Loading...
Agenda 04/26/2012 S�'TYol�ane p Valle � Y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. May 10, 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. Deliberations — Shoreline Advisory Group Public Hearing Draft Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies B. NEW BUSINESS: 1. NO NEW BUSINESS X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XL ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR JOHN 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 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: April 26, 2012 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑ new business � public hearing ❑information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Deliberations—Shoreline Master Program Update - Draft Goals and Policies GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: A study session was held on March 22, 2012, and a public hearing was conducted on April 12. The written public comment period was extended to April 17, 2012. NOTICE: Notice for the public hearing was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on March 23, 2012. The notice was provided consistent with applicable provisions of SVMC Title 17. APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 define the process for approval of an SMP and require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA. BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program update team, with the assistance of a Shoreline Advisory Group (SAG), completed the draft Goals and Policies for the Shoreline Master Program Update in July 2011. A public hearing was conducted on April 12t" and testimony was received. At this time the Planning Commission is tasked with considering public input and providing a recommendation to the City Council. All comments received are attached for your review. Attorney Tadas Kisielius completed a review of the Goals and Policies and provided written comment that highlights areas where the draft goals and policies may exceed, meet, or fall below the state guidelines. This information was provided in the March 22 Study Session Packet. He will be present to provide assistance to the Commission during deliberations, and he will discuss the March 15, 2012 memo. Mr. Kisielius also provided an initial response to written comments received as of that date. His response was intended to be preliminary since the formal public comment period had not been completed. The table is currently being expanded to include comments and recommendations specific to policies. Written comments received following the April 12t" public hearing are still being reviewed by Mr. Kisielius and staff. Once the table is complete, it will be provided to the Commission. It should be noted that not all comments received are conductive to this format since they may deal with a comprehensive issue rather than a specific policy. However, all comments will be considered. OPTIONS: The Planning Commission should begin deliberations. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner ATTAC H M E NTS: Previously provided with March 22, 2012 Study Session Materials: Attachment 1. Draft Goals and Policies Attachment 2. Attorney Tadas Kisielius Memo March 15, 2012 Attachment 3. Centennial Properties Comments July 19,2011 Attachment 4. Doug Pineo's Comments July 22, 2011 1 of 2 New comments received: Attachment 5: Jacob McCann—April 17,2012 Attachment 6: Jamie Short, DOE (Email and Gravel Pit handbook draft)—April 12, 2012 Attachment 7: Jamie Short, DOE (comments)- April 5,2012 Attachment 8: Nathan Smith (representing Central Pre-mix)—April 12, 2012 Attachment 9: Kevin Anderson received April 17 2012 Attachment 10: Futurewise (1)—April 12, 2012 Attachment 11: Futurewise(2)—April 17, 2012 Attachment 12: Robin Bekkedahl,Avista—April 12, 2012 Attachment 13: FJ Dullanty Jr. (representing Centennial Properties and Pinecroft Business Park)—April 12, 2012 2 of 2 - . � [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 signi�cance, 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 90.58340) 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 private 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 fish 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 speci�c 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 Commercial 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 identi�ed impacts resulting from shoreline modi�cations. 