest priority,but provide
� for other water-oriented uses within that order of
�� priority. Moreover,the guidelines give discretion to
� add uses to the order of priority: "Evaluation pursuant
c°, to the above criteria,local economic and land use
� conditions,and policies and regulations that assure
°� protection of shoreline resources,may result in
� determination that other uses are considered as
� necessary or appropriate and may be accommodated
� provided that the preferred uses are reasonably
provided for in the jurisdiction." Id. Thus the concept
`r' proposed in Centennial's revisions,with some
a
� clarification,may also consistent with the guidelines.
�
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
14
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Development should be designed to - While the second sentence of the policy is consistent
� minimize the impacts to the shoreline with the general preference for water dependent uses
oaesthetic through architectural, within the shoreline,this sentence may be
o landscape,and other design features. unintentionally restrictive. First,the phrase"inland"is
w All non-shoreline dependent elements not defined and may lead to confusion. Second,while
0 of the development should be placed there is a preference for water dependent uses,the
� inland. Encourage design that seeks to regulations allow for water related,water enjoyment
�� � restore damaged or compromised and even non-water oriented uses to be located within
p � shoreline through incentives. the shoreline jurisdiction in certain locations. See
N n WAC 173-26-201(2)(d). Thus the policy is within the
a0
� range of choices the City could make,but is more
� a� restrictive than what is required.
� o
Historic areas,overlook points, Historic areas,overlook points, This may unintentionally suggest that public access is
� � structures,and points of public access structures,and points of public access a necessary component of all shoreline development,
�u, � to the waterfront should be to the waterbodies#Kea�should be which is inconsistent with the SMP and constitutional
a� incorporated in economic development incorporated in economic development protections. The SMP strongly encourages provision
� site-planning. site-planning of public access,but,as recognized in the guidelines,
° w public access is not always required"due to reasons of
o � incompatible uses,safety,security,or impact to the
��, �� shoreline environment or due to constitutional or other
�� > legal limitations that may be applicable.° WAC 173-
a � 26-221(4)(d). It may be preferable to acknowledge that
�`"� N public access is not always required by using an
a > introductory phrase such as"when public access is
� � required under this SMP..."
cn m
Attachment 2
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
15
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Require that the short-term economic o,.�,,;.,.Ih�1 4h..��,.,+t...................;,. To some degree,this Policy proposed by the SAG
gain or convenience of development be ^^•^^^��^^�^^^^^{^'^��^'^^^^^^'"^ appears to paraphrase the use preference in RCW
�� evaluated against the long-term and �'������^�n.rnir.c4 4hr.�,...,, t,..... ,..,� g0.58.020 that identifies a preference for uses that
� potentially costly impairments to the ^^'^^'��"��^^°"„�^�^���^^^^'°'^'"^ "result in long term over short term benefit,°"recognize
� natural environments and state-wide ^°+,,.��e,,,,;.,,,,,,,e„+��,,,��+�+e ,.,;,�e and protect the statewide interest over local interesY',
w interest that may result. �^'^•^°""�'^^",•^°��" and"preserve the natural character of the shoreline.°
� See also Policy 1.7. The policy does not reference the
o countervailing emphasis in RCW 90.58.020 on
� fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses and
� recognition of alteration of the natural shoreline. The
w' state policy goals are applicable,regardless of their
� inclusion here. As such,it is within the range of
a � discretion to include this policy,delete it,or modify it to
� � emphasize other concepts in RCW 90.58.020.
Promote recreational uses of the 5.�7 Promote recreational uses The changes proposed by Centennial would limit the
shorelines to contribute to the throuqh the use of public access of the preference for recreational uses solely to public access
� u, economic attractiveness of the city. shorelines to contribute to the opportunities. The City may choose to promote
o � Seek opportunities to partner with economic attractiveness of the city. recreational uses more generally,rather than just
o � public and private property owners to Seek opportunities to partner with public access.
a o increase public recreational public and private property owners to
� w- opportunities in the shoreline. increase public recreational
�ri �
a � opportunities on public access in the
� u�i shoreline.
� �
New public and private shoreline uses This may policy may be more restrictive than what the
o and developments should be planned statute requires. There are times when providing
m and designed to attract the public to the public access or attracting the public to the water front
� waterfront. is not appropriate or required. The guidelines
0 recognize,for example,that public access is not
m always appropriate or required"due to reasons of
� incompatible uses,safety,security,or impact to the
�� shoreline environment or due to constitutional or other
00 legal limitations that may be applicable." WAC 173-
�
26-221(4)(d). In particular,imposing public access
`r' requirements on private shoreline uses may not
a
� always have the required nexus.
�
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
16
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
� Encourape Economic Development of This proposed Policy may fall within the discretion of
the shoreline area that will enhance the the City,especially in light of the other policies in this
aviabilitv of the Citv as a whole. section that reflect other key SMA concepts.
�
�
Areas that provide open spaces,scenic Areas that provide open spaces,scenic This policy covers several key shoreline topics
vistas,contribute to shoreline vistas,contribute to shoreline including public access(view access),shoreline
aesthetics,natural vegetation and,fish aesthetics,natural vegetation and,fish vegetation conseroation,and critical areas. While
and wildlife habitat should be preserved and wildlife habitat should be preserved shoreline regulations often seek to protect these
throuqh the use of communitv characteristics to varying degrees,the SMA does not
� incentives. require complete preservation of existing views,
� shoreline aesthetics,natural vegetation,or wildlife
� habitat. The legal standard allows more flexibility,
a even with respect to critical areas. See WAC 173-26-
s 201(2)(c)(the concept of"neY'in the no net loss
o standard anticipates some impact). Thus the
� proposed Policy is more restrictive than what is
�' required.
a
� However,the revision proposed by Centennial
�O completely eliminates regulatory tools to address these
a
� concerns and represents the opposite extreme.
�
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
17
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Protect existing vegetation and Protect the existing vegetation and The policy is consistent with the general approach to
� shoreline ecological function by shoreline ecological function by ensuring no net loss of existing shoreline functions.
N designating buffers and setbacks that designating buffers and setbacks that Centennial's proposed edit is difficult to track but
� are supported by the 2010 Shoreline are supported by the 2010 Shoreline appears to suggest using tools in addition to standard
mInventory. Inventory or their incentives that buffer buffers. Many jurisdictions have used a variety of tools
� averaqinq natural veqetation and are to provide some flexibility from the standard buffer
w'—, specific to the area. concept,while ensuring protection of no net loss.
=°• Accordingly,while Centennial's wording is not
�
� sufficiently clear and may include more detailed
> concepts than is appropriate at this stage,the City can
� consider including language that would encourage
o consideration of other innovative techniques and
a strategies for providing more flexibility while ensuring
N Y protection of no net loss,including concepts like buffer
as averaging,or common lot line set backs.
� �
� �
Utilize 2010 shoreline inventorv to The concept proposed by Centennial of using the
establish baselines for the functions shoreline inventory as a baseline for measuring no net
and values of shoreline. To the extent loss is consistent with the SMA and Ecology guidance
3 that a propertv owner wants to prepare on this subject. The City may also consider the
� its own inventorv, relv upon the additional concept suggested by Centennial though the
>, individualized assessment. exact wording and mechanics may need to be further
� refined. While a shoreline owner may not necessarily
� prepare its"own inventory"it may be possible to allow
� an owner to present studies and information specific to
� their property in preparation of a development
�� proposal.This concept is used regularly in GMA critical
� areas regulations of many jurisdictions where property
cn owners prepare and submit critical areas reports that
�`"� provide more detailed information about the specific
�O property characteristics than are included in the City's
a
� more general mapping.
�
Attachment 2
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
18
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
�, Protect and preserve ecological viability 6.45 Protect and preserve ecological See memo Section B,regarding the legal standard.
�> and connectivity through use of habitat viability and connectivity through use of
� � islands and corridors within the habitat islands and corridors within the More generally,the City may be required to ensure no
� � shoreline area. shoreline area that are reasonable and net loss provided that the science demonstrates that
� �
� U that take into consideration existinq and habitat connectivity or corridors are shoreline
a � future uses and development of the ecological functions.
� � area.
cd �rn —
a —O
� U
(n W
�, Retain existing open space and 6.�6 &e�Incentivize the retention of This Policy appropriately identifies incentives as a
> N environmentally sensitive areas on existing open space and possible tool for helping achieve SMA goals. There
� o � private property through the e use of environmentally sensitive areas on may be some confusion,however,from the title of the
� � � incentives. private property+"•^""h�h'�^��°^^{ policy which refers to"resource lands"(which typically
— °— �n ^^,��'���^°. refers to agriculture,forestry,and mineral resource
� � � lands—see e.g., RCW 36JOA.060)and the subject
a � N matter,which refers to open space and critical areas.
� �
� o �
Development shall avoid and if 6.&7 Development shall a�eid-anc#+f See Memo section B. The Policy appears to try to
avoidance is not possible, mitigate , mitigate introduce the concept of mitigation sequencing. See
negative impacts to steep banks, negative impacts to steep banks, WAC 173-26-201(2)(e). The details of mitigation
° surface and ground water quality, surface and ground water quality, sequencing are often handled at the implementing
o N ecological functions,fish and wildlife ecological functions,fish and wildlife regulation phase rather than in policies. Avoidance,is
o,� habitat,vegetative cover,and erosion habitat,vegetative cover,and erosion the highest priority and the first step in the mitigation
� n of the soil. of the soil. sequence. By proposing removal of the sentence,the
� change proposed by Centennial's may be vulnerable
� � to the challenge that it is inconsistent with SMA
a m requirements
� �
cn z
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
19
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Develop a Restoration Plan that will Develop a Restoration Plan that will The restoration plan is an important element of the
identify degraded areas and provide a identify degraded areas and provide a SMP update. It will provide the basis for restoration
framework for restoration efforts to framework for restoration efforts to efforts as a result of joint public and private efforts.
improve the existing ecological function improve the existing ecological function The restoration plan presents an opportunity to
and provide a mechanism for mitigation and provide a mechanism for�oi int balance against the regulatory"burden"of the no net
of unavoidable and unforeseeable public and private mitigation of loss standard. The restoration plan should identify
future development � opportunities for and progress toward restoration that
future development while providinq creates a"net gain"to balance against potential loss of
incentives for future development for shoreline ecological function in other parts of the
mitiqation. shoreline. In that regard the SAG's draft policy
appropriately characterizes the approach. The
restoration plan should identify existing restoration
projects and programs in the City.
As noted in the mitigation sequence,when mitigation is
required because a project creates a net loss of
shoreline ecological functions and the project
proponent cannot accommodate mitigation on-site,a
comprehensive restoration plan may provide
� opportunities for off-site mitigation to ensure no net
a loss occurs in the shoreline,generally,as a result of
o the project. The Policy,as drafted,is consistent with
�� the regulations and the statute. The revisions
`o proposed by Centennial appear to have some
� typographical errors,but the general concepts may be
� within the range of discretion afforded to the City. The
guidelines recognize the fact that restoration efforts
� are a result of public and private initiatives and through
a
� non-regulatory means. WAC 173-26-186(8)(c)
�
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
20
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Preserve and protect existing Preserve and protect existing See memo section B.
ecological functions and ecosystem- ecological functions and ecosystem- Centennial's proposal to require no net loss only to the
wide processes within wetlands,critical wide processes within wetlands,critical extent feasible is not consistent with the statute.
� aquifer recharge areas,fish and wildlife aquifer recharge areas,fish and wildlife Instead,the concept of feasibility may be taken into
� habitat conservation areas,geologically habitat conservation areas,geologically consideration in the mitigation sequence,when
w hazardous areas and frequently hazardous areas and frequently determining how an individual project satisfies the
� � flooded areas. Ensure no net loss of flooded areas. To the extent feasible, statutory standard.
� a ecological function within these critical €ensure no net loss of ecological
Q � areas function within these critical areas
�6 � throuqh the use of appropriate
U �
� o mitiqation.
U (7
Ensure the critical area goals and F^°���°+"°^•�+�^°'°�°°^^°'°°^�' See memo section B.
� policies for the Shoreline Master Plan n^��^���f^•+he eh,,.e�,,,e nn��+e,o��„
� � are consistent with the critical areas �°t^^',•,�'"'"^^•�'�^�'�
cTi � goals and policies contained in the 'Y^^^„c
a�i � Comprehensive Plan. ''^^^^•^"^^°�.,^ o'�^
in o
'�n C�
� N
0
U a�6i
� a` ,�
� � .�
a .� �
� `� �o
cn U a
Attachment 2
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
21
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Limit development that would cause SMP 8.4� The SAG policy mirrors the standard in WAC 173-26-
foreseeable risk from geological 221(2)(c)(ii)pertaining to standards for geologically
conditions to people or property. Do Limit development that would cause hazardous areas. The specific focus in the third
� not allow development that will require foreseeable risk from geological sentence on homes,rather than structures or uses,
�' structural shoreline stabilization except conditions to people or property. Do more generally, is reflected in the statute and in the
`� in the limited cases where it is not allow development that will require regulations. See RCW 90.58.100(6)and
m
'? necessary to protect an allowed use structural shoreline stabilization except 90.58.030(3)(e)(ii). As a result,the SAG's policy is
�� and no alternative location is available. in the limited cases where it is consistent with the Guidance.
w Allow structural shoreline stabilization necessary to protect an allowed use
�� to protect existing homes only when and no alternative location is available. Centennial's proposed change to expand the broaden
� relocation or reconstruction is Allow structural shoreline stabilization the language to protect"uses"rather than just"homes"
� infeasible. Do not allow structural to protect existing�uses only is an expansion beyond the direct authority recognized
Nshoreline stabilization that will result in when relocation or reconstruction is in the regulation. The guidelines for stabilization more
� a net loss of ecological function. infeasible. Allow limited structural generally offer more flexibility for stabilization
N shoreline stabilization to provide associated with structures,not just homes. 173-26-
— access to the shorelines. Se-ae4 231(3)(a)(iii). If the planning commission wants to
o �; aAllow structural shoreline stabilization explore this concept further,additional research may
w � that will result in a no net loss of be required.
�Q ecological function with appropriate
n � mitiqation. With respect to the final sentence,the SAG's draft is
Q-°a consistent with the statutory standard. Centennial's
� N proposed revision adds the concept of mitigation,
m = which is also consistent with the guidelines. WAC
Q �, 173-26-201(c)("The concept of"neY'as used herein,
� � recognizes that any development has potential or
�-�o, actual,short-term or long-term impacts and that
� —°o through application of appropriate development
o � standards and employment of mitigation measures in
a �, accordance with the mitigation sequence,those
� `6 impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to
� �
a � assure that the end result will not diminish the
� � shoreline resources and values as they currently
exist.").
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
22
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Require the dedication and o^^���•^'"^^'^^'�^�'�^^�^^' The policy is an accurate characterization of the
� improvement of public access in ;�,4�^�^^'^�Allow for development guidelines governing access. Importantly,the policy
� developments for water-enjoyment, of public access in developments for acknowledges the important exceptions from the
owater-related and non water-dependent water-enjoyment,water-related and general requirement when the City provides more
� uses and for the subdivision of land into non water-dependent uses and for the effective public access through a public access
omore than four parcels,with exceptions subdivision of land into more than four planning process and/or there are issues related to
� as allowed by WAC 173-26- parcels,with exceptions as allowed by safety,incompatibility and constitutional principles of
� 221(4)(d)(iii). WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii). nexus or rough proportionality. See Memo section B.
� Thus the policy's reference to the"exceptions"
t captures the tools available to the City to create a
� public access requirement in the development
M
o regulations that is sensitive to constitutional concerns
a and acknowledges the existing access already present
� within the City's shoreline trail system.
�
When improving and maintaining When improving and maintaining See Memo Section C.
existing public access points,minimize existing public access points,minimize
additional impacts on the shoreline additional impacts on the shoreline
� environment and, if possible,correct environment�^^' �°^^°°�"'^ ^ �^^'
o past adverse environmental impacts �°'�^'.,^•°^^ ^'�'�^^ �^'°
Q � caused by the public access. .
U �
Q N y
7 �
d U �
� N �
O � �
a � °
� �� �
� � �
Attachment 2
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
23
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Legally established uses and Legally established uses and The City has some discretion in the details of how it
developments that were erected and developments that were erected and regulates legally established nonconforming uses.
maintained in lawful condition prior to maintained in lawful condition prior to Either formulation of the standard under which the City
the effective date of this Master the effective date of this Master may allow future development or redevelopment of
� Program,shall be allowed to continue Program,shall be allowed to continue nonconforming uses and structures could potentially
� as legal nonconforming uses provided as legal nonconforming uses provided be considered,though there are key differences. For
� that future development or that future development or example, Centennial's proposed formulation could be
m redevelopment does not increase the redevelopment�'^^°^^'�^^�^�°^'"^ arguably more restrictive in some applications,such as
�� degree of nonconformity with this ^'^^�^^^°„^„^^„°^•^^�'„�""�h�h" the redevelopment of a damaged nonconforming
o program. �e�a�r provides a hiqher deqree of structure,because it only allows redevelopment upon
o benefit and restoration to the ecoloqical a provision of benefit and restoration,while the SAG's
� function of the shorelines. formulation would allow for rebuild in the same
z � footprint without additional restoration. In either case,
� � the City will want to revise this provision to reflect more
c.i o recent statutory changes to nonconforming use
a � provisions that consider pre-existing residential uses to
� a� be"conforming.° RCW 90.58.620.