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 Attachment 5 Deanna Griffith From: McCann, Jacob (DNR) [Jacob.McCann@dnr.wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:54 PM To: Lori Barlow Cc: Short, Jaime (ECY) Subject: RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update-Technical Review Group Hi Lori- Since DNR arrived late in this step of the process, we will not be providing comments on the Draft Goals and Policies at this time. However, since City of Spokane Valley shorelines contain State-Owned Aquatic Lands (managed by DNR)which may be impacted by activities within these areas, we reserve the right to comment on future iterations of this and other associated documents of this SMP Update. Please let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to working with you going forward in this process. Thank you, Jacob McCann Land Manager, Rivers District Aquatic Resources Division Washington State Department of Natural Resources 509-220-3009 J a co b.M cCa n n@ d n r.wa.�ov dnr.wa.�ov/aquatics From: Lori Barlow [mailto:lbarlow@spokanevalley.org] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:27 AM To: McCann, Jacob (DNR) Cc: Short, Jaime (ECY) Subject: RE: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update - Technical Review Group Hi Jacob, Thanks for the update. I will include you in the emailing for technical review from now on. The comment period was extended to allow written comment through April 17t" @ 5:00 p.m.. The comment period will close at that time. Additional comment periods will occur on the document as we go through the process. If you can submit by tomorrow, that would be great. If you do have issues, and you are unable to provide written comment in that time frame, please contact me so that we can discuss them. L-OYG �AYCOW, .4 fC� City of Spol<ane Valley (509)720-5335 From: McCann, Jacob (DNR) fmailto:Jacob.McCannCa�dnr.wa.aovl Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:13 AM To: Lori Barlow Cc: Short, Jaime (ECY) Subject: FW: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update -Technical Review Group i Hi Lori- I am the new DNR contact for aquatics for this area. Please include me in future correspondence on the below topic. Also, it looks like we missed the comment period deadline. Is there any way for DNR to add input at this stage? I probably need until next week to get some basic comments fleshed out (and determine what, if anything, we have provided as comment so far). Let me know if it's ok for us to add some input after the date on this go around....otherwise I look forward to working with you on the next go around of review. Thanks! Jacob McCann Land Manager, Rivers District Aquatic Resources Division Washington State Department of Natural Resources 509-220-3009 J a co b.M cCa n n@ d n r.wa.�ov dnr.wa.�ov/aquatics From: Short, Jaime (ECY) Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:47 AM To: McCann, Jacob (DNR) Subject: FW: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update -Technical Review Group Here are the draft goals and policies that the Planning Commission is currently reviewing.... From: Lori Barlow fmailto:lbarlowCa�spokanevallev.orql Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:32 PM To: Divens, Karin A (DFW); HARSH, DAVE (DNR); 'dlamb@cdatribe.org'; 'stephanie.kramer@dahp.wa.gov'; 'Ray.0ligher@cityofmillwood.org'; 'atainio@libertylakewa.gov'; 'jfalk@spokanecounty.org'; 'Walt Edelen' Cc: Short, Jaime (ECY) Subject: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update -Technical Review Group The City of Spokane Valley is in the process of updating the Shoreline Master Program. At this time the Draft Goals and Policies have been completed by the City's Shoreline Advisory Group. Since you, or your agency, have jurisdiction or technical expertise in this area, the document is being submitted to you for review.The attachment contains the Draft Goals and Policies currently undergoing public review. Please review the document and provide written comments not later than Aqril 11.2012. Comments may be mailed to me @ 11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 106, Spokane Valley WA 99206 or emailed to Ibarlow@spokanevalley.or�. If you would like to comment, but feel that you need more time to do so, please let me know your expected target date. If you would like a hard copy of the material, one will be provided upon request. The City's public participation plan requires that each component developed for the plan be reviewed by the Technical Review Group, presented to the public at an open house, reviewed by the Planning Commission, including a public hearing, and accepted by resolution by the City Council. Once all the components of the SMP are completed, the individual documents will be packaged together and the formal adoption process will begin with Planning Commission review, public hearing and Council Review. It is our goal to identify and work through issues as each component is developed, rather than at the end of the process. If you have any questions about the materials, or process, I may be reached at the contact information below.Thank you for your participation! 2 Lo�i Barlow' l'"1��1' Senior Planner- Community Development City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5335, Direct 509-921-1008, FAX www.spokanevallev.orq (Contents of this email and any reply are subject to public disclosure) 3 Attachment 6 Lori Barlvw Fram: ShQrt, Jaim��LCY} [JSH0461 cx7ECY.WA.GC)V] 5ent: l'hursday,April 12, 2D12 9:52 AM Ta: f�ori Barlaw Supj�ct: F'W: Graael Pits within Shoreline Jurisdictior� Afta�hments: Gravel mine 5MP guidar�ce 4 9 1� draft.dacx Ni �ari, As you �an see (belav+rj, I've c�e�ked-in with HQ and attached t#�e draft doc�ment in answert�your flriginal questians regard�r�g the gravel pits and sharelinejurisdECtian. �fea�e let me k�ow if this answers your q�restian� satis�actorily or if yau nee�d additiona6 infor�nation. Thanks! -laim� �rom: �lingmar�,Tom {ECY} Sent: Weds�e�day, Apri9 11, 2�12 5:46 PM To: 5hort, ]arme(ECl'} Subject: RE; Gravel Pits within Shareline Jurisdic�ian i sent this to the gravel mine falks 4Jana McDonald and Br�rce ChattinJ vn Tuesday far iheir comments. 5c thi�is circulating for a fei,v mare days. Feel�r�e to use fmmediately as a draft if you rre��to. I don't thin'k we wi�l have signi�can�t changes�olicy-wise tca the existing document. With Clyr�da raising exc�llent camments about Shareline planning f�r n�w�expanded mining ponds(no�exa�tly the same tap�c} Betty and I were gaing to draft a final updat�tc�a couple sections of the guidan��,and ther�get finaf SMART camments. 5ounds IiCce the ap�raa�h in Spokar�e Val1ey is ta plan far ti�e near-clased rr►ining�aEce,and leaue t'he longer-term mf�e lake for later. That i�exactiy the kind c�f vutcome I was hopir�g we wvuld see on�his tc�pi�. �hanlcs. Fram: Short, 7aime�ECY] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, �Q12 4:1z PM Ta: Clingman, Tom (ECY} Stabject: FW: Gravel Pit�within Shor�line,]urisdictivn �1 i To r��, Is our revised gu�da�te on jurisdfction ready t�hit the�tr�et$? k can't reca�l frr�m our convet'sat'ran c#uring SNlAR7 when the expected rt�ll-aut was.... I don't want to recre�'te the wri�ten wheel far the Valley�see Lori's rec}uest belowJ if our o��c6al d�cur�en� Fs g�ing ta be availal�le sQon, ThanEcs!-J�ime Fram: Lori Barlow [ma3fto:�haric�w�sp�kanerralley.arg] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, �fl�.2 11,30 AM To: Sh4rt, .