� o
Prohibit new non-water oriented - While water dependent industrial uses are preferred,
� � industrial uses and the City may choose to discourage new non-water
c.i m � .� oriented industrial uses,the outright prohibition of non-
� � � u, �, water oriented industrial uses in all instances and in all
� o ��' � u°', environments may be more restrictive than what is
cn z O S � required. See,e.g., 173-26-241(3)(f)
Reduce the adverse effects of allowed - Limit allowed shoreline modifications in number and
� o � �n shoreline modifications and,as much extent as much as possible is more restrictive than is
N w, (p C
N � � .o as possible,limit allowed shoreline required under the statute,which expressly fosters all
a � � ;a modifications in number and extent reasonable and appropriate uses and recognizes
� o °- E alterations of the shoreline.
� � � �
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
24
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
Assure that shoreline modifications Assure that shoreline modifications This Policy appears to address the policy preferences
individually and cumulatively do not individually and cumulatively do not in RCW 90.58.020 which gives preference to uses that
oresult in a net loss of ecological result in a net loss of ecological preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
�� � � functions by: functions byQferen�e+�+h��e+„re��f However RCW 90.58.020 also fosters"all reasonable
� o o Giving preference to those types of and appropriate uses"and acknowledges alterations.
o u`�, �� shoreline modifications that have �"^•^��^^�^��f;^�t;^„�4h�4 h�.i.. To the extent that the policy deemphasizes the priority
� � � the least impact on ecological � alterations identified in RCW 90.58.020 and the
N a� � function;and #�+as�iea;a� recognition of shoreline alterations,generally,then the
c.i o .� Requiring mitigation of identified • �requiring mitigation of identified policy may be more restrictive than what is required.
a z o impacts resulting from shoreline impacts resulting from shoreline
� � �°, modifications modifications.
cn m w
Base shoreline modification regulations Base shoreline modification regulations The two gravel pits provide a unique situation where
� on scientific and technical information on scientific and technical information the existing conditions may not provide the best
�� of reach conditions for the Spokane of reach conditions for the Spokane measure for determining no net loss. As recognized in
� River,Shelley Lake,Central Pre-mix River,Shelley Lake,''^^'•��;�—.�-�-.,.,�o�^ ^^�� the guidelines,"It is appropriate,however,to
cn �n and Flora Pit ^^^'���^�� o�' determine whether there will be no net loss of
N .o � ecological function based on evaluation of final
c:i � �� reclamation required for the site." 173-26-241(3)(fl.
a � � Thus the City may want to consider changes to the
� � � policy to address these two unique shoreline areas.
Docks shall be allowed only in locations Docks shall be allowed only in locations Generally,the regulations allow new docks for water
where they will not pose a public safety where they will not pose a public safety dependent and residential uses. See WAC 173-26-
hazard or adversely impact shoreline hazard or adversely impact shoreline 231(3)(b). Moreover,the regulations allow docks so
ecological functions or process and ecological functions or process and long as they avoid or,if that is not possible,to
limited as follows: limited as follows: minimize and mitigate the impacts to ecological
� Spokane River-only in reservoir • Spokane River-only in reservoir functions. Accordingly,the language may be more
°— areas,where flow conditions least areas,where flow conditions least restrictive than what is required by the regulations.
oresemble the natural free-flowing resemble the natural free-flowing However,if there is a public health,safety concern,the
� river; river unless necessarv to support a City may have a strong policy reason for restricting
oShelley Lake; permitted use; docks in certain areas.
o Gravel pits;or • Shelley Lake;
N Severely ecologically impacted • Gravel pits;or
c:i shoreline areas with adequate • Severely ecologically impacted
a public access shoreline areas with adequate public
� access
�
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
25
Attachment 2
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments
T Require residential development of o^^���•^•^°�^'^^'��'^'^.,^'^^^^^^'^° Encouragement or requirement of joint-use docks is a
�� more than two dwellings to provide �^'"�^',^,^^',•,^"�^^°'^^•^.,�^'^ way to minimize impacts on ecological functions.
� � community docks,rather than individual , Policies encouraging or requiring joint use docks are
� E docks. �4es1� coming especially in pristine areas. The policy
M �j presented is within the discretion of the City,but may
c:i � be more than is required by statute because docks are
� � Y not a prohibited use and dock sharing is not required
� u°', o by statute.
� � o
Note:This chart is a working draft that includes some of the comments received to-date and will be expanded to incorporate other
comments through the public process.
26
ISAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTE�I�a;,l.ti =�;�� �_�:`��
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11 D
r-r
v
n
S
General Goals and Policies �
r-r
Goal SMP-1 -Goal: Enhance and utilize the City's shorelines by establishing and implementing "'
goals, policies, and regulations which promote a mixture of reasonable and appropriate shoreline
uses that improve the City's character, foster its historic and cultural identity, and conserve
environmental resources.
Policies
SMP 1.1 Coordinated Planning
Coordinate shoreline planning between the City of Spokane Valley, agencies with jurisdiction,
adjoining jurisdictions, the State of Washington, and the State of Idaho into which the river basin
� extends, and consider the plans of adjacent jurisdiction, �ro�erty owners, the City vision, non-
government organizations (NGO's) and/or special interest groups.
SMP 1.2 Consistency with Other Plans and Programs
Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program is consistent with the Washington
State Shoreline Management Act and Growth Management Act, the basic concepts, goals, policies,
and land use plan of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and development regulations_,
> .
�a;,.�;
:i��.
SMP 1.3 No Net Loss of Ecological Functions
Ensure that all shoreline uses and development are regulated in a manner that���protects no
net loss of the current of�shoreline ecological functions�[KNi] to the �reatest extent possible.
SMP 1.4 Public Interest and Property Rights
� Protect the interests of the public in attaining the goals of the Shoreline Master Program,-in a manner
��;�*°��* .�,;+'�that protects all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of
private property.
SMP 1.5 Shoreline Designated Environments
Designate shoreline environments for the City of Spokane Valley shorelines that allow for flexibility
and� are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land uses, shoreline management practices, and
shoreline inventory within each designated area. Allow for flexibility in the desi�nation of shoreline
environments based upon specific detailed shoreline inventory within each desi�nated area.
SMP 1.6 Use preferences for all Shorelines
Give preference to those shoreline activities which fulfill long range Comprehensive Plan goals and
the Shoreline Management Act policy priorities, as listed and discussed below:
It is the policy of the City to provide for the management of its shorelines by planning for and
fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. Policies are designed to ensure the development of the
City's shorelines in a manner which will promote and enhance the public interest. These policies will
protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land, its vegetation and aquatic life and
wildlife, and the waters of the Spokane River, Shelly Lake and the Sullivan Road and Park Road
Gravel Pits and their aquatic life.
�
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEN��98:�.�� �������'�I��
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
SMP 1.7 Use preferences for Shorelines of State-wide Significance
The State Legislature has declared that the interest and benefit of all of the people shall be paramount
in the management of shorelines of state-wide significance, and therefore preference shall be given to
uses in the following order of preference which:.
1. Recognize and protect statewide interest over local interest
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline
3. Allow uses that result in long-term over short-term benefits
4. Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines
5. Provide public access to publicly owned areas of shorelines
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines.
SMP 1.8 Public and Private Burden
Ensure that the re u� latory burden of enhancin� the shoreline environment�rotectin� the ecolo�ical
functions and usin� the shoreline is born not just b.�property owners subject to the Shoreline
Re�ulations, but by the community as a whole with a series of offsettin� benefits and flexibility in
administerin�the�ro r� am.
Historical, Cultural, Scientific & Educational Element
Goal SMP 2: Goal: Protect the historic, cultural, scientific or educational sites within the
shoreline that reflect our community's unique heritage and create or contribute to our
collective sense of place.
Policies
SMP 21 Sites and Structures
Identify, preserve, and manage shoreline sites and structures having historical, cultural,
scientific or educational value, and develop regulations that avoid, minimize, or mitigate
any adverse impacts to these resources.
SMP 2.2 Site and Building Acquisition
Public acquisition through gifts, bequests, grants, or donations of buildings or sites having
cultural, scientific, educational, or historical value should be encouraged.
SMP 2.3 Development Impacts
Discourage public or private development and redevelopment activities on any site, area, or
building identified as having historical, cultural, educational or scientific value unless there is
a bositive im�act on the shoreline's ecolo�ical functions.
SMP 2.4 Cooperation and Consultation
Ensure constant cooperation and consultation with affected agencies and tribes for projects
that could potentially impact cultural and historical resources.
�
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTENi�9��.�� �����R�"�.L���
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
I
SMP 2.5 Inventory of Sites D
v
Work with tribal, state, federal and local governments as appropriate to maintain an s
inventory of all known significant local historic, cultural, and archaeological sites in �
observance of applicable state and federal laws protecting such information from public W
disclosure.
SMP 2.6 Site Inspection and Evaluation
Ensure early and continuous site inspection, consultation or evaluation by a professional
archaeologist in coordination with affected tribes for all permits issued in areas documented
to contain archaeological resources
Utilities Element
Goal SMP 3: Goal: Maintain and provide adequate utility services within the shoreline
environment while preserving and enhancing the natural environment and ecology of the
shoreline.
Policies
SMP 31 Location
Locate new public facilities and utilities, including, but not limited to, utility
production, processing, distribution, and transmission facilities outside of the shoreline
jurisdiction whenever feasible.
SMP 3.2 Place Underground
Require new utilities and facilities that must be located within the shoreline to be built
underground, if feasible, and ��prefer the utilization of low impact, low profile design
and construction methods .
SMP 3.3 Existing Rights-of-way
Require new utilities and facilities to be located in existing rights-of-way whenever possible.
SMP 3.4 Maintenance Design
When existing utilities located within shoreline jurisdiction require maintenance or other
improvements, the maintenance/improvement should be designed and implemented to
minimize additional impacts on the shoreline environment , � ,
,.�� ,. oa �.. ��,o„�;�;�„
SMP 3.5 Preference to Existing Facilities and Utilities
Give preference to established utility corridors and rights-of-way for upgrades and
reconstruction of existing utilities and facilities,
,.��i,o �i,,,,.o�;,,o o „� ; ,,;�„�,�o
SMP 3.6 Stormwater Facilities
Stormwater utilities will be designed and located as to minimize environmental impacts
� within the shoreline jurisdiction. If located within the shoreline jurisdiction they shall�e
�use e�best management practices (e.g. biofiltration measures) and landscaping with
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTENi�9��.�� �����R�"�.L���
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
� native vegetation , , _
All stormwater facilities must protect water quality, manage runoff and address erosion
control and sedimentation.
I
Circulation Element
Goal SMP 4: Goal: Provide a safe, convenient, and multimodal circulation system which
Iwill minimize�t�e�rrne�ative impacts to the shoreline environment
Policies
SMP 41 Transportation Access
Ensure that a system of arterials, scenic drives, pathways, public transit routes, and bikeways
adjacent to and within the shoreline areas provide appropriate access to the Spokane River in
a way that meets the needs and desires of the community as reflected in the Comprehensive
� Plan, while also��r�gbrotectin�ecological function of the shorelines.
SMP 4.2 Location of New Streets or Street Expansions
Locate new streets or street expansions outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, unless no other
� options are reasonablv available �r�. In all cases, streets should be on the landward
side of development.
SMP 4.3 Consolidation of Corridors
Encourage the consolidation of transportation and utility corridors crossing the shoreline
environment in order to minimize the number of crossings, and encourage the collocation of
utilities on bridges or in transportation rights of way whenever possible by considering the
needs during the design of bridge and corridor upgrades.
SMP 4.4 Transportation Facilities
Plan, locate, and design proposed transportation facilities where routes will have the least
possible adverse effect on shoreline ecological functions, ��'��tr�t���e�.r-�
°'��,.°';r° °��'��;��' �,r�+;�r° or adversely impact existing or planned water dependent uses.
SMP 4.5 Stormwater TreatmentAll development within the shoreline jurisdiction area
shall provide stormwater treatment for all new and redeveloped pollution generating
impervious surfaces.
SMP 4.6 Parking Facilities for Public Access
Parking facilities for public access to the shoreline and water should be kept as far from the
shorelines as feasible.
SMP 4.7 Parking Facilities not a Primary Use.
Parking facilities should only be allowed as necessary to support permitted shoreline uses,
and not as a primary use,
^����-a����€.
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies �
i
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEiV�a;,l.ti =�;�� �_�:`�� D
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11 S
�
�
�
SMP 4.8 Impacts of Parking Facilities W
Minimize the environmental and visual impacts of parking facilities where allowed.
SMP 4.9 Retain Unused Public Rights-of-way for Visual and Physical Access
Retain unused public rights-of-way within the shoreline area to provide visual and physical
access to the shoreline unless:
• The street vacation enables the City to acquire the property for beach or water access
purposes, boat moorage or launching sites, park, public view, recreation, or
educational purposes, or other public uses
„�r „��.,�.o;,,,., oa .,,,a ; „� � ,;�.,�.�o �,-��,o „t,,,, o o�� OT
• The street vacation enables the City to implement a plan;that provides comparable or
improved public access to the same shoreline area to which the streets or alleys
� sought to be vacated;had the properties included in the plan not been vacated.
SMP 410 Improve Non-Motorized Access to Shoreline
Improve non-motorized access to the shoreline by developing, where appropriate, pathways,
� trails and bikeways_along and adjacent to the shoreline. Connectiviry between non-motorized
access points is encouraged.
SMP 411 Recognition of Centennial Trail
Recognize the importance and uniqueness of the Spokane River Centennial Trail to the City
of Spokane Valley, the region, and the state, Future trail development including trail
extensions, new access points, whether public or private, shall be designed to have *'�°�
minimal adverse impact while at the same time�rovide both visual and�hvsical access to the
shoreline.
SMP 4.12 New Rail Lines
Allow new rail lines and the expansion of existing rail corridors within the shoreline
� jurisdiction e�for the purpose of connecting to existing rail lines or rights-of-way so 1on�
as thev enhance the viabilitv of the shoreline and its ecolo�ical functions. Construct new rail
lines within an existing rail corridor where possible.
SMP 4.13 Rail Lines affecting Public Access
Construct, where feasible, all new rail lines so that they do not compromise the public's
abiliry to access the shoreline safely.
Economic Development Element
Goal SMP 5: Goal: Encourage and support water dependent, water oriented, and water
related economic activities within the shorelands of the City of Spokane Valley that will be
� an asset to the economy of the area� enhance the viabilitv of the Citv and that will protect
and maintain the ecological functions of the shoreline environment
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTENi�9��.�� �����R�"�.L���
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
SMP 51 Location of Economic Development
Give preference to economic development within the shoreline jurisdiction that is- water
de�endent, water oriented or water related���-*����'�r'� �'°r°r�'°r* �r *'�°;r '���*;�r �
^�*'�° °'��r°';r° Encourage new development to locate in areas that have intensive prior use
and can be upgraded or redeveloped. Encourage new economic development to cluster into
areas of the shoreline whose current use is compatible.
SMP 5.2 Design of Economic Development
Development should be designed to minimize the impacts to the shoreline aesthetic through
architectural, landscape, and other design features. All non-shoreline dependent elements of
the development should be placed inland. Encourage design that seeks to restore damaged or
compromised shoreline through incentives.
SMP 5.3 Provisions for Physical and Visual Availability to Water
� Historic areas, overlook points, structures, and points of public access to the waterbodies��
should be incorporated in economic development site-planning.
SMP 5.4 Encourage Regional Tourism
Strengthen regional tourism by expanding and developing neighborhood and regional
linkages and improvements that use the shoreline areas.
SMP 5.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations
Proposed economic development in the shoreline should be consistent with the Ciry of
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Upland uses on adjacent
lands outside of immediate SMA jurisdiction (in accordance with RCW 90.58.340) should
protect the preferred shoreline uses from being impacted by incompatible uses.
rn�,r�r��.�EE��°��iei,-orEee�vmic vi�iir
��.,�o . ;.ao ;,��o,-o���l,.,r,v, „1�
SMP 5.�6 Provisions for Shoreline Protection
Require that development provide adequate provisions for the protection of water quality,
erosion control, landscaping, aesthetic characteristics, stormwater systems, fish and wildlife
habitat, views, archaeological sites, and normal public use of the water.
SMP 5.75 Promote Recreational Uses
Promote recreational uses throu�h the use of public access of the shorelines to contribute to
the economic attractiveness of the -city. Seek opportunities to partner with public and
private property owners to increase public recreational opportunities on public access in the
shoreline.
ISMP 5.�8 Water-Enjoyment Areas
Promote the identification and establishment of water-enjoyment areas, such as parks, view
� points, beaches and pathways as attractions.
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies .
i
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEiV�a;,l.ti =�;�� � �:`�� D
_ rt
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11 S
�
�
SMP 511� Business and Industry Operations rt
- w
Encourage shoreline industries and businesses to maintain a well kept appearance and -to
operate in a manner that will not cause negative environmental-impacts +^ +'�° ^^m���r�+��
SMP 512� Redevelopment
Encourage and provide incentives for develo�ment and redevelopment of existing sites that
includes points of public access, areas designed for public enjoyment, improve fish -and
wildlife habitat, or improve fish passage.
ISMP 51�3 Building Orientation
New public and private shoreline uses and developments should be planned and designed to
attract the public to the waterfront.
ISMP 51�4 Design Feature Incentives
Incentives should be created to encourage developers to incorporate design features into the
waterside of the building.
ISMP 51�5 fTITLE?1
Support and maintain the existing aggregate mining industry as a significant component of
the area economy.
SMP 516
Encoura�e Economic Development of the shoreline area that will enhance the viabilitv of the
Citv as a whole.
Conservation
Goal SMP 6.: Preserve for the future those natural resources, including the unique, fragile
� and scenic qualities of the shoreline, which cannot be replaced and �achieve no net loss of
ecological functions of the shoreline.
Policies:
SMP 61. Areas to be Preserved
Areas that provide open spaces, scenic vistas, contribute to shoreline aesthetics, natural
vegetation and, fish and wildlife habitat should be preserved throu�h the use of community
incentives.
SMP 6.2 Protect Vegetative Buffers and Setbacks
Protect the existing vegetation and shoreline ecological function by designating buffers and
setbacks that are supported by the 2010 Shoreline Inventory or their incentives that buffer
avera��natural ve�etation and are s�ecific to the area.
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTENi�9��.�� �����R�"�.L���
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
SMP 6.3 Shoreline Inventory
Utilize 2010 shoreline inventorv to establish baselines for the functions and values of
shoreline. To the extent that a�ro�ertv owner wants to�re�are its own inventorv, relv u�on
the individualized assessment.
SMP 6.4� Acquisition of Unique Shoreline Areas
Acquire and maintain, through conservation futures, donations, grants, general funds, or
other sources, shoreline areas containing natural elements especially worthy of preservation
or especially attractive to the public, such as beaches, forest covers, trees, wildlife
populations, vistas and other scenic features.
� SMP 6.�5 Preserve Ecological Connectivity
Protect and preserve ecological viability and connectivity through use of habitat islands and
corridors within the shoreline area that are reasonable and that take into consideration
existin� and future uses and develo�ment of the area.
SMP-6.�6-Incentives for Retention of Resources Lands
�rIncentivize the retention of existing open space and environmentally sensitive areas
on private property *'�r^„h'� *'�° ° ^�;r^°r*;=,°�
SMP-6.�7-Mitigation of Negative Impacts
Development shall �_ ���' �r�' ���=���a�r�° ;° r�* ,��°°;'�'° mitigate negative impacts to steep
banks, surface and ground water qualiry, ecological functions, fish and wildlife habitat,
vegetative cover, and erosion of the soil.
ISMP 6.8� Cumulative Impacts
Regulations shall assure that the commonly occurring and foreseeable cumulative impacts of
development do not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline.
Restoration
Goal SMP 7: Restore habitat and the natural systems to improve shoreline ecological
functions.
Policies
SMP 71 Restoration Plan
Develop a Restoration Plan that will identify degraded areas and provide a framework for
restoration efforts to improve the existing ecological function and provide a mechanism for
joint public and private mitigation ^���r^T�^�a^'�'����e-ak�l��future development
while�rovidin�incentives for future develo�ment for miti_a� tion
SMP 7.2 City Stewardship
Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley assumes a primary stewardship role through
restoration efforts on city-owned and controlled land. Manage the City's programs, services,
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTENi�9��.�� �����R�"�.L���
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
and operational infrastructure in a manner that achieves no net loss of ecological or shoreline
functions.
ISMP 7.3 Incentives for Restoration and Enhancement Projects
Provide incentives for projects that include restoration and enhancement components by �
r-r
implementing tools which may include but are not limited to: modifying the shoreline s
� setback and buffer areas that would apply to the restored areas or allowing a greater range of �
uses or flexible development standards (e.g., setbacks) on properties providing restoration rt
and or enhancement. "'
� SMP7.4 Gravel Pit Restoration Plans
Assist the Gravel Pits in the development and implementation of restoration plans for pits
that are consistent with the Shoreline Master Program and the Department of Natural
IResources rec�uirements-.
SMP 7.5 Cooperative Restoration Programs
Encourage cooperative restoration programs between local, state, and federal public agencies,
tribes,non-profit organizations, and landowners.
Critical Areas Element
Goal SMP 8: Preserve and protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide
processes within wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas and frequently flooded areas. To the
extent feasible,�ensure no net loss of ecological function within these critical areas throu�h
the use of appropriate miti�ation.
Policies
��,o ,.�.:�;,.,,� „ ,,,,�� .,,,a �„�;,.;o� ,. „�,,;,,oa ;,, ��,o r,,.,,r,.o�,o„�;.,o ��,,,,
SMP 8.1� No net loss of ecological function
Ensure regulatory protection measures developed for the shoreline area assure no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by
Washington State Department of Ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060 to
the �reatest extent�ossible.
SMP 8.2� Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Wetlands through protective
measures.
Rate wetlands based on the quality of the wetland and the ecological function they serve.
Develop protective measures tailored to the wetland quality and function and that consider
the characteristics and setting of the buffer and the impacts on adjacent land use as to the
specific wetland.
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies •
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEN���O:�.�� ������i��I��
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
� SMP 8.43 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Wetlands through mitigation
measures.
Base wetland mitigation on the wetland rating and require mitigation sequencing. Only
allow compensatory mitigation after mitigation sequencing has been applied and higher
prioriry means of mitigation have been deemed infeasible.
� SMP 8.4� Protect people and property from risk associated with critical areas defined
as Geologically Hazardous Areas.
Limit development that would cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or
property. Do not allow development that will require structural shoreline stabilization except
in the limited cases where it is necessary to protect an allowed use and no alternative location
is available. Allow structural shoreline stabilization to protect existing �uses only
when relocation or reconstruction is infeasible. Allow limited structural shoreline
stabilization to �rovide access to the shorelines. �e-�e� �Allow structural shoreline
stabilization that will result in �no net loss of ecological function with a�ropriate
miti_a� tion.
SMP 8.�5 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation areas
Develop measures that assure no net loss of ecological functions of river, lake and stream
corridors associated with fish and wildlife habitat. Integrate the protection of fish and
wildlife habitat with flood hazard reduction and other fish and wildlife management
provisions. Develop measures that authorize and facilitate habitat restoration projects in
these areas where a�ropriate.
SMP 8.6� Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas.
Protect the hydrologic connections between water bodies, water courses, and associated
wetlands. Integrate the protection of critical aquifer recharge areas with jurisdictional and
non jurisdictional aquifer protection measures such as Watershed Management Plans,
Wellhead Protection Plans, Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices, and others as
appropriate.
� SMP 8.7� Protect people and property from risk associated with critical areas defined
as Frequently Flooded Areas
Limit development that would cause foreseeable risk to people and property from frequent
flooding. Ensure frequently flooded areas are fully addressed in the goals and policies of the
Flood Hazard Reduction element of this plan.
Flood Hazard Reduction Element
Goal SMP 9 Goal: Prevent and reduce flood damage in shoreline areas to protect
ecological functions, shoreline habitat,lives, and public and private property.
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies �
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEN���O:�.�� ������i��I��
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
Policies
SMP 91 Development within the Shoreline
Prohibit development within the shorelines that would intensify flood hazards or result in
cumulative significant adverse effects to other properties, as regulated by Chapter 21.30,
Floodplain Regulations, of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code.
SMP 9.2 Coordination among agencies
Coordinate flood hazard reduction planning among the applicable agencies.
SMP 9.3 Structural Flood Hazard Reduction
Allow new structural flood hazard reduction measures only:
• Where scientific and engineering analysis has demonstrated it to be necessary, and
when non-structural methods are infeasible and mitigation is accomplished; and
• Landward of associated wetlands and buffer areas except where no alternative exists,
as documented in an engineering analysis; and
• When consistent with current best management practices, using natural materials
whenever feasible.
Note: An example of a structural flood hazard reduction measure is a structure placed by
humans within a stream or river waterward of the ordinary high mark such as, but not limited
to a diversion or modification of water flow to control flooding.
SMP 9.4 Removal of Gravel
Allow removal of gravel for flood control only if biological and geomorphological study
� demonstrates a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction_and no net loss of ecological
functions. This does not apply to the permitted gravel mining operations underway at the
time of SMP adoption and approval or other subsequentiv a�roved �ravel mining
operations.
SMP 9.5 Natural Vegetative Buffers
Spokane River that function to reduce flood hazards.
SMP 9.6 Alternate Flood Control Measures
When evaluating alternate flood control measures, consider the removal or relocation of
structures in floodplain areas.
Public Access Element
Goal SMP 10: Provide diverse, reasonable, and adequate public access to the shorelines of the state
consistent with the natural shoreline character, private property rights, public rights under the
Public Trust Doctrine, and public safety while maintaining no net loss of ecological function.
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEN��98:�.�� �������'�I��
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
Policies
SMP 10.1 Public Interest and Private Property
Promote and enhance the public interest with regard to rights to access waters held in public trust by
the state, while protecting private property rights and public safety.
SMP 10.2 Shoreline Development by Public Entities
� Require public entities, including local governments, state agencies and public utility districts, to
include public access as part of each development project unless such access is incompatible due to �
reasons of safety, security or impact to the shoreline environment. �
�
SMP 10.3 Shoreline Development �
�
� p°������° *'�° a°a���*��� ��a �mr���� °�°r* ��'Allow for development of public access in developments rt
for water-enjoyment, water-related and non water-dependent uses and for the subdivision of land into "'
� more than four parcels,with exceptions as allowed by WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii).
SMP 10.4 Public Access Maintenance and Improvements
When improving and maintaining existing public access points, minimize additional impacts on the
shoreline environment-�„a�,T�sr�'�.��ee�����-a��e��e��ne�+���e�c-a�°a��
.,�,:
r=-----�^�---�.
SMP 10.5 Access Plan
Develop a formal Public Access Plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system that
identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access that includes visual and
physical access. The plan should identify access opportunities and circulation for pedestrians
(including disabled persons),bicycles, and vehicles between shoreline access points.
SMP 10.6 Design of Access Measures
Require that public access measures have a design appropriate to the site, adjacent property, and
general nature of the proposed development, while protecting and providing views. Public access
� facilities should be designed with provisions for persons with disabilities, «'�°�-° ���,.�,�,��*°
SMP 10.7 Motor Vehicle Access
Where access to the water's edge by motor vehicles is necessary, parking areas should be kept as far
from the shorelines as possible. Parking facilities shall implement a design appropriate for the
shoreline environment.
SMP 10.8 Access Design and Spacing
Access design and spacing of access points should be based on the biophysical capabilities of the
shoreline features and should protect fragile shoreline environment.
SMP 109 Impacts on Views
Minimize the impacts to existing views where the view is taken from the water or shoreline, public
property or substantial numbers of residences. Water-dependent shoreline uses and physical public
access shall have priority over maintaining a view when a conflict between them is irreconcilable.
SMP 10.10 Permitted Uses
Regulate the design, construction, and operation of permitted uses in the shorelines of the state to
minimize,insofar as practical,interference with the public's use of the water.
SMP 10.11 Incentives
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
i
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEiV�a;,l.ti =�;�� � �:`�� D
_ rt
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11 S
�
�
Incentives such as density or bulk and dimensional bonuses should be considered if development rt
proposals include additional public access beyond that required by this SMP. "'
SMP 10.12 Non-Motorized Access
Preference shall be given to the development , or improvement, of access for non-motorized
recreational activities.
Recreation Element
Goal SMP 1L• Increase and preserve recreational opportunities on the shorelines of the
City of Spokane Valley
Policies
SMP 111 Preserve Shorelines for Public Recreational Use
Encourage appropriate public agencies to preserve shorelines for public use and to dedicate
or transfer appropriate shoreline land for recreational uses.
SMP ll.2 Encourage Passive and Active Recreation
Both passive and active recreation should be encouraged for appropriate shorelines.
SMP 11.3 Recreational Areas Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions
Recreational areas should be located, designed, developed, managed and maintained in a
manner that protects shoreline ecological functions and processes.
SMP 11.4 Linkages to Recreation Areas
Hiking paths, bicycle paths, easements and scenic drives should link shoreline parks,
recreation areas and public access points.
SMP 11.5 Public Access Priority
Public use and access to the water should be a priority in recreational development.
SMP 11.6 Recreational Opportunities for All
Ensure that recreational planning takes into account the differences in use groups, physical
capabilities, and interests among the public in order to provide opportunities for safe and
convenient enjoyment of the shorelines.
SMP ll.7 Adequate Support Facilities
Create adequate support facilities of uses such as parking areas, maintenance buildings, and
rest rooms to meet shoreline recreational demands.
SMP 11.8 Non- Motorized Recreation
Preference shall be given to non-motorized recreational activities.
SMP ll.9
Provide for incentives to private propertv owners who provide both visual and phvsical
access to the shorelines.
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEN��98:�.�� �������'�I��
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
Shoreline Use Element
Goal SMP 12: Consider the use and development of shorelines and adjacent land areas
for housing, business, industry, transportation, recreation, education, public buildings
and grounds, utilities and other categories of public and private land uses in relation to
the natural environment and ensuring no net loss of ecological function.
Policies
General Use Policies
SMP 121 Shoreline Use Priorities
Give preference to water-dependent and single family residential uses that are consistent
� with preservation of shoreline ecological functions and�e�values. Secondary
preference should be given to water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Non-water-oriented
uses should be allowed only when substantial public benefit is provided with respect to the
goals of the SMA for public access and ecological restoration.
SMP 12.2 Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions
Ensure no net loss of ecological functions through the use of specific standards for setbacks,
� buffers, densiry, and shoreline stabilization in accordance with SMP 6.2.
SMP 12.3 Public Access in Development
Ensure that shoreline development includes visual and physical public access to the
shorelines, while avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating negative impacts to the shoreline
including views.
SMP 12.4 Preserving Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Encourage new development to contribute to the creation or preservation of open space
and/or fish and wildlife habitat along the shorelines through the use of tools such as
conservation futures, conservations easements, transferable development rights, and planned
unit developments.
SMP 12.5 Nonconforming Use and Development
Legally established uses and developments that were erected and maintained in lawful
condition prior to the effective date of this Master Program, shall be allowed to continue as
legal nonconforming uses provided that future development or redevelopment�
provides a hi_h� er de�ree of benefit
and restoration to the ecolo�ical function of the shorelines.
SMP 12.6 Mitigation Sequencing
Avoid and reduce significant ecological impacts from shoreline uses and modification
activities through mitigation sequencing.
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies �
I SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEN���O:�.�� ������i��I��
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
D
r-r
r-r
v
Residential Use �
�
SMP 12.7 Subdivided Lots �
r-r
Require new subdivided lots to be designed, configured, and developed to: W
• Prevent the net loss of ecological functions at full build-out;
• Prevent the need for new shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures ;
and
• Be consistent with the applicable environment designations and standards.
SMP 12.8 Over-Water Residences
Prohibit new over-water residences and floating homes
Commercial Use
SMP 12.9 Priorities for Commercial Use
Give preference to commercial uses in the following order:
• First priority is given to water-dependent commercial uses,
• Second priority is given to water-related and water-enjoyment commercial uses.
SMP 1210 Non-Water Oriented Commercial Uses
Prohibit new non-water oriented commercial uses unless they are part of a mixed-use project
� or the use provides a ��or���± public benefit, such as public access and ecological
restoration.
SMP 12.11 Non-Water Dependent Commercial Uses
Prohibit non-water dependent commercial uses over the water
SMP 1212 Mitigation of Shoreline Impacts
Public access and ecological restoration collectively should be considered as potential
mitigation of impacts to shoreline resources and values for all water-related or water-
dependent commercial development unless such improvements are demonstrated to be
infeasible or inappropriate.
Industrial Uses
SMP 12.13 Priorities for Industrial Use
Give priority to industrial uses in the following order:
• First priority is given to water-dependent industrial uses
• Second priority is given to water-related industrial uses
• The existing legally permitted gravel pits and their surroundin� uses in the shoreline
area are considered water dependent uses.
SMP 12.14 Non-Water Oriented Industrial Uses
Prohibit new non-water oriented industrial uses
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEN��98:�.�� �������'�I��
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
SMP 1215 Industrial Use in Impaired Shoreline Areas
Encourage industrial uses and redevelopment to locate where environmental cleanup and
restoration is needed and can be accomplished.
SMP 1216 Water Dependent and Water Related Industrial Uses
Water dependent and water related industrial uses within shoreline jurisdiction should be
prohibited in areas that are susceptible to erosion and flooding and where there are impacts to
ecological functions.
SMP 1217 Control Pollution and Damage
Designate and maintain appropriate areas for protecting and restoring shoreline ecological
functions and processes to control pollution and prevent damage to the shoreline environment
and/or public health.
SMP 1218 Uses Consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Ensure shoreline uses are consistent with the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and
satisfy the economic, social, and physical needs of the ciry..