�aime (ECY} Cc: Scott Kuhta; 3ohn E�ohman; 'Patrouch,Jahn' Su6ject: Gravel Pits�vithin Si�rorefine Jurisdirtion Jamie, Than'k you for�articipating ir� the 5takeholder me�tings on April 9`h. The diafogue laetween AttorneyTadas Kisie!'sus and the praperty awners was helpful in understandEng the issues to be addressed through the �pdate prncess. I am follouuing up an the gravel pit issue that we f�riefly dRSeussed �etweer� rr7e�tings, Y�u menti�ned that abE is taking a new pasitio�or�whether or nat gravel pits should he included within 5horeline Master PrQgrarns. Yau also not�d ti�at factars, such as the life span of the grav�l operatians, may determir�e whether the pit shauld he included. Since we i hav�two aGtive grav�l pits in nur jurisdECtian that are cQnsidere�sh�relines af the state due ta their size, this issue is very im�artant tn our pEanning pracess. Please clarify whether or r�at grave! pits should �e included in the City's�.ipdate pracess and what factars, i�any, shauld be ca�n5idered in rnalcdng that determinatior�. A pub4�c E�ear�ng nn�he draft goals and poliei�s for the SMP is sch�duled for April 12, and deliberatians are expected to begfn �n April 25`", It would be benefi�ial tc� have tl�€s inf�rmatian as quickly as pos�ibfe to address the i�sue within the �aais a�d palicies i�necessary. I l��kforward t�a hearing'Fram you! �oF-i ���-I�4v, .AICP S�niar Plann�r-Cpm�r�unity �evefiapment City of Spoltane Vaiiey 117Q7 E. S�rague Ave., Suite ��6 S�okane Vall�Y,VIlA�g2�� 5L7�-72{]-533�, Direct 5�9-921-��i�8, FAX wwv,r.spokdneyallev.�i� �C�nterrts ot thES emai� and any reply are subjeat#a pubMic disclpsure� z 4�9�1� reuised draft PlannFn for rarrel mine onds durin SIV�P u dates: �calo 5MR Hand�aQk dr�ft revisian� Grarael and Minera� Mine Lakes Mii�ing for gra�el anci�i�in�rals can create laIces that are�Q acres oi•larger. Mining lakes 2� acres Qr larger where tnining has ce2�sed and rec�arnation is c�anplete are shareiir�es af the�tate and must be included ii7 your SMP. Q�n°ing the acti�e minii�g perior�, Ecolagy recaiaunends th�t these water bodies be treated as industrial lakes, and not be regulated as sharelines af the state, Hawever,the futt�re use af�hese mining lakes should be cansidei�ed duri�ig an SMP u�adate. Considet•acti�e nnine lakes in SMP update� Lacal go�e��nents slioulc]ic�entify mining �perations s�vith water l�ndaes z�e��c�r a�ove 20 ac�es as pai�t of th� 5MP in�entory a�xd assess the likeli�lood and timing af these bec�tnirtg futu�e si�c�relines of the st�te, DNR has infarmatian on the anticipated fitture use of minin�lak�s as contained in tl�e approved reclamativn plans{se� �ection bel�w for details a��d can#act infarmatian.) Ifa niin�ng aperatian iz�the lal�e��id adj�cent shorelitle will enc� within the ri�xt few yea��s, �calogy rec�mme�ids ineluding the lake in ih� SMP. This inclu�es identifying shoreline et��iranment designati+��zs and establishi�ag appropriate policies and regulations f�r th� fixhii`� shnreline of tlle state as part of the SMP�zpdate.These will not apply,h�wever, until reclaznati�n i zs camplete and DI�R te�-ir�ir��tes tlae Stu�fac�Mine �ecl�mation Permit�SM�. � - — If reclamatio3l is anticipated tr�b�coYnpleteci in th�relati�ely near t�rtn,incl�iding the lalce in the SMF u�adat�will prQ�i�e cl�rity�a�cl preciictability fnr all�ar-ties rega�•ding tl�e firture use�f the la�e and 'a�s sharelanc�s. Identi�yin�environment desiga7ations ar�d establi�hin�pQ�icies and regulatians�u�ing the u�date avaids the need to arnend ti�e SNIP ko i��clude the lalce fallawing } SiViRP ie�ninal`a�n�t�. �therwise, a SMP amendment will b�reql�ired within three years c�f the Wash�ngton Depai-trne��t of Natu��al Resou�ces (DNR) �nal appraval of reclamativn [WAC 173-��-�46], �'or exan��le, W�ratcorxa County's 5Mp includes two lai�es wliere mining is end���g and reclantatian is expeetecl to be cumplete soon, The SM�desi�i�at�s tl�e slao�-eli�ie eiivirai�n�.ent as ��101'EIIIIE��51��11tir�1; ��1�llllile G�13 C[)I1tlriLle t0 O��F'c�tB �S�i1C111C{JI�fdl'11713"1�L15�. T�i��]I'fl�]�Xf� r�r��ers agreer�with the G+aunty'S CIeC151011 tC1 117C�11����1�; I��€�5 111 tkl� �MP E7��QT� �Tc"3V�� D�7�1"c�tlflllS C�aS�C�. If t�e �MP daes not include the lake: When DNR a�pra�es final reclaina�ian bv iermi�?