Shoreline Modifications
SMP 12-19 Shoreline Modif'ications
Allow structural shoreline modifications only where they are:
• Demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect an allowed primary structure or a
legally existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage; and
• Necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for mitigation or enhancement purposes.
SMP 12-20 Modification Impacts and Limitations
Reduce the adverse effects of allowed shoreline modifications and, as much as possible,
limit allowed shoreline modifications in number and extent.
SMP 12-21 Appropriate Modifications
Allow only shoreline modifications that are appropriate to the shoreline environment
designations and environmental conditions for which they are proposed.
SMP 12-22 Modifications and No Net Loss of Ecological Functions
�7Assure that shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss
of ecological functions by-
�
�requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications.
SMP 12-23 Shoreline Modif'ications Regulations
Base shoreline modification regulations on scientific and technical information of reach
� conditions for the Spokane River, Shelley Lake, �'�r*r�, �r� �;° �ra �',�r� �;+
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies .
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTENi�9��.�� �����R�"�.L���
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
SMP 12-24 Restoration of Impaired Ecological Functions
Plan for the restoration of impaired ecological functions where feasible and appropriate,
while accommodating permitted uses.
� SMP 12-25 Measures to Protect Ecological Functions
Incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem- �
wide processes as shoreline modifications occur. �
�
Piers and Docks �
�
SMP 12-26 Dock Restrictions rt
w
Allow new docks only for public water-dependent uses, single-family residences, and public
access on the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. The existing gravel pit operations are allowed
docks if it is necessary for operations and as permitted operating permits.
SMP 12-27 Dock Location
Docks shall be allowed only in locations where they will not pose a public safety hazard or
adversely impact shoreline ecological functions or process and limited as follows:
• Spokane River - only in reservoir areas, where flow conditions least resemble the
� natural free-flowing river unless necessarv to su�ort a�ermitted use;
• Shelley Lake;
• Gravel pits; or
� • Severely ecologically impacted shoreline areas with adequate public access
SMP 12-28 Dock Size
Restrict the size of new docks to the minimum necessary to serve a proposed water-
dependent use.
SMP 12-29 Demonstrate Need
Permit new docks only when specific need is demonstrated, except for single-family
residences.
SMP 12-30 Expansion and Multiple Use
Encourage multiple use and expansion of existing docks over the addition and/or
proliferation of new single dock facilities.
�
,-„��,o,-��,.,,, ;,,a;.,;a,,,,� a,,,.i,�
SMP 12-3�1 Design and Construction
Design and construct all piers and docks to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to
ecological processes and functions.
Shoreline Fill
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEN���O:�.�� ������i��I��
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
� SMP 12-32�Design and Location
Shoreline fills shall be designed, located, and constructed to protect shoreline ecological
function and ecosystem-wide processes, including channel migration, wildlife habitat, water
qualiry, water currents, surface water drainage, and flood hazard protection measures.
� SMP 12-33�Limitations on Fill
Fill waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark shall require a conditional use permit and
shall only be allowed under limited circumstances.
� SMP 12-34�Fill Proposal Plan
Require a plan that addresses species removal, replanting, irrigation, erosion, and
sedimentation control and other methods of riparian corridor protection with all fill
proposals.
Streambank Protection
� SMP 12-35g Streambank Protection Measures
The term "streambank" shall apply to all shoreline banks within Spokane Valley. Prohibit
new streambank protection measures, except when necessity is documented through a
geotechnical analysis of the site and shoreline characteristics. When necessity is
demonstrated and conditions require, only allow streambank protection for existing primary
structures, water-dependent development, new development, and ecological restoration or
toxic clean-up remediation projects.
SMP 12-36�Design and Location of New Development
Design and locate new development and lots created through subdivision,
�c��e�k-e�r-���e� �'�r°� �„a '�'„��� to prevent the need for future streambank protection
measures during the life of the structure.
� SMP 12-3�7 Public Access
Incorporate ecological restoration and public access as part of publicly funded streambank
protection projects.
� SMP-12-398-Integrated Approach to Streambank Protection
Require an integrated approach to streambank protection. Select and design streambank
protection measures using an integrated approach requiring an analysis of the reason for the
erosion; fish and wildlife habitat characteristics, needs and potential; and the current and
future risks associated with erosion and bank protection to property, infrastructure, fish and
wildlife habitat and public safety.
� SMP 12-394�9 Dredging
Site and design new development to avoid the need for new or maintenance dredging.
ISMP 12-40�Dredging Restrictions
Prohibit dredging except when necessary for projects that restore ecological functions and to
maintain existing structures. Dredging is allowed as part of the permitted aggregate mining
operations in the gravel pits.
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH CENTEN����:�' ������i�I��
- . � COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 7/19/11
ISMP 12-41�Dredging Materials
Prohibit the use or disposal of dredging materials within the shoreline except for projects that
benefit shoreline resources and except for permitted aggregate mining operations in the
gravel pits.
SMP 12-42�In-Stream Structures D
_ rt
v
Site in-stream structures to protect and preserve ecosystem-wide processes, ecological �
functions, and cultural resources, including but not limited to fish and fish passage, wildlife �
and water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydro-geological processes, and natural scenic rt
w
vistas.
� SMP 12-43�In-Stream Structure Location
Consider the full range of public interests, watershed functions and processes, and
environmental concerns when planning and locating in-stream structures, with special
emphasis on protecting and restoring priority habitats and species.
ISMP 12-44�Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Locate and design boat ramps and other boating facilities to meet health, safety, and welfare
requirements and to minimize adverse affects upon geo-hydraulic processes, fragile shoreline
features, natural wetlands, and aquatic and wildlife habitats.
ISMP 12-45g Development of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Assure no net loss of ecological functions as a result of boat ramp or other boating faciliry
development.
ISMP 12-46�Aesthetic Impacts of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Avoid or mitigate impacts to shoreline aesthetics as a result boat ramp or other boating
facility development.
ISMP-12-47�Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
Advocate and foster habitat and natural system enhancement projects which restore the
natural character and function of the shoreline provided they are consistent with the
Restoration Plan.
Gravel Pits
ISMP12-481 Gravel Pit Operations
Allow existing gravel pit operations to continue to operate and expand consistent with
operational permits. Operational uses include both above water and below water gravel
extraction, processing, and crushing. Accessory uses include, but are not limited to, concrete
batch plants, hot mix asphalt plants, aggregate processing and recycling plants, customer
service (truck dispatching) offices, maintenance facilities, truck & equipment parking,
stockpiles, scale houses, retail product stores, and quality control facilities.
SMP 12-49�9 Water Dependent Uses
Existing Gravel Pit Operations are considered water dependent uses.
Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies •
Deanna Griffith
From: Doug Pineo [dpineo@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:14 PM
To: Lori Barlow; bhorrocks@spokanecity.org; bud.leber@kaisertwd.com;
chris.guidotti@parks.wa.gov; dlogan@centennial-properties.com;
friends@spokanecentennialtrail.org; info@spokaneriver.net;jktrout@comcast.com;
jmcdonald@oldcastlematerials.com;jsho461@ecy.wa.gov; khall@landscouncil.org;
Kitty@futurewise.org; mdgorton@aol.com; ricke@cforjustice.org;
robin.bekkedahl@avistacorp.com; sharon_m@comcast.net; tripletzr@yahoo.com;
wsabrahamse@comcast.net
Cc: Scott Kuhta; Martin Palaniuk; John_Patrouch@URSCorp.com; lunell@haughtstrategies.com;
Micki Harnois
Subject: RE: Shoreline Goals and Polices
Attachments: SAG Goals and Policies working draft Pineo Comments.docx
Greetings:
The comments from Centennial Properties, coming in after the end of the policy development
process, are not consistent with the open, facilitated public process of the Shoreline Advisory Group
(SAG) to which Centennial Properties agreed, and in which they participated. These comments
attempt to influence the new SMP unfairly and without discussion among the range of constituencies
represented in the advisory group. As such, these comments demonstrate a disrespect for the
hundreds of hours of time and civic commitment of the members of the Shoreline Advisory Group.
As other members of Spokane Valley's SAG have already written, Centennial Properties' comments
don't reflect the "direction of the SAG", but do reflect and embody significant fundamental
misunderstandings of RCW 90.58, the Shoreline Management Act, WAC 173-26, the Shoreline
Master Program Guidelines rule, and RCW 36.70A, the Growth Management Act and WAC 395-196,
its implementing administrative code.
Centennial Properties has the same right to present comments as all citizens and constituencies in
Washington as provided in the law. But like everyone else, their input outside of the SAG, in which
they were invited participants, should be submitted during the required opportunities for formal and
informal participation, including the formal public comment periods before and after local SMP
adoption, and during Department of Ecology's formal review and approval process. These
opportunities will include public meetings and open houses as well as public hearings (WAC 173-26-
100, WAC 173-26-201(3)(b), RCW 90.58.130, RCW 3670A.140). Therefore, in considering these
comments separate from the work and recommendation of the SAG, and also outside the procedural
provisions of the law and rule governing development and adoption of Shoreline Master Programs,
the city council risked violating procedural requirements of both the SMA and GMA.
I've attached my responses to Centennial Properties' comments, also in Track Changes.
Doug Pineo
From: Lori Barlow [mailto:lbarlow@spokanevalley.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:15 PM
To: bhorrocks@spokanecity.org; bud.leber@kaisertwd.com; chris.guidotti@parks.wa.gov; dlogan@centennial-
properties.com; dpineo@comcast.net; friends@spokanecentennialtrail.org; info@spokaneriver.net; jktrout@comcast.com;
jmcdonald@oldcastlematerials.com;jsho461@ecy.wa.gov; khall@landscouncil.org; Kitty@futurewise.org;
mdgorton@aol.com; ricke@cforjustice.org; robin.bekkedahl@avistacorp.com; sharon_m@comcast.net;
tripletzr@yahoo.com; wsabrahamse@comcast.net
i
Cc: Scott Kuhta; Martin Palaniuk; 'John_Patrouch@URSCorp.com'; lunell@haughtstrategies.com; Micki Harnois
Subject: FW: Shoreline Goals and Polices
Hello all Shoreline Advisory Group Members!
The City has received comments on the proposed draft goals and policies that will be discussed at the council meeting
tonight. I am forwarding them for your information. You may wish to take a look at some of the changes proposed and
let me know your thoughts. The cover letter indicates that the changes proposed more accurately represent the
"direction of the SAG." I look forward to hearing from you.
Lori Barlow, AICP
City of Spol<ane Valley
(509)720-5335
From: Karina Hermanson [mailto:karinah@witherspoonkelley.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:30 PM
To: Brenda Grassel; Dean Grafos; Arne Woodard; 'schimmel@spokanevalley.org'; Chuck Hafner; Bill Gothmann; Tom
Towey
Cc: Lori Barlow; Micki Harnois; Scott Kuhta; Martin Palaniuk; Mary Swank; 'bgrassel@msn.com'
Subject: Shoreline Goals and Polices
Dear Council Members-
Attached please find a letter from our client, Centennial Properties, and a redline of our proposed draft for the Shoreline
Master Program Goals and Policies. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Dullanty.
���� : ��� ���
Legal Assistant to Stanley M. Schwartz, F.J. Dullanty Jr., and Nathan G.
Smith
�"�� ��' r �i' i � �- � � �}c� �� � � �: ��. �.. �. ��. �{
422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite ll00
Spokane, WA 99201
Phone: (509) 624-5265
Fax: (509) 458-2728
www.withers�oonkelle, .�
IRS Circular 230 Disdosure:To ensure wmpliance with requireinents imposed by the IRS,please be
advised that any U.S.tas advice contained in this communication(including aay attachmeats)is not
intended or written to be used or relied upon,and cannot be used or relied upon,for the purpose of(i)
avoiding penalties under the Inte�rnal Revenae Code,or(ii)promoting,markefing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Confidentiality Notice:The informatiou contained in this email and any accompanying attachment(s)is
iatended only for the use of the intended recipient aad may be confidential aad/or privileged.If any
reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,unauthorized use,disclosure or copying is
strictly prohibited,and may be unlawfuL If you have received this commuaicarion in error,please
immediately notify the sender by returu email,and delete the original message aud all copies from your
system.Thank yoa.
2
D
�
n
s
1 �,,.��:'° �, �., M.�. .�.�� �w �, �..� .� 1 .u.<<, 4 .e ,. �,' �:.� �',..,.,. �
�
�
A
General Goals and Policies
I Goal SMP-1 -GoaL• Enhance and utilize the City's shorelines by establishing and implementing Comment[Dl]:"use"is always better than
"utilize°,and is more consistent with the SMA.
goals,policies, and regulations which promote a mixture of reasonable and appropriate shoreline However,this goals statement is about the SMA�S
uses t�lat 1mpCOVe t�le Cl�''S C�IaCaCteC� foSteC Its �I1StoCIC anCl Cu�tuCal IClentl�'� anCl ConSeCVe primedirectivetoenhanceandprotectthenatural
character,resources and ecology of shorelines of
eIIVICOIIIDeIIta�CeS011CCeS. statewide significance.The very same sentence
already includes the phrase"which promote a
Policies mixWre of reasonable and appropriate shoreline
SMP 1.1 Coordlllated Plannin uses",making tne addition of eitner"use"or
g "utilize"redundant and syntactically obnoxious.
Coardinate shareline planning between the City of Spokane Valley,agencies with jurisdiction,adjoining
jurisdictions, the State of Washington, and the State of Idaho into which the river basin extends, and
� consider the plans of d'acent 'urisdictio ro ert owners the Cit vision non-government Comment[D2]:rn�sse�te��eai�eady�o�ca��s
arganizations(NGO's)and/ar special interest groups. the PhraSe,"adjoiningjurisdictions°. More
reduncancy.All constituencies,including property
owners,are already included in the phrase"special
SMP 1.2 Consistency with Other Plans and Programs ��te�est g�o�ps".
Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program is consistent with the Washington State
Shareline Management Act and Growth Management Act, the basic concepts, goals,policies, and land
use plan of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and development regulations,�Eke-�e€
, Comment[D3]:The law and rules require that
GMA and SMA/SMP provisions must be consistent,
and that new and updated SMPs must be consistent
SMP 1.3 No Net Loss of Ecological Functions with those of adjacent(adjoining)jurisdictions.This
Ensure that all shareline uses and development are regulated in a manner that rotects no net pn�ase sno�id ee�eca��ed.
loss of the current of�shareline ecological functions to the�reatest extent possible. Comment[D4]:rne sMP���deu�es a�d cne
SMP 1.4 Public Interest and Property R1�T,I1tS SMA itself require that SMPs and their
Protect the interests of the public in attaining the goals of the Shoreline Master Program,-in a manner '"'P�e"1e"tat'o��es�ic���o�ec ioss or sno�eu�e
ecological function(WAC ll3-26-201(2)(a�). Use of
om��o�'��ntllat pT'OteC�,S 3ll TeleV3IIY COriSY1tL1YlOri2.� 3riCl OY110T leg2.1 I1ri11t2.YlOriS Ori Y11e TegUl&YlOri Of the word"protects°in this sentence would make no
pT'1V3te pT'OpeTLy. grammatical sense.The standard in the law and
rule also make no provision for"to the greatest
extent possible".The standard is"no net loss of
SMP 1.rJ S�lOCCIlI1C�CS1gIlatC(1 EIIV1COIlIl1CI1tS shoreline ecological function.°
Designate shareline environments far the City of Spokane Valley sharelines that allow far exibilit and Comment[KH5]:oer��e
� are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land uses, shareline management practices, and
shareline inventory within each designated area.JAllow far flexibility in the designation of shoreline Comment[D6]:7his°flexibility°language
reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the
0riV1T'OTllYleritS IJ2SeCl U Ori S eC1f1C C10t3.11eC1 SI"lOT'ellrie 1riVeriYOT Wltl"llri 03C1"1 CleSl ri3t0Cl 3T83. SMA,which requires analysis and planning up front
in the development of the SMP,so that property
SMP 1.6 Use preferences for all Shorelines owners and the rest of the community,locally and
statewide,know what to expect.Some property
Give preference to those shoreline activities which fulfill long range Comprehensive Plan goals and the ow�e�s wa�c co na�e cne���ake a�d eac�c coo: ��we
Shareline Management Act policy priorities,as listed and discussed below: wa�c aorH fleX�b�ucy a�d�e�ca��cy-^��5c ceu�5
what the rules are".This suggested language is also
redundant,since the SMP planning effort is already
It is the policy of the Ciry to provide for the management of its sharelines by planning far and fostering fundamentally based on the shoreline inventory and
all reasonable and appropriate uses. Policies are designed to ensure the development of the Ciry's a�aiys��.
sharelines in a manner which will promote and enhance the public interest. These policies will protect Comment[D7]:see aeo�e.
against adverse effects to the public health,the land,its vegetation and aquatic life and wildlife,and the
waters of the Spokane River, Shelly Lake and the Sullivan Road and Park Road Gravel Pits and their
aquatic life.
SMP 1.7 Use preferences for Shorelines of Stat�wide Significance
The State Legislature has declared that the interest and benefit of all of the people shall be paramotilnt in
the management of sharelines of state-wide significance,and therefare preference shall be given to uses
in the following arder of preference which:.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
. � SAG GOALS AND POLICIES WITH PINEO COMMENTS 07-22-11
1. Recognize and protect statewide interest over local interest
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline
3. Allow uses that result in long-term over short-term benefits
4. Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines
5. Provide public access to publicly owned areas of shorelines
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines.
ISMP 1.8 Public and Private Burden
Ensure that the regulatorv burden of enhancin� the shoreline environment protecting the ecological
functions and usin¢ the shoreline is born not itiist bv the nropertv owners stiibiect to the Shoreline
Re�ilations, but bv the communitv as a whole with a series of offsettin� benefits and flexibilitv in
aCImlrilstel7nQ tlle ploQlam.l Comment[DS]:This an entirely unnecessary
element.The SMP Guidelines rules(WAC ll3-26-
201(2�(c�,(e),(f�)specify in detail that shoreline
Historical,Cultural, Scientific& Educational Element restoration is a shared enterprise with the bulk of
the responsibility borne by public entities.
Goal SMP 2: Goal:Protect the historic,cultural,scientific or educational sites within the
shoreline that reflect our community's unique heritage and create or contribute to our
collective sense of place.
Policies
SMP 2.1 Sites and Structures
Identify,preserve,and manage shoreline sites and structures having historical,cultural,scientific
or educational value, and develop regulations that avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse
impacts to these resources.
SMP 2.2 Site and Building Acquisition
Public acquisition through gifts, bequests, grants, or donations of buildings or sites having
cultural,scientific,educational,or historical value should be encouraged.
SMP 2.3 Development Impacts
Discourage public or private development and redevelopment activities on any site, area, or
building identified as having historical,cultural, educational or scientific value�unless there is a
1�OSLt1V0 llT1�a.Ct 011 t110 SIlOT'01ll10'S OCOIO�LC&1 fU11Ct1011S.� Comment[D9]:Any building or other element of
the built environment can be removed followed by
ecological rehabilitation of the disturbed site.
SMP 2.4 Cooperation and Consultation However,the SMA requires the inventory of such
sites and buildings and requires generally their
Ensure constant cooperation and consultation with affected agencies and tribes for projects that p�oce�c;o�.me p�oposea pn�ases sno�ia�oc ee
could potentially impact cultural and historical resources. aadea.
SMP 2.5 Inventory of Sites
Work with tribal, state,federal and local governments as appropriate to maintain an inventory of
all known significant local historic,cultural,and archaeological sites in observance of applicable
state and federal laws protecting such information from public disclosure.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
D
�
� „.���° + � ,.�a. ...�i u,a ,, �...� .� � .�..�a 4�.e �. ..�; �.`.3 t.!,.�.... �
�
N
7
A
SMP 2.6 Site Inspection and Evaluation
Ensure early and continuous site inspection, consultation or evaluation by a professional
archaeologist in coordination with affected tribes for all permits issued in areas documented to
contain archaeological resources
Ufilities Element
Goal SMP 3: GoaL• Maintain and provide adequate utility services within the shoreline
environment while preserving and enhancing the natural environment and ecology of the
shoreline.
Policies
SMP 3.1 Location
Locate new public facilities and utilities, including, but not limited to, utility production,
processing,distribution,and transmission facilities outside of the shoreline jurisdiction whenever
feasible.
SMP 3.2 Place Underground
Require new utilities and facilities that must be located within the shoreline to be built
underground, if feasible, and'�'•'� refer the utilization of low impact, low profile design and commant[�io�:rn�s Wo�ia s�mpiv ee cne
CO11StT"UCt1011 TT10tIlOCIS needless expansion of already bad grammar into
execrable"bureaucratese°.
Comment[Dll]:The SMA,at RCW 90.58.90(4�,
SMP 3.3 Existing Rights-of-way states:'The department(Ecology)shall approve
those segments of the master program relating to
R0CIULT'0 ri0W UYLILt10S 1riCl f1C111Y10S YO b0 IOC1Y0Cl 1T1 OXLSt1Tlg T'Lg11YS-Of W1y W110ri0V0T'pOSSlblO. shorelines of statewide significance only after
determining the program provides the optimum
SMP 3.4 Maintenance Design implementation of the policy of this chapter to
satisfy the statewide interest." RCW 90.58.900
w110ri OXLStlllg Ut111t10S IOC1t0Cl Wltlllri SIlOT'01ll10 �UT'LSCILCtIOri T'0C1Uff0 TT11ll1t0ri1riC0 OT' Ot110T' states: 'This chapter..shall be liberally construed to
give full effect to the objectives and purposes for
improvements, the maintenance/improvement should be designed and implemented to minimize Wn��n�c Was e�a�cea°rn�s pn�ase sno�ia,
additional impacts on the shoreline environment�^••a, ��^^°°�'�'°, *^ ^ °^*^^°*� ^^*� ^ �a tne�ero�e,ee�eta��ea.
�-t}}�i-��. Comment[D12]: The concept of correcting
(restoring,rehabilitating)past impacts is at the core
of,and imbued throughout the SMA and its
SMP 3.5 Preference to Existing Facilities and Utilities implementing rules. READ WAC ll3-26-201�2�(f�.
Give preference to established utility corridors and rights-of-way for upgrades and reconstruction
of existing utilities and facilities, ��••'°°° ^ '^^^*:^•, �,:*i, '°°° ^^*°^*:^' *^ . ^* *i,° °',^�°'^,°
"*' ^'�^�'�° Comment[D13]:This phrase should be retained
since the SMA and SMP Guideline rules(WAC ll3-
26-201�e)require that the least harmful alternative
SMP 3.6 Stormwater Facilities is used,and that unavoidable impacts are fully
Stormwater utilities will be designed and located as to minimize environmental impacts within m't'gatea.
the shoreline jurisdiction. If located within the shoreline jurisdiction they shall��use ci€
Comment[D14]:This concept was discussed at
best management practices (e.g. biofiltration measures) and landscaping with native vegetation ie„gcn��cne sn�meec��gs,a�a cne iaW�eq���es as
, , . L�ll S OT'IT1WHt0T' noted above that degraded shoreline areas shall be
� `� � ecologically rehabilitated to the maximum extent
feasible. READ WAC 173-26-221(a�,(b�,(c�.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
� �>?a�..�����e:�;"s RNf3��:,,�.;]W�%�"?1i7�] ,:'Itl��e°a�QMk���°N7S 07-�2..1..s
facilities must protect water quality, manage runoff and address erosion control and
sedimentation.
Circulation Element
Goal SMP 4: Goal: Provide a safe, convenient, and multimodal circulation system which
will minimize�negative impacts to the shoreline environment
Policies
SMP 4.1 Transportation Access
Ensure that a system of arterials, scenic drives, pathways, public transit routes, and bikeways
adjacent to and within the shoreline areas provide appropriate access to the Spokane River in a
way that meets the needs and desires of the community as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan,
while also�eser-�trr� rotectin ecological function of the shorelines. corr,r„ent[�is�:
SMP 4.2 Location of New Streets or Street Expansions
Locate new streets or street expansions outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, unless no other
� options are easonabl vailabl° �°.,��. In all cases, streets should be on the landward side corr,�„ent[�ie�:re���eie Wo�a ro�p�er�por�y
or regulation. IYs a great concept that is wide open
Of C10V010pTT1011t. to arguable and politically expedient interpretation.
The reasonableness of the SMP is to be built in
during the planning process.The phrase"feasible'
SMP 4.3 Consolidation of Corridors is a foundation of reasonableness,and is well
Encourage the consolidation of transportation and utility corridors crossing the shoreline aer��ea. Feasm�rcv�s aiso a n�gne�sca�aa�a cna�
"reasonable'.
environment in order to minimize the number of crossings, and encourage the collocation of
utilities on bridges or in transportation rights of way whenever possible by considering the needs
during the design of bridge and corridor upgrades.
SMP 4.4 Transportation Facilities
Plan, locate, and design proposed transportation facilities where routes will have the least
possible adverse effect on shoreline ecological functions,�^�"^^*�°°„'*:^ ^^°*'^°° ^�°i,^�°':�,°
°^^'^��^^' ��^^*�^^°,�^r adversely impact existing or planned water dependent uses. commer,t[�v�:rn�s pn�ase�s�oco�iv�iea� �
and reasonable,iYs required by the law and the
SMP 4.5 Stormwater TreatmentAll development within the shoreline jurisdiction area shall °""c. REnowncva-z�zoi.
provide stormwater treatment for all new and redeveloped pollution generating impervious
surfaces.
SMP 4.6 Parking Facilities for Public Access
Parking facilities for public access to the shoreline and water should be kept as far from the
� shorelines as feasible_
SMP 4.7 Parking Facilities not a Primary Use.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
D
�
n
1 ,,.��:'° �, � M.�. .�.�� �w �, �..� .� 1 .u.<<, 4 .e ,. �,' �:.� ��,.,_,.. �
�
�
Parking facilities should only be allowed as necessary to support permitted shoreline uses, and A
notas a primary usd „a ,�� �,o i..,.,,�oa „��:ao „� ��.o �i,.,..or..,o . :�a:,.�:.,., :� .,��.o..
Comment[D18]:Locating parking,which is not
a preferred or water-dependent shoreline use,
outside of shorelines whenever possible is required
SMP 4.8 Impacts of Parking Facilities ac wnc vs-z6-zai�3��k�. ic�5 Weu W�cn��cne
authority of local communities under the SMA to
Minimize the environmental and visual impacts of parking facilities where allowed. P�on�b�t�eW Pa�k��g W�tn��5no�er�e5�o�5�5ce�t
with this WAC,and many SMPs statewide do so.
SMP 4.9 Retain Unused Public Rights-of-way for Visual and Physical Access
Retain unused public rights-of-way within the shoreline area to provide visual and physical
access to the shoreline unless:
• The street vacation enables the City to acquire the properry for beach or water access
purposes, boat moorage or launching sites, park, public view, recreation, or
educational purposes,or other public uses
„��..o�o.,�i. �,o:.,,., oa .,.,a : „��,:�.,�,io�,,..�i,o.,�,,,,o ;or
• The street vacation enables the City to implement a plan,that provides comparable
or improved public access to the same shoreline area to which the streets or alleys
� sought to be vacated,had the properties included in the plan not been vacated.
SMP 4.10 Improve Non-Motorized Access to Shoreline
Improve non-motorized access to the shoreline by developing, where appropriate, pathways,
� trails and bikeways_along and adjacent to the shoreline. Connectivity between non-motorized
access points is encouraged.
SMP 4.11 Recognition of Centennial Trail
Recognize the importance and uniqueness of the Spokane River Centennial Trail to the City of
Spokane Valley, the region, and the state, Future trail development including trail extensions,
new access points,whether public or private,shall be designed to have�'''°�minimal adverse
impact while at the same time provide both visual and phvsical access to the shoreline.
Comment[D19]:The SMA,at RCW 90.58.020,
SMP 4.12 NCW Rall L111CS clearly sets forth the prioritized,preferred uses for
shorelines of statewide significance,which renders
L�IIOW ri0W T'111 I1ri0S&riCl t110 0Xp1riSlOri Of OXlStlrig T'111 COT'T'1CIOT'S Wltlllri t110 SIlOT'01ll10�UT'1SCI1CtlOri these changes and added language inappropriate.
e�}�for the putpose of connecting to existing rail lines or rights-of-way so lone as thev enhance
the viability of the shoreline and its ecological functions. Construct new rail lines within an
existing rail corridor where possible.
SMP 4.13 Rail Lines affecting Public Access
Construct,where feasible,all new rail lines so that they do not compromise the public's ability to
access the shoreline safely.
Economic Development Element
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
� �,����>�L5 a�"���!C3��LI�gES��?167� =�I�4E�'+�QMi!/9�[�175�� ��-11
Goal SMP 5: Goal: Encourage and support water dependent,water oriented, and water
related economic activities within the shorelands of the City of Spokane Valley that will be
Ian asset to the economy of the area�^~~°~��"��°;°'�;,;'- �F"�� '';'--1 and that will protect Comment[D20]:This isopen-ended,undefined
language not related to the SMA.
and maintain the ecological functions of the shoreline environment
Policies
SMP 5.1 Location of Economic Development
Give preference to economic development within the shoreline jurisdiction that is— �e�
��,� °�� Encourage new development to locate in areas that have intensive prior use and
can be upgraded or redeveloped. Encourage new economic development to cluster into areas of
the shoreline whose current use is compatible.
SMP 5.2 Design of Economic Development
Development should be designed to minimize the impacts to the shoreline aesthetic through
architectural, landscape,and other design features. All non-shoreline dependent elements of the
development should be placed inland. Encourage design that seeks to restore damaged or
compromised shoreline through incentives.
SMP 5.3 Provisions for Physical and Visual Availability to Water
Historic areas, overlook points, structures, and points of public access to t-fre
shorelines�^^*°�'�^a�°°�^•�*should be incorporated in economic development site-planning.
SMP 5.4 Encourage Regional Tourism
Strengthen regional tourism by expanding and developing neighborhood and regional linkages
and improvements that use the shoreline areas.
SMP 5.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations
Proposed economic development in the shoreline should be consistent with the City of Spokane
Valley Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.Upland uses on adjacent lands outside
of immediate SMA jurisdiction (in accordance with RCW 90.58.340) should protect the
preferred shoreline uses from being impacted by incompatible uses.
ICAifD C L L'.,.�1,,.�t;.... ..FL'.........«;..!".�;..
:..r,�..,�..r rl�,.r.�.,,. .. .,.,lr I Comment[D21]:This evaluation is required at
RCW 90.58.020.This policy should be retained.
ISMP 5.�6 Provisions for Shoreline Protection
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
D
1 �.f�,� �'.�_�.�r-'n.wt� .;•%�i..,�iw.� �, I I: ,.�._P 4.«�a�:�' l,��'..��:�a �' .�.L�°"��d. �
� �
n
s
�
Require that development provide adequate provisions for the protection of water quality, �
erosion control, landscaping, aesthetic characteristics, stormwater systems, fish and wildlife A
habitat,views,archaeological sites,and normal public use of the water.
SMP 5.7�Promote Recreational Uses
Promote recreational uses�throu�h the use of public access of the shorelines to contribute to the
economic attractiveness of the �ity. Seek opportunities to partner with public and private
property owners to increase public recreational opportunities on ublic access in the shoreline. comment[�zz�:P�er�a��ess�s a ro��dat�o�or
the SMA,but is only one of many elements of public
SMP 5.�8 Water-Enjoyment Areas recreational opportunities.
Promote the identification and establishment of water-enjoyment areas, such as parks, view
� points,beaches and pathways as attractions.
SMP 5.118 Business and Industry Operations
Encourage shoreline industries and businesses to maintain a well kept appearance and —to
operate in a manner that will not cause negative environmental-impacts
SMP 5.12� Redevelopment
Encourage and provide incentives for development and redevelopment of existing sites that
includes points of public access,areas designed for public enjoyment,improve fish-and wildlife
habitat,or improve fish passage.
� SMP 5.133 Building Orientation
New public and private shoreline uses and developments should be planned and designed to
attract the public to the waterfront.
� SMP 5.1�4 Design Feature Incentives
Incentives should be created to encourage developers to incorporate design features into the
waterside of the building.
� SMP 5.145 fTITLE?1
Support and maintain the existing aggregate mining industry as a significant component of the
area economy.
SMP 5.16
Encoura�e Economic Development of the shoreline area that will enhance the viabilitv of the
City as a whole.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
� ?�,� �"^.�,����.�,� >,� ,�rw.� �, i 1 ,.ro_� 4.�ti�,?� � "�t` � ,��,."���
Conservation
Goal SMP 6.: Preserve for the future those natural resources,including the unique,fragile
� and scenic qualities of the shoreline,which cannot be replaced and�4achieve no net loss of
ecological functions of the shoreline.
Policies:
SMP 6.1. Areas to be Preserved
Areas that provide open spaces, scenic vistas, contribute to shoreline aesthetics, natural
vegetation and, fish and wildlife habitat should be preserved ��R��������
�TI Comment[D23]:Unnecessary,misleading
phrase. Regulation is also required to preserve the
SMP 6.2 PCOtCCt VCgC�af1VC BUffCCS allfl SCf�JaCkS listedshorelineattributes.
Protect the existing vegetation and shoreline ecological function by designating buffers and
setbacks that are supported by the 2010 Shoreline Inventory I�° +'��:° :r��r+:°�� +'��+ '�„���°
.,r,,.-.,1. �r.,r:,,., .,,7., ,.:P:,.r,.rl,�., I Comment[D24]:Bufferaveragingdoesnot
work in the SMA context because a net loss of
ecological function always occurs when it is used.
SMP 6.3 Shoreline Inventory
T Tr:l��� Use
:.,,7:..:,7,,.,1:��,7 � �„rl Comment[D25]:Restoringdegradedshorelines
is a principal goal of the SMA and SMP Guidelines
rule,so the Spokane Valley shoreline inventory is,
SMP 6.4� Acquisition of Unique Shoreline Areas appropriately,a description of existing conditions,
and NOT a baseline for desired future conditions.