�tii�� tl�e SU��P in the lal�e 2uad adjacent sharelin�,a f4�n�er mirun�lake of�� or moY�e acrzs be�omes a shareline €�f the state and is regul�ted under tl�e SMP. It becomes a shoreline aftl��stat��r��n 1 if it is not afficially list�d in the SMP. �This shift ta a shareline af the state may need to be handled on�case-by-cas�basis for mining lakes with multiple mine owzi�rs, where sorn�awners ha�ve eampl�ted reclamat�on but others axe still actiVely min�ng.} When a new shoreline nf the state is cr�at�d,the 5MF must be updated with�il th�•ee years to include this new water body [WAC 173-20-0�6]. Until shoreline enVironments are speci��ally designated an the SMP, the lake and adj�inin�sharelands are de�ignated Rural Ct�nser�ancy if locafed in the uninco�porated po�-tion af a county, CJrban Cvnservancy�f lacated wifhin a municipality ar urban gz-owt�i a�rea, Qr ea�nparable environment designation r�f the applicable r�aster prograzn [WAC 173-26-211(2}�b)J, Recl�r��tion pi�n addi•esses tand use plans: Before�nining begins, DItiiR is required �o issue a reclamation permit i�ased an a plan for ti�e miiung sit�cansistent wrth the Sua•face Mining Act, RCW 78.�4. The reclamation plan should identify whethe�a per�nanent lake will remain afte� mining is concluded and its intended use, ar if the iak�area r�vill be filled far ather uses as part�f reclamafion. This rec�amation lan, rvhich DNR 6}atains a seeuri� for az�.d whi�h DNR d�es nc�t release the securit�+ until the recIacnation�lan�s cam�alete,is wher�Ecola�y and the Iocal �urisdictir�n's S�oreiine restoratian plan can fc�eus in o�impror�in� Eh�mine°s reclat�lation plan, A ree�uiremen.t under the mir►ing sectian of the SMP t�at states: S�rface mine r�clamativn plans. Far n�ew ar expansian�f min�in�pra�asals that meet th� defin%tion of swr�'a�e mi�e in RCW 78,44,U31, a re�la�ativn plan that complie5 wi#h th�famlat and det�.iled minimum standards of RCW 7$.�4, S�rface minin sball be included r�vith ark shoreline gerna�t a�plication. Recla�nation plans shall review and ineor�ora�e appiicabYe parrtions nf the Shvr�line Restaratian Plan as w�e�l as criticat anea.ntit� ation,if an intt�the a licaait's r� ased Reclamatian Plan. �n rer�iewin reetamation lans t+� e�her with ermit a licatinns the 5hareline Adm�.n.i�tr�t�ar s�all determine wheth�r or not the piaat is alsd consist�nt with�his 5MP the S�ioreline Restoration Plan�ad other IQCaI Fe ations. An inct�nsist�nt reclamati�n pla�shall cans�itute suf#icient�r��tnds for deni�l of a shoreTine pernoit,prcavic�ed,the applica�at shalT be 'ven r�as�nable u ar��i #o revise the lan. The I]Nl�reclamation pez•mit included �.document�a11ed an SM-5 form signed hy th�local govemment appz`ovin�land use and zoning foz•the rnine. Because mining operations may cantinue for many yeai•s, the reclamat3on plan a�id t�ie iacal �o�e�lment land use and zonii�g of record may be significantiy out of step wath current land use policies and zoning regulatians, Th� 5MP update process is a usefi.il framework ta engage with the inu�e operatars in updating the reclamation plan. The Iocal go�vernment may want ta �antact the mine operators ai�d warlc with them ta�tpdate the SM-5. Keep in cnind: + �nly the mine aperatar can submit a r�vised reclarnatifln plan az�d revised SM-�to DNR. Local gflvernments must�ontiti�ct SEPA re�view for re�ised plans as � apprapriate.°��I�is is whcre Ecolo�v�u�ir�be�in to incr4as�c�nzrner�ts�n th� current 2 surFace mine pr�aposals in SEPA i•ewiew�recummending the reel�mati�n plan be r�rrised to include the la�.al 'urisdiction's SNi�'s restoratiQ� lan aals and#unn th�rn irit� action items in t�ie recl�rnation lan. � The a�•iginal approved r�e�latnation plan is"grant�fathered" and ha�pre��den�e aver Iacal land use plans az�d z9ning adopted after th�z-eclax�iatian plan was appr�ved. �hus, it is imperative to wark with the mine Dpexator and DI'�TR tivhere the approVed recIa�natir�n plan has significant confl�ets wit�l existing la��d use policies aiid zas�in� r��ulations ot•the proposed updated SMP. Additional infornlation abvut pNR an�reclamation n�mines is a�ailaUle at DNR at http:lllv��v.diu•.