Acquire and maintain, through conservation futures, donations, grants, general funds, or other Be�a�se cne snnn p�oce�cs cne p�er��s��are�aeie
sources, shoreline areas containing natural elements especially worthy of preservation or ��gncs��cne sno�er�es Wn��n���i�de scateW�de
interests,the planning process is largely funded by
especially attractive to the public, such as beaches, forest covers, trees, wildlife populations, cne p�er�cn�o�gn cne ieg�siac��e�s g�a�cs co�paace
SMPs. Owner-funded inventories of individual
V1StHS H11C1 Ot110T'SC0111C fOHtLlT'0S. parcels are almost never based on watershed level
analysis as required in the SMA and SMP Guidelines.
IFurthermore,they represent"piecemeal,
SMP G.4S PCCSCCVC ECOIO�,1Ca1 COririCCtlVlly uncoordinated development°,specifically
recognized in RCW 90.58 020 as"inherently
Protect and preserve ecological viability and connectivity through use of habitat islands and na�m�r�p°.rn�s p�oposea ia�g�age�s cne�ero�e�oc
l,.,f l,lo ,7 rl..,f f.,b�,r��.. ��,7o.-.,r:,,., ' �:,,,' consistent with the law,SMP Guideline rules,or the
corridors within the shoreline area ���°�=��� ��r�a�
,,,7 fi,r,,,-�„��� .,,,,7 ,7�..�1,,,�.,,�„r,.F rl,�., .,I deliberations of the Spokane Valley SAG.
' Comment[D26]:This language is impossibly
vague,undermining the planning process and
ignoring modern scientific standing of shoreline
SMP-6.�i6-Incentives for Retention of Resources Lands ecology,and further,is obviated by the planning
— process required by the law and WAC.
�°*^:^ �^^°^*:.,:°° *'�° �°*°^*:^^ ^��existing open space and environmentally sensitive areas on
Comment[D27]:Execrable syntax which would
pT'LV&tOpT'OpOT'ry�l,.. ,.1,A,,.,. ,.F:.,,.,..,r:_,,.� losetheintentofthepolicy.
SMP-6.�7-Mitigation of Negative Impacts
Development shall I^ ^:a ^•,a :� ^ ^:a^^^° :° ,^* ^ °°:'�'° �nitigate negative impacts to steep comment[�zs�:rn�s ia�g�age m�sc ee
retained. READ WAC 173-26-201(2)(e�,which states
banks, surface and ground water quality, ecological functions, fish and wildlife habitat, cnac smPs sHn��appiv m�c�gac�o�seq�e����g.
vegetative cover,and erosion of the soil.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
1 �JA� �., _M.�. .�w� � , �..� _, 1 .0 �a .�.e ,. .�,' <� ��,.�,.. �
�
n
� SMP 6.8�Cumulative Impacts �
Regulations shall assure that the commonly occurring and foreseeable cumulative impacts of �
development do not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline. A
Restoration
Goal SMP 7: Restore habitat and the natural systems to improve shoreline ecological
functions.
SMP 7.1 Restoration Plan
Develop a Restoration Plan that will identify degraded areas and provide a framework for
restoration efforts to improve the existing ecological function and provide a mechanism�far�
;�'���s—a^�mitigation ^�� ^�a°'�'° °^a �^�^�°°°°^'�'° �future development ..,�:'°
Comment[D29]:This issue was discussed in
depth,and settled by the SAG as a group.The
proposed language and deletions skews the SAG
SMP 7.2 Clt}'StCW aC(ISlllp intent,and is not consistent with WAC 173-26-
201(2�(f).
Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley assumes a primary stewardship role through restoration
efforts on city-owned and controlled land. Manage the City's programs, services, and operational
infi•astructtu�e in a manner that achieves no net loss of ecological or shoreline functions.
SMP 7.3 Incentives for Restoration and Enhancement Projects
Provide incentives for projects that include restoration and enhancement components by
implementing tools which may include but are not limited to: modifying the shoreline setback
reas that would apply to the restored areas or allowing a greater range of uses or comment[�so�:rn�s tWO-WO�d p�oposed
addition reads like an attempt to undermine the
flexible development standards (e.g., setbacks) on properties providing restoration and or pib1iciri,,e5tme„t;,,sno�er�e���e�co�v,sno�er�e
enhanCement. ecological functions,and clear,predictable
standards.
SMP7.4 Gravel Pit Restoration Plans
Assist the Gravel Pits in the development and implementation of restoration plans for pits that
are consistent with the Shoreline Master Program and the Department of Natural Resources
requirements-.
SMP 7.5 Cooperative Restoration Programs
Encourage cooperative restoration programs between local, state,and federal public agencies,tribes,
non-profit organizations,and landowners.
Critical Areas Element
Goal SMP 8: Preserve and protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide
processes within wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat
� conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas and frequently flooded areas�. �e--�ke
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
� ����5�.��LS'��!C3!;a+� :°:1�5 aJ4167 1 '�s�w`��`��:�€�+�Ea���[�1�°S���;!`?..11
�..4....4{�.�.�0-01.1�,�ensure no net loss of ecological function within these critical areas�k
rl,,., ..F., .,r,..,,;r;,..,N..,,.I Comment[D31]:These proposed changes both
lower the stated intent below required standards
set forth in WAC 173-26-201 and the SMA itself,and
PO�ICICS attempt to introduce the option to eliminate any
IarT�Q i r,.,...;..t,.,.,..,..,;tl.r+..;t;,...� �..,...�r,...�....,.,7�,.�;,.;,... shoreline ecological attribute without recognizing
� ` mitigation sequencing set forth in WAC 173-26-
201(2�(e�.
.-:r:...,1 ., ` .,1�.,.,,7,,,.1:..:��.. „r.,:.,�,7 :,rl,�l�,,.,,,..-�1,�„�:,�D1.,., I �Comment[D32]:This language should be
retained since iYs required by WAC D3-26-191 and
WAC ll3-26-221(2�.
ISMP 8.1� No net loss of ecological function
Ensure regulatory protection measures developed for the shoreline area assure no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by
Washington State Department of Ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060 e-�t�
�.,r��r�..r�.,r,,,.��:l,l�I Comment[D33]:This proposed language would
make the stated policy both internally inconsistent,
and inconsistent with the requirements in WAC 173-
SMP 8.2� Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Wetlands through protective zs-issa�dwncv3-zs-zoi.
measures.
Rate wetlands based on the quality of the wetland and the ecological function they serve.
Develop protective measures tailored to the wetland quality and function and that consider the
characteristics and setting of the buffer and the impacts on adjacent land use I^° *^ *'�° °^°^;�:^
`•'°r�-cciaii�. Comment[D34]:This language would
undermine public investments in shoreline
inventory and analysis required by WAC 173-26,the
SMP 8.43 PCCSCCVC and protect CC1Y1Ca1 areas defined as Wetlands through mitigation Wetland mitigation requirements at WAC 395-196-
485,the Best Available Science WAC 395-196-905,
ClleaSUCCS. and the legislative intent to protect against"the
Base wetland mitigation on the wetland rating and require mitigation sequencing. Only allow ��ne�e�c na�m��a����oo�d��acea a�d p�e�emeai
development of the state's shorelines°(RCW
compensatory mitigation after mitigation sequencing has been applied and higher prioriry means 9oss.ozo�.
of mitigation have been deemed infeasible.
� SMP 8.4� Protect people and property from risk associated with critical areas defined as
Geologically Hazardous Areas.
Limit development that would cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or
property. Do not allow development that will require structural shoreline stabilization except in
the limited cases where it is necessary to protect an allowed use and no alternative location is
available. Allow structural shoreline stabilization to protect existing �uses only when
relocation or reconstruction is infeasible. ^"�--, ,:,�:��a °��,��,°�, °',�°�,:•,� °��'�:,:���:�., ��
^��:a°^^^°°° *^ *i,°°i,^�°':•,°° �e�aAllow structural shoreline stabilization that will result
lll EH�110t IOSS Of OCOIOg1CHl fU11Ct1011""*1, .-:.,r�.,,:r:,..,r:,,., I Comment[D35]:The original language in this
policy was discussed at length in the SAG.The
reference to homes only is stated in the law;the
I SMP g.�5 PCCSCCV C and protect CC1t1Ca1 areas defined as Fish and Wildlife Habitat rest of the proposed language undermines the
intent to prevent new structural shoreline
Conservation areas stabilization. Public access methods are
Develop measures that assure no net loss of ecological functions of river, lake and stream aPP�°P�'ateiv aaa�essea eiseWne�e��cne smP
Goals and Policies.
corridors associated with fish and wildlife habitat. Integrate the protection of fish and wildlife
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies �
D
�
n
1 ,,.f�,� �.����.�r-'n.�t� •��i..,�iw.� �„I I ,.�._P 4.«�a�:�' l,.�'..:�a �' .�.L�°�.d. �
�
�
habitat with flood hazard reduction and other fish and wildlife management provisions. Develop A
measures that authorize and facilitate habitat restoration �projects ��o'�°s� aze-as��e-r�
t� Comment[D36]:This proposed language adds
lno clarity or value. �
� SMP 8.6� Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
Protect the hydrologic connections between water bodies, water courses, and associated
wetlands. Integrate the protection of critical aquifer recharge areas with jurisdictional and non-
jurisdictional aquifer protection measures such as Watershed Management Plans, Wellhead
Protection Plans,Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices,and others as appropriate.
� SMP 8.75 Protect people and properfy from risk associated with critical areas defined as
Frequently Flooded Areas
Limit development that would cause foreseeable risk to people and property from frequent
flooding. Ensure frequently flooded areas are fully addressed in the goals and policies of the
Flood Hazard Reduction element of this plan.
Flood Hazard Reduction Element
Goal SMP 9 Goal: Prevent and reduce flood damage in shoreline areas to protect
ecological functions,shoreline habitat,lives,and public and private property.
Policies
SMP 9.1 Development within the Shoreline
Prohibit development within the shorelines that would intensify flood hazards or result in
cumulative significant adverse effects to other properties, as regulated by Chapter 21.30,
Floodplain Regulations,of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code.
SMP 9.2 Coordination among agencies
Coordinate flood hazard reduction planning among the applicable agencies.
SMP 9.3 Structural Flood Hazard Reduction
Allow new structural flood hazard reduction measures only:
• Where scientific and engineering analysis has demonstrated it to be necessary, and
when non-structural methods are infeasible and mitigation is accomplished;and
• Landward of associated wetlands and buffer areas except where no alternative exists,
as documented in an engineering analysis;and
• When consistent with current best management practices, using natural materials
whenever feasible.
Note: An example of a structural flood hazard reduction measure is a structure placed by
humans within a stream or river waterward of the ordinary high mark such as,but not limited to
a diversion or modification of water flow to control flooding.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
� ?�,� �"^.�,����.�,� >,� ,�rw.� �, i 1 . ,.ro_� 4.�ti�,?� ��!'.��:�` � ,��,."���
SMP 9.4 Removal of Gravel
Allow removal of gravel for flood control only if biological and geomotphological study
� demonstrates a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction_and no net loss of ecological
functions. This does not apply to the permitted gravel mining operations underway at the time of
� S'MP 1ClOpt1011 111C1 1ppT'OV11I^ ^r�`°"°„�'°°^„°"rl.,., 0.7 .. ol. �+:�..� � Comment[D37]:The Central Premix
representative at the SAG meetings never brought
this up,and in general the SAG bent over backwards
SMP 9.5 Natural V egetative Buffers to recognize the unique needs of the aggregate
mining industry in the City of Spokane Valley.What
Maintain, protect, and restore natural vegetative buffers that are within the floodplain of the „eW g�a„ei eXC�a�c;o�oppo�c��;c;es Wo�ia re��
Sp01{Hrie R1VeT'tllHt fUriCtlOri t0 T'eCIUCe flOOCI I1HZflT'CIS. SMA jurisdiction in the city?This should be left to
future SMP updates.
SMP 9.6 Alternate Flood Control Measures
When evaluating alternate flood control measures, consider the removal or relocation of
structures in floodplain areas.
Public Access Element
Goal SMP 10:Provide diverse,reasonable,and adequate public access to the shorelines of the state
consistent with the natural shoreline character, private property rights, public rights under the
Public Trust Doctrine,and public safety while maintaining no net loss of ecological function.
SMP 101 Public Interest and Private Property
Promote and enhance the public interest with regard to rights to access waters held in public trust by the
state,while protecting private property rights and public safery.
SMP 10.2 ShoreGne Development by Public Entities
Require public entities,inchiding local governments,state agencies and public utiliry districts,to include
public access as part of each development project unless such access is incompatible due to reasons of
safety,security or impact to the shareline environment.
SMP 10.3 Shoreline Development
� n,. , ,.i�,.,7,.,7:,.,..:,.� ,.�,7:... , ,.F In n,.r..F,..-,7,.�,,.1,.........,.�.,.F�UIJLLC 3CCeSS lII CleVelOprileritS fOT Comment[D38]:Requiring public access
water-enjoyment,water-related and non water-dependent uses and far the subdivision of land into mare �mp�o�eme�c a�d de�eiopme�c as a�o�d�c�o�or
I t�lan foLir parcelS,w1t�1 exceptlon8 as alloweCl tJy WAC 173-26-221(4�(Cl�(]ll�. approval for the stated uses in this section is a long
settled practice statewide,and lies among the core
principles of the SMA(RCW 90.58.020,WAC ll3-26-
221(4��.This proposed language is not consistent
with the law.
SMP 10.4 Public Access Maintenance and Improvements
When improving and maintaining existing public access points, minimize additional impacts on the
shareline�nvironment , ,
_.___..... I Comment[D39]:This is a perfectly legitimate
policy under the SMA and SMP Guideline rules,and
SMP 1�.$E�CCeSS P�aII was thoroughly discussed in the SAG.The original
language should be retained.
Develop a formal Public Access Plan far an integrated shareline area public access system that identifies
specific public needs and oppartunities to provide public access that includes visual and physical access.
The plan shoti�ld identify access opportunities and circulation for pedestrians(including disabled persons),
bicycles,and vehicles between shoreline access points.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
D
1 ��:'° �, �., ...a. .�.�� c,a �, �..� ., 1 .u.<<, 4�.e ,. �,' �:.� ��,.,_,.. c�i
�
�
N
7
SMP 10.6 Design of Access Measures A
Reqtiure that public access measures have a design appropriate to the site,adjacent property,and general
nature of the proposed development, while protecting and providing views. Public access facilities
Ishould be designed with provisions far persons with disabilities,�"'�"""'°""""'"""°"' Comment[D40]:Just as not every shoreline site
is appropriate for public access,and not every trail
SMP 1�.7 MOtOC VC�IIC�e E�CCeSS or mountain top is accessible to all individuals,this
language should be retained.The ADA recognizes
Where access to the water's edge by motar vehicles is necessary,parking areas should be kept as far from cn�s�eai�cy.ir��eac��g a��ess ro�au pe�so�s w�cn
the sharelines as possible. Parking facilities shall implement a design appropriate for the shareline disabilities were required at all public access
eriV1T'OTllriellY. locations,adverse shoreline impacts would result
which are not consistent with the prioritized,
preferred uses in shorelines stated at RCW
SMP 1�.a4 E�CCeSS DeS1bR aIICl SpaClIIb 90.58.020 and WAC 173-26-176 and WAC 173-26-
Access design and spacing of access points should be based on the biophysical capabilities of the 181
shareline feahxres and should protect fragile shareline environment.
SMP 10.9 Impacts on Views
Minimize the impacts to existing views where the view is taken from the water ar shareline, public
property ar substantial numbers of residences. Water-dependent shoreline uses and physical public access
shall have priarity over maintaining a view when a conflict between them is irreconcilable.
SMP 1010 Permitted Uses
Regulate the design, constiuction, and operation of permitted uses in the sharelines of the state to
minimize,insofar as practical,interference with the public's use of the water.
SMP 1011 Incentives
Incentives such as density ar bulk and dimensional bonuses should be considered if development
proposals include additional public access beyond that required by this SMP.
SMP 1012 Non-Motorized Access
Preference shall be given to the development,or improvement,of access for non-motarized recreational
activities.
Recreation Element
Goal SMP 1L• Increase and preserve recreational opportunities on the shorelines of the
City of Spokane Valley
Policies
SMP 11.1 Preserve Shorelines for Public Recreational Use
Encourage appropriate public agencies to preserve shorelines for public use and to dedicate or
transfer appropriate shoreline land for recreational uses.
SMP 11.2 Encourage Passive and Active Recreation
Both passive and active recreation should be encouraged for appropriate shorelines.
SMP 11.3 Recreational Areas Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
� ��'�:��-�<��[.5�EVC3��LI�gES p,JUi7�] '�I�4�e°a��€�+�k�fl�[`=�"i s�?7-�2..1..�
Recreational areas should be located,designed,developed,managed and maintained in a manner
that protects shoreline ecological functions and processes.
SMP 11.4 Linkages to Recreation Areas
Hiking paths,bicycle paths, easements and scenic drives should link shoreline parks, recreation
areas and public access points.
SMP 11.5 Public Access Priority
Public use and access to the water should be a priority in recreational development.
SMP 11.6 Recreational Opportunities for All
Ensure that recreational planning takes into account the differences in use groups, physical
capabilities, and interests among the public in order to provide opportunities for safe and
convenient enjoyment of the shorelines.
SMP 11.7 Adequate Support Facilities
Create adequate support facilities of uses such as parking areas, maintenance buildings,and rest
rooms to meet shoreline recreational demands.
SMP 11.8 Non-Motorized Recreation
Preference shall be given to non-motorized recreational activities.
SMP 11.9
�rovide for incentives to private property owners who provide both visual and physical access to
the shorelines. commer,t[�ai�:
Shoreline Use Element
Goal SMP 12: Consider the use and development of shorelines and adjacent land areas
for housing, business, industry, transportation, recreation, education, public buildings
and grounds, utilities and other categories of public and private land uses in relation to
the natural environment and ensuring no net loss of ecological function.
Policies
General Use Policies
SMP 12.1 Shoreline Use Priorities
Give preference to water-dependent and single family residential uses that are consistent with
� preservation of shoreline ecological functions and�eeessesvalues. Secondary preference
should be given to water-related and water-enjoyment uses.Non-water-oriented uses should be
allowed only when substantial public benefit is provided with respect to the goals of the SMA
for public access and ecological restoration.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
D
1 ��:'° �, �., ...�. .�.�� �w �, �..� , 1 .u.<<, 4�.e ,. �,' �:.� �',..,.,. �
�
n
s
�
�
�
SMP 12.2 Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions A
Ensure no net loss of ecological functions through the use of specific standards for setbacks,
buffers,density,and shoreline stabilization in accordance with SMP 6.2.
SMP 12.3 Public Access in Development
Ensure that shoreline development includes visual and physical public access to the shorelines,
while avoiding,minimizing,or mitigating negative impacts to the shoreline including views.
SMP 12.4 Preserving Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Encourage new development to contribute to the creation or preservation of open space and/or
fish and wildlife habitat along the shorelines through the use of tools such as conservation
futures, conservations easements, transferable development rights, and planned unit
developments.
SMP 12.5 Nonconforming Use and Development
Legally established uses and developments that were erected and maintained in lawful
condition prior to the effective date of this Master Program, shall be allowed to continue as
legal nonconforming uses provided that future development or �edevelopment a^°�^^*
°*'�°a°��°°^�^^^^^^�^�.r:'� ,:+'� +'�:°^ �provides a higher degree of benefit and
restoration to the ecolo�ical function of the shorelines.l comment[�az�:rne o��g��ai ia�g�age�s
consistent with the law,the proposed language is
not. READ WAC ll3-14-055.
SMP 12.6 Mitigation Sequencing
Avoid and reduce significant ecological impacts from shoreline uses and modification activities
through mitigation sequencing.
Residential Use
SMP 12.7 Subdivided Lots
Require new subdivided lots to be designed,configured,and developed to:
• Prevent the net loss of ecological functions at full build-out
• Prevent the need for new shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures;
and
• Be consistent with the applicable environment designations and standards.
SMP 12.8 Over-Water Residences
Prohibit new over-water residences and floating homes
Commercial Use
SMP 12.9 Priorities for Commercial Use
Give preference to commercial uses in the following order:
• First priority is given to water-dependent commercial uses,
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
� ��'�:��t�;�LS����!C3 P�L,,�.;gES 4ltli7� ,='I�4E�°?�C3f�/4�1!�RlTS 4�.��,."."i.
• Second prioriry is given to water-related and water-enjoyment commercial uses.
SMP 12.10 Non-Water Oriented Commercial Uses
Prohibit new non-water oriented commercial uses unless they are part of a miYed-use project or
� the use provides a��'�"'�public benefit,such as public access and ecological restoration. commaot[�as�:rn�s Was d�s��ssea��cne snc
and should be retained.
SMP 12.11 Non-Water Dependent Commercial Uses
Prohibit non-water dependent commercial uses over the water
SMP 12.12 Mitigation of Shoreline Impacts
Public access and ecological restoration collectivelyshould be considered as potential mitigation
of impacts to shoreline resources and values for all water-related or water-dependent commercial
development unless such improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or inappropriate.
Industrial Uses
SMP 12.13 Priorities for Industrial Use
Give priority to industrial uses in the following order:
• First priority is given to water-dependent industrial uses
• Second prioriry is given to water-related industrial uses
• The existing legally permitted gravel pits I�~a +'��:° ° •,a:•,���~�������e
a�are considered water dependent uses. corr,�„ent[�aa�:rn�s ia�g�age�s�mposs�eiv
vague and could address ownerships and uses
having nothing to do with the aggregate mining
SMP 12.14 Non-Water Oriented Industrial Uses '"d"st�v.
Prohibit new non-water oriented industrial uses
SMP 12.15 Industrial Use in Impaired Shoreline Areas
Encourage industrial uses and redevelopment to locate where environmental cleanup and
restoration is needed and can be accomplished.
SMP 12.16 Water Dependent and Water Related Industrial Uses
Water dependent and water related industrialuses within shoreline jurisdiction should be
prohibited in areas that are susceptible to erosion and flooding and where there are impacts to
ecological functions.
SMP 12.17 Control Pollution and Damage
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
� 5�����L5 RNf3��LI�'IES aJt1IT�]�I�4E�3 EQM6�1�(�a°7`������•.�� �
�
n
s
Designate and maintain appropriate areas for protecting and restoring shoreline ecological �
�
functions and processes to control pollution and prevent damage to the shoreline environment A
and/or public health.
SMP 12.18 Uses Consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Ensure shoreline uses are consistent with the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and satisfy
the economic,social,and physical needs of the city..
Shoreline Modifications
SMP 12-19 Shoreline Modifications
Allow structural shoreline modifications only where they are:
• Demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect an allowed primary structure or a
legally existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage;and
• Necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for mitigation or enhancement
purposes.
SMP 12-20 Modification Impacts and Limitations
Reduce the adverse effects of allowed shoreline modifications and, as much as possible, limit
allowed shoreline modifications in number and extent.
SMP 12-21 Appropriate Modifications
Allow only shoreline modifications that are appropriate to the shoreline environment
designations and environmental conditions for which they are proposed.
SMP 12-22 Modifications and No Net Loss of Ecological Functions
�Assure that shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net
loss of ecological functions by-
� Comment[D45]:This language should be
retained since it supports and is supported by,
�requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications. ,,,,me�o„s se�t;o„s of eotn cne smn a�a�cs
implementing rules.A quick read of RCW
90.58.020,RCW 90.58.100,WAC 173-26-181,-
SMP 12-23 Shoreline Modifications Regulations 186(8�,-201wi11 helpforstarters.
Base shoreline modification regulations on scientific and technical information of reach
� conditions for the Spokane River,Shelley Lake,�'���°�,�°� .�:°�-,a�',�°��:�
SMP 12-24 Restoration of Impaired Ecological Functions
Plan for the restoration of impaired ecological functions where feasible and appropriate, while
accommodating pennitted uses.
SMP 12-25 Measures to Protect Ecological Functions
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
� a&���.��LS��1lC3 P�LI�9E5 i/W17�] PIR4E�°���€�+��1�[���°S 07-2�•.1..�
Incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide
processes as shoreline modifications occur.
Piers and Docks
SMP 12-26 Dock Restrictions
Allow new docks only for public water-dependent uses, single-family residences, and public
access on the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. The existing gravel pit operations are allowed
docks if it is necessary for operations and as permitted operating permits.
SMP 12-27 Dock Location
Docks shall be allowed only in locations where they will not pose a public safety hazard or
adversely impact shoreline ecological functions or process and limited as follows:
• Spokane River-only in reservoir areas,where flow conditions least resemble the natural
IfT'00-flOWlll�T'1V0T'�'"`�°`°" '*^ ` ^"*^ "'�°'�' °;I Comment[D46]:This proposed language is
Shelle L�{e; entirely inconsistent with the WAC Guidelines.
� y Docks can be an appurtenant use to a single family
• C7T'HV01 p1tS;OT' home on an upland parcel with shoreline,but docks
I are not a property right attached to all such parcels.
• Severely ecologically impacted shoreline areas with adequate public access
Docks should only be allowed where their location
does not adversely impact shoreline ecological
SMP 12-28 Dock Siz e function,public navigational access and other
normal public use. For many technical and policy
Restrict the size of new docks to the minimum necessary to serve a proposed water-dependent �easo�s ao�ks a�e�oc app�op��ace o�r�ee-rioW��g
rivers because they aren't consistent with the SMA.
use.
SMP 12-29 Demonstrate Need
Permit new docks only when specific need is demonstrated,except for single-family residences.
SMP 12-30 Expansion and Multiple Use
Encourage multiple use and expansion of existing docks over the addition and/or proliferation of
new single dock facilities.
C�AiiD�') 2� T..'..t iT�.. ...7 /"�..»..«.....t. T....7
�oxrrrrc�vQmc-o�c-ana-coirnriairrc�i�vc�r�
..,,rl„�..rt,,.� :�,1:.,:,1,,,.1 ,1,.,.L..I ' Comment[D47]:This language should be
- retained since iYs supported at WAC 173-26-
241(3�(b�,and required under WAC ll3-26-191(2�.
SMP 12-331 Design and Construction
Design and construct all piers and docks to avoid, minimize,and mitigate impacts to ecological
processes and functions.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
� ,.?�,� �.�;������.�,� •��W,�rw.� �,.i 1 ,.ro_� 4.�ti�,?: �,.!'.��` � ���•�� �
�
n
s
Shoreline Fill �
�
SMP 12-33 Design and Location A
Shoreline fills shall be designed,located,and constructed to protect shoreline ecological function
and ecosystem-wide processes, including channel migration, wildlife habitat, water quality,
water currents,surface water drainage,and flood hazard protection measures.
SMP 12-34 Limitations on Fill
Fill waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark shall require a conditional use permit and shall
only be allowed under limited circumstances.
SMP 12-35 Fill Proposal Plan
Require a plan that addresses species removal,replanting, irrigation, erosion, and sedimentation
control and other methods of riparian corridor protection with all fill proposals.
Streambank Protection
SMP 12-36 Streambank Protection Measures
The term"streambank" shall apply to all shoreline banks within Spokane Valley. Prohibit new
streambank protection measures, except when necessity is documented through a geotechnical
analysis of the site and shoreline characteristics. When necessity is demonstrated and conditions
require, only allow streambank protection for existing primary structures, water-dependent
development, new development, and ecological restoration or toxic clean-up remediation
projects.
SMP 12-37 Design and Location of New Development
Design and locate new development and lots created through subdivision, �^�*:^„'^�'° *'�^°°
,to prevent the need for future streambank protection measures comment[�as�:rn�s ia�g�age sno�ia ee
CIUT'lllg tlle Ilfe Of tlle StT"UCtLlT'e. retained since iYs supported by numerous
references throughout the SMA and WAC,including
requirements for consistency with other law:READ
WAC ll3-26-191�1)(e�,and WACA ll3-26-221�2�.
SMP 12-38 Public Access
Incorporate ecological restoration and public access as part of publicly funded streambank
protection projects.
SMP-12-39 Integrated Approach to Streambank Protection
Require an integrated approach to streambank protection. Select and design streambank
protection measures using an integrated approach requiring an analysis of the reason for the
erosion; fish and wildlife habitat characteristics,needs and potential; and the current and future
risks associated with erosion and bank protection to properry, infrastructure, fish and wildlife
habitat and public safety.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies
1 ��'�.�'-, _��e:�;����w��:•a� ]`�w,�°`,�`� 1 A se t-,r°' k,�� � i€ "�
: .� �. `� _� s � ,�.��
SMP 12-40 Dredging
Site and design new development to avoid the need for new or maintenance dredging.
SMP 12-41 Dredging Restrictions
Prohibit dredging except when necessary for projects that restore ecological functions and to
maintain existing structures. Dredging is allowed as part of the permitted aggregate mining
operations in the gravel pits.
SMP 12-42 Dredging Materials
Prohibit the use or disposal of dredging materials within the shoreline except for projects that
benefit shoreline resources and except for permitted aggregate mining operations in the gravel
pits.
SMP 12-43 In-Stream Structures
Site in-stream structures to protect and preserve ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions,
and cultural resources, including but not limited to fish and fish passage, wildlife and water
resources,shoreline critical areas,hydro-geological processes,and natural scenic vistas.
SMP 12-44 In-Stream Structure Location
Consider the full range of public interests,watershed functions and processes,and environmental
concerns when planning and locating in-stream structures, with special emphasis on protecting
and restoring priority habitats and species.
SMP 12-45 Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Locate and design boat ramps and other boating facilities to meet health, safety, and welfare
requirements and to minimize adverse affects upon geo-hydraulic processes, fragile shoreline
features,natural wetlands,and aquatic and wildlife habitats.
SMP 12-46 Development of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Assure no net loss of ecological functions as a result of boat ramp or other boating facility
development.
SMP 12-47 Aesthetic Impacts of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Avoid or mitigate impacts to shoreline aesthetics as a result boat ramp or other boating facility
development.
SMP-12-48 Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
Advocate and foster habitat and natural system enhancement projects which restore the natural
character and function of the shoreline provided they are consistent with the Restoration Plan.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies �
3/16/2012
�r�� �� ������� ��� ���
��i�r�lir�� I���t�r Pr��r�r�
�r�f� ���I� � P�rli�i��
�t�u�d� ����i�r�
Planning Commission Meeting
March 22, 201 2
. �_p.,_
.,�.�
,:
,
�;�
�'r�����r��ti�r� ���I�
� Provide an overview of the SMA
� Identify what's been completed and Next
Steps
:� Discuss Draft Goals and Policies
1
3/16/2012
�I��r��li�� i��r����r��r�t ��� {Tl��.
�a�h�rr°� �'�r�i�r�"�
Passed by the Legislature in 1971 ; voters
approved through public referendum (statewide
vote) in 1972.
Three basic policies:
1 . Proteet the environmental resources of state
shorelines.
2. Promote publie aeeess and enjoyment
opportunities.
3. Give priority to water dependant uses.
���� — ��'� �41��� ���411�°�� ���'�
�� ����:���
:� Negotiated settlement in 2003 between
business interests, ports, environmental
groups, user groups, eities and eounties.
�� Set minimum procedural/substantive
standards for updating shoreline master
programs.
: New Key Standards:
"No Net Loss°� of eco�oguca� fu�c�uo�s
= Res�o�a�uo� ��a��u�g
Assess�oe�� of "�easo�a��y fo�eseea��e�° cu�ou�atuve
u�o�ac�s
2
3/16/2012
'�h�t i� �I�� ���r�lir�� P�����r �'r��r�;rrr��'
r� Carries out the Policies of the �_�.- �= o.-
SMA at the local level � �`'�� � =
Protect environment -
Promote water dependent/or oriented uses;
and , ,.�,k��V
�:: .u ,
� promote public access opportunities "
n Regulates use and development
of shorelines �
# SMP components include: �'`� �
k � ;�
Policies and Regulations based on �;;,�,�,,;�
state laws and rules tailored to our :.
community �`�_ �
Administrative Procedures for Permits � ��-'
and Enforcement Actions � T��; ��
� �.:
����
�I��r�li�� uri�di�ti�n - �r��� F�� �I�t�� �
���
� All waterways
with average
flows > than � �
200� �,���,.,,�,���������er
2 0 cfs � ��� ���,_�
� All enclosed ��� ' ' � ` _ '` "
��.
: ' �Nliayylhgl�W�4�1*il�
waterbodies (lakes) �° � �� =_' _. - - _ E"'°�"°ww��
ry �tlry a,�mei�
greater than 20 acres ��—' -'- - �
� Determined by the Ordinary High Water Mark
.a Includes area from the OHWM to 200 feet
landward
� cludes the waterbody
3
3/16/2012
�����r�� ��II��'� �h��r��li���
��.� i --, � _�.
�! ��� ��� _��� � �
r � ,
�,��..
- g #�ua. � x--��`,� _T ;—
Aq' -° � � _-�� — _ �,� .,
�. .yP �� . -.# ' ' �� .�.
� — I
`x � � � ;T'�. �I ��.1 1 �. I �_I.� {—s'
� . c .. �e ' �.�W .. W
�- � .� ��i��..��I��II � I I�'�.w � �°.�"�
I 1-r��'F ,. �� ����
a
��{�� � �_ � ��� � —
�,�"� � —� � �-� �
�
��TJ� i �-F' 1 ._i� i -i�� � __ - � i
F d �� - bs.��� �
� �_. �� _ — ii,° .r.; o —
; � ,� ��e — � ��' -
- �4� . .._ _ . �
rf�� I E�T.. _ —, Cr _ -
M�I- I r � — ' y .
��`'��I a� ' IT•_I •YI <� '2- i
�. i. � w .. .. 8 . -._ —
� � 9 � � I �
-4 I __�� - I -'t�
r„� y � ��
r� �' � r � ��,� i i� —�T,,.:�
c& a� � i`! � __ ��—
� : i �� _ � '�_ ��' — - --- -- —
���--
— —
�I�P �l�d��� �r�����- ����� ��r�p�l+����
. . . . . � .
�,
�
y
i. ��iz � ,. �-•,�: , _ �'�' —
� �
y 5.
.� � _.�� .�w�ne �u_..
�
�
4
3/16/2012
�r�ft ���I� �r�� ��li,�i��
���r�l��rr��n� �n� F��v►i�� �`r�����
_�
,
Staff and Consultant Role/Process
Develop ���
Pre��m�narY Planning Commission Review
Draft Goals �
and Policies I'
Coord i nate
Shoreline � Study Session ��� �O�n�I I ��"I�`^,
Advisory � � V V V
Group Review
Public Hearing � � � �
Public Comment Accept by Resolution
Conduct Open � -.Recommend to
Houses �� Council
r ti
�I��r�lir�� ���i��r� �r���► �����
� Primary Role: Assist _
City Staff with the y°°�"'�
. ��.
Development of Goals �
and Policies by ��
providing comment
� Group Dynamics
designed to insure that L`
diverse community '' ' '
interests were '
represented
� Volunteer Group - No '' " ' "
Decision Making •••
Authority . . . .
� 8 Meetings between
Jan. 20 and June 23 '
. � . - -
5
3/16/2012
F��I�.�i�rr��hip E����r��n �t�al�=P�lici�s �nd
F��+��I�tic�n�
� Goals are broad expression of
community desires
i.e. Provide safe and convenient ����5
access to the shoreline
� A policy is a commitment to Drnfte
act in a prescribed manner �
- Statements typicall� use a verb with
form of"should," shall," "must Assistnnce
to indicate the princi pal to be of SAG p�licies
upheld in making a decision
i.e. development must maintain
existing habitat.
requires interpretive judgment in
applying it to a specific case.
� A regulation is the rule dealin ��gu0�auo�os
with the specifics of a use or Drnfted
physical standard. by URS
Regulations are specific - �us�
�Dy uoeo 5� sea�ac�o�
C����I��r�r�r�t +�f ���I� ��� P"�li�i��
� Review law/guidelines
� Review inventory
� Review key points identified by SAG
� Draft Goals and Policies
� Reviewed by SAG - modified by consensus
:� Process completed - Reviewed by Legal
Counsel
6
3/16/2012
����ra�l ���I ��� �'�I i�i�s
Goal:Enhance the City's POIICIes
shorelines by establishing ;� EnCOUI'ages:
andimplementinggoals, �- Coordinated Planning
policies, and regulations �� �onsistency with other Nlans anci
which promote a mixture of Programs
reasoncrble and crppropricrte - Ensures No Net Loss of Ecological
shoreline uses that improve Fx's
the City's character,foster its ��� Recognizes Private Property Rights
historic and cultural identify, � Links the envil'onment
andconserveenvironmentcrl designations to shoreline
resources. inventory and existing land use
�� plans
�� � Establishes use preference for
��
all shorelines
� Establishes use preference for
_- 7��`" ��� shoreline of statewide
r - -.
�`�Y � si��nif.i�an�.�_
�`.•,.._ -_,.- -__
Hi�t�ri��l, �ult�ar�l, ��i��tifi� +� E�J�a���i���l
El�r��r�t
Goal:Protect those sites that ',
reflect our community's ��
unique heritage and create or '
contribute to our collective � ' �
sense ofplace. �- -• �'
�'=, ;
PO�ICI�S , . _�����,�,�_ !! ,�
� ,;, . -"T�-� -=�
, � �.
� Preserve and protect �', _ ��'4��, w�
existing sites and _ " ��-� �►� .�,�
structures `? ` r� � �
�� 4,i
:� Encourages the � .
acquisition of sites and
structures for public
benefit
� Ensures constant � Ensure early and continuous
cooperation with inspections where
agencies and tribes archaelogical resources are
� Maintain an inventory of known to exist
all known sites
7
3/16/2012
��I �I�I+�� E��I°1'l�f�� � � . ' �
'�„��°:
.
¢ i��, , �x. ,�
Goal:Maintain/provide a�lequate utility services° ,� . "t� �'��
, ��,::-
while p�ese�ving�nd enhancing the natural ;_� ����`
environment and ecology of the shoreline. ;�� � «�
� ��.�:� �A�
Po�ucues � s �".�
: Locate new facilities outside of '�� f �� �'
� �,. �:
shoreline jurisdiction whenever possible `�-:� � ��
� � , �
Require new facilities (whenever :���� , i,
feasible): , , _.._:. �-:�
• to be located underground and utilize low impact methods
• to be located in existing ROW's
_> Maintenance activities designed to minimize impacts
.= Give preference to utility corridors and ROW's
: Stormwater facilities will protect water quality,
manage runoff and address erosion control and
sedimentation.
!�ir�c�l�ti�r� El���r�t
Goal:Provide a safe, convenient, and multimodal circulation system
which will minimize disruption to the shoreline environment
P�lieies
. Ensure a sys�em �o provide appropria�e access �o �he
River
r� Loca�e new s�ree�s/eacpansi�ns �u�side �f shoreline area
or v►rh�re i��neill have �he leas� impac�
� Cons�lida�e u�ili�y and �ranspor�a�ion crossings
;� Place public access parking facili�ies away from �he
shoreline
e Re�ain unused RO�1/ for visual and physical aeeess
:$ Impr�ve non-m��orized aecess �o �he shorelin�
> Recogni�e �he impor�ance of �he Cen�ennial Trail and
i�9s main�enance issues
� Allov►r new rail lines in preferre� I�ea�i�ns
8
3/16/2012
E��r��r�i� [����I��r��r�� El�r���t
Goal: Encourage and support water dependent, water oriented, and
water related economic activities within the shorelands
Policies
;t Prefer water dependent uses in already developed sites
Minimize impacts thru design
a� Sites should include provisions for physical and visual
access
-� Encourage regional tourism
�� Provide for shoreline protection
Promote recreational uses and seek public and private
partnerships
= Encourage business to be well maintained and provide
incentives for redevelopment to include public access
_= Provide incentives for design features oriented to the
water
:� Support the existing gravel mining industry
��r���r���l�� El+�r��r�t '��
. _���a����
Goal: Preserve for the future those natural ,
resources which cannot be replaced and achieve �� r
.,,�,,.
no net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline -�-��-;�
Po�ucues:
�a Identifies areas that should be Preserved.
= Protect existing vegetation and functions with buffers
and setbacks
Encourages a variety of tools to acquire unique shoreline
areas
:� Provide incentive to retain existing open space and
environmentally sensitive areas on private property
�� Protect and preserve ecological connectivity
:� Require that development mitigate negative impacts
Cumulative Impacts of anticipated land uses shall be
addressed by regulations to ensure no net loss of
e 'cal functions of the shoreline
9
3/16/2012
I�'�����+a,���� ������� �`� �- ,� .,�
����-��. ��
.�.� ..�-t �
4 �� t��
Goal: Restore habitat and the natural � � �''�
systems to improve shoreline ecological `��'�` � ±'� ` � -
functions. �' k� '
��' � \
F'�IICI�S ;�. �- �
� Develop a restoration plan .
� City Stewardship - act as the
model for managing resources on
publicly owned lands ,.,,
> Provide incentives for projects �„, - �i�'�� �' '-
that include restoration or , �+ �'�
enhancement components �: ,. �����
� Encourage cooperative restoration t , �
programs .�l ���� � �
_ .��.,��
� Assist the gravel pits in the - � � °�- ��
�-����-" � • � ,�_
development of restoration plan
�•�
!��i�i��l �r��� El�err��r��
Goal: Preserve and protect ecological functions within critical areas-
Ensure no net loss.
P�liei�s
� Ensure consistency between SMP and Comp Plan
;� Develop regs that ensure no net loss of function necessary
to sustain shoreline natural resources
Preserve and protect wetlands with development
regulations
r� Protect critical aquifer recharge area
� Protect people and property from risk associated with
geologically hazardous areas and frequently flooded areas
by limiting development
;� Preserve and protect fish and wildlife habitat with
regulations that assure no net loss of ecological functions
that support habitat
10
3/16/2012
�I��� H���r� F������i�� �I�r��r�t
Goal:Prevent and reduce flood damage in � � ��
shoreline area to protect ecological , ,
functions,shoreline habitat, lives, and `�'�� �;� : � � " �
.,�,,,
public and private propert� ���;�i ,-_,`
Po�ucueS:
�{ Prohibit development that would intensify flood hazards
:� Coordinate flood hazard reduction planning among
agencies
> Allow structural flood hazard reduction structures only
under specific circumstances
;� Do not allow gravel removal unless a long term benefit
will result and no net loss of ecological fx
�� Maintain, protect and restore natural vegetative buffers
within the floodplain that fx to reduce flood hazards
onsider removing or relocating existing structures
w sidering alternate methods
. . , � „w, �
���li� ,������ E���+���t � -
. �, .�
_� �.
� _ ,
A�� �R' ��- �,►'
� Goal: Provide cliverse, �_ . �, � ,�
reasonable, and adequate public � � �� � ��� �,,,,a
k�� ���� ��..
access to the shorelines of the ,� �; �
state consistent with the natural = � `�����;
.� _ � .��,.r
shoreline character,p�ivate � ��: �• .���� � �
property rights,public rights '� � �.,�,�.:
unde�the Public Trust Doctrine, �` � '���
�•,�:.��. r�
and public safety while
�
maintaining no net loss of - `�`
. � � � v_
ecological function. ������' �- -__ ��
� �
. �,�1
� _. �:�
11
3/16/2012
Policies: .
:> Promote public access while � -�
protecting private property rights � ;;�� �
;: Require public access to be ' +_�"` �
included in public and private �`` � -- --_`
projects - provide incentives '-�- -
� Minimize impacts to shoreline •-�- .��
through maintenance projects -
�
� Develop a Public Access Plan _ .�;
� Include access for persons with �" ��:'�` y
disabilities , �� -
� Access points should protect ` � �-� Y;
shoreline environment � +'' �
� Minimize the impacts on views - - - ��
r Ensure that allowed uses do not - rR�� � ���
interfere with public use of the �°�=�,µ �"�" , ," ,��
water - �� ��
s for non-motorized - ��'�`�.�
recrea ctivities is preferred
,-,��;�
��, .
F���r���l+�r� El���r�t
�- - - -- -
Goal: Increase and preserve recreational �; � ���0 ` :.,4i
opportunities : , � �• -F.�'�'
' ?.. `�. ��k*�
Policies: �3'. . �..
x �
Preserve shorelines for recreational ;., � .4� � � i'
use (Passive and active) � ; ���«`
Consider and protect ecological function � �� ��.. ��
& processes � ��' - � '
� Link parks and access points ,�' :�� ` �.`�'
n Public use and access to the water 3 � ;��' -�
should be priority in recreational �s':�
development ��
+r �
F Provide: �° ���
;._ �
recreational opportunities for all ��` .f�,��
< Adequate support facilities at access site� �
a Prefer non-motorized recreational
activities
12
3/16/2012
�h���li �� ��� �I����r�
�� Goal: Conside�the use and � Cenerd� PO�IC125
developmentofshorelines dpp�ICdb�2 t0 d�� U525:
und adjacent land areas for
housing, business, industry, ° Establish Shoreline Use
tr�ansportation, recreation, P I'I o I'I t I e 5
education,public buildings � Protect Ecological
und grounds, utilities and F u n c t i o n s
other categories of public
undprivate land uses in �� Preserve Fish and Wildlife
�elation to the natural H a b I t at
environment and ensuring Recognize Nonconforming
no net loss of ecological Use and Development
function ==� Allow Mitigation
Sequencing
F���id���i�l ���di�i�i�r��
� Q Design should
i�� x
, ``�_ , prevent the need for
,���` `� -� shoreline
��t� _ � � 'w-� :�' �,,,� stabilization or flood
��"`�� �-�• � hazard measures
;, � ` `::�
_ -�-� •��K�-��� � Over water
-- -_ _ �-=j"-� Residences are
� - -_-� - - prohibited
13
3/16/2012
��f'`�',i I`1'"i��`�I�.� �'��
�'►`; �� Non Water Oriented
. � 4 � `"='r
o�
' Commercial Uses -
1�i? �r �
� �� ` �. , '��- � allowed in shoreline
— .� r'�i� i' ..y,>_
jurisdiction as part
- .�----_-
of a mixed use
` - � � project
,�'�. t„�f=H� ,:.�� . �.,.�-
` �� � Ove r wate r
` - commercial uses
�
.� . .� � prohibited if not
�� � -
,,;.
� � water dependent
�;�'���1��I ti�`�`�,�,..�
Ir������i�l �J��
:� Prohibit new non-
water oriented
���- industrial uses
� .�
�� '�"� ,;;,� ► Encourage uses to
�- - - locate where
�� ��� environmental
��� ,. , cleanup or
F restoration is
'�''�` � ��� needed/prohibit in
� ' �� ` �:��'' areas susceptible to
�-�` erosion and flooding
� � ��!,;; -- _. ,1�--_'_'„
�'' _ � Control Pollution and
_ -� ._- . , Damage
...� +�-�- .
r ��-,.-�- `�� -
,., ; . Ii�M(� . ���.
IiC� 1We�...-.i 4
I
14
3/16/2012
����'�Ili�'ll� ���1�1��,�1�1�
�"����e����� ����r��r����'��i�� ��tf��r�.��
�� � �'� `'' ` . Limit Shoreline
� �'��'�� ���-��� �' Modifications to only if
� �'�..�� � v�nn�n� t� r�r�tni-t
� .s �����,� IICCUCN lV F../I VICI..I
`- '��` ��� � structures or for
� - - mitigation or
..�.�� �„ .�., � ;.
� ��:=•-� r�,-�, - � enhancement
: n� ���! �� Base regulations on
�
� - + Inventory
- -,;;_-;..��-'���-= � o Protect shoreline
� = functions and processes
-� :
- - as modifications occur
+� - # � Give preference to types
� � that have the least impact
- �Y `�� on ecological functions
��_
�i�r� ��� ���I��
_ �
Allow new docks for public water dependent uses,
single family residence and public access
:> Allow in limited areas:
> reservoir areas of the river where flow locations least
resemble natural free flowing river;
� Shelly Lake, or
= severely ecologically impacted shoreline areas w/adequate
public access
r Limit dock size to minimum size necessary for use
: Encourage multiple use and expansion of existing
docks over new single docks
: Require residential development w/two or more
dwellings to provide community docks
15
3/16/2012
4� � �� ��
�"�- , �,,_t:�.
����"��If1� �I�� _.;.�-,��,�,� - -��
� �����_�� �
�� �p�����e
-..�; ;�
:r Shall be designed, located, �!�� - �v .� ��
and constructed to protect
shoreline ecological function ���_ � ��`�,��,�;�_��'�
and ecosystem-wide + � �#��' �'��
�. - ! �f�!� 1�Y, Y�..
processes ��' � ��-��~� ��,�
> Fill below OHWM re uires a .,�i'?���,'
a � �
CUP for specific circumstances �T� ._ _ �.��
r Require a plan for riparian ' ?-���-�' ���
corridor protection - -
� ��� ,_
�' - <:.
_ �
t�r _
��r��.rrr��r�� Pr�������� ; . ��.art�:�
. � � YM
� 7
=s Streambank applies to all - ��
� �``, .
shorelines in COSV � -°' ����
� Prohibit new streambank �4� � �
. ,�. ti
protection measures except � �, _.
when necessary for ��f°`�
Existing primary structures �''�' —
Water dependent development
New development �'� � ,,���.
Ecological restoration/toxic cleanup , � � �
projects �� `'` � �
: Design all new � ' �:,��� � �
development/lots to prevent `" ,,��f � .. �
the need for protection , �
m eas u re s �` ��-�t
16
3/16/2012
� ��� ����
, ,. .
' • ��_. ` f `�
� � ��`-
�_ _ �� �
� Dredging ,�f�� , '
k t.���'
Generally Prohibited - except for ;_ ��..� `���� `
existing Gravel Pit Operations �� :"
:r In-Stream Structures
> Allowed to protect and preserve �=;��� '=-��b,,��,,�; '` �i"���'
natural systems, i.e fish passage, '��..�' r rt�x�'` 3`� "
wildlife and water resources, critical �' ���`' �
areas, hydro-geological process, f ���;,�� ';� �
and scenic vistas /` �R�
��� Habitat and Natural System � _� �� =���
Enhancement Projects
Allowed if consistent with
Restoration Plan
� Gravel Pits - Allow existin � �` � -1 tf
g �..�,�- ��-�� ` .�:�
operations to continue -:�
� � ' �`�
, ,��
�'.`' '� � Y�'� -
`.�'`'`;�i
_ ���:1 �
_ .i - - �����I���!
��
17
- 1 r�'�° � �� '.`� �.�` "2,a � '_� , I � o�P.�.� �'�„�` � �? �. D
. ._ 2° � _ ' '' �'� �L°"....
�
n
s
Gravel Pits �
�
SMP12-49 Gravel Pit Operations A
Allow e�sting gravel pit operations to continue to operate and expand consistent with operational
permits. Operational uses include both above water and below water gravel extraction,processing,and
crushing. Accessoiy uses include,but are not limited to, concrete batch plants, hot mix asphalt plants,
aggregate processing and recycling plants, customer service (truck dispatching) offices, maintenance
facilities,truck&equipment parking, stockpiles, scale houses,retail product stares, and quality control
facilities.
SMP 12-50 Water Dependent Uses
Existing Gravel Pit Operations are considered water dependent uses.
I {so33zaso:l}Shoreline Advisory Group � Goals and Policies