���a.�uvBu3isi��s�����iF�ITUpicsll�rliaun�Energ.Y�.esourceRe�ul�tic���IP�geslsmr as � 3 Attachment 7 Lori Barlow - — From: Short, Jaime (ECY) [JSH0461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 10:26 AM ' To: Lori Barlow ' Subject: Ecology comments on Draft Goal and Policy language Attache�ents: �MP�AG PH Draft Goal�and Policies 3-22�12 J Short comment�.pdf Hi Lori, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City's draft SMP goal and policy language. I ' went through the PDF and used "sticky notes"to add my suggested edits or highlight questions. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any trouble with this format and I can resubmit my comments using a table instead. Thanks! —laime Jaime Short WA State Dept of Ecology ' 4601 N. Monroe Spokane,WA 99205 ' 509.329.3411 l . i Attachment 7 part 2 comments in post- it notes in the document - . � [SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING 03-22-12 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. Utilities Element Goal SMP 3: Maintain and provide adequate utility services within the shoreline environment 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. 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-motoriaed access points is 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 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 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 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 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. 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 proj ects. 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 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 attachment 8 �' WITHERSPOON• KELLEY Attorneys&Counselors SP(")KAN[ I SFATTIf I COfURD'AI.FNf: I P�IKTIAND Nathan G.Smith* � email: ngs@witherspoonkelley.com April 12, 2012 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 RE: Draft Shoreline Master Plan Goals and Policies Dear Council Members: This letter is in regard to the draft goals and policies for the proposed Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") for the City of Spokane Valley currently under review by the Planning Commission. This letter is submitted on behalf of CPM Development Corporation ("CPM"), the owner and operator of the gravel pits identified as Park Road and Sullivan Road in the draft SMP. As background, CPM, through Jana McDonald, participated in the City's Shoreline Advisory Group. During the process, CPM voiced its objection regarding the classification of Park Road and Sullivan Road gravel pits as "shorelines of the state" requiring regulation under the City's SMP. In the event that the two gravel pits are regulated, CPM also objected to the permitting requirements and land use regulations identified in the draft goals and policies in the SMP, which will impose substantial hardship on continued mining operations. CPM identified its objections at the initial study session conducted by the City Council meeting on July 18, 2011. CPM has met with city staff to assist the City in better understanding of CPM's operations. I. BACKGROUND By way of background, the Shoreline Management Act ("SMA") was adopted in 1971 through initiative by the Washington state voters. The SMA expresses its policies under RCW 90.58.020. Shortly after the adoption of the SMA, Spokane County adopted its Shoreline Master Program in 1975. The SMA expresses a policy to "foster[] all reasonable and appropriate uses." RCW 90.58.020. At the time of adopting its Shoreline Master Program, Spokane County did not classify the Park Road or Sullivan Road sites as "shorelines of the state." The City of Spokane Valley adopted Spokane County's Shoreline Master Plan on May 2, 2002 pursuant to Resolution 2-0471, d22 W. Rivcrtiidc A�enuc,SuitF� I 100 Tel:50�).624.5265 S�okinr., Washington �39201-0300 Fax: 5(79.458.2726 www.wilh��r5pr��onkclley.com "Admitted in Washington {50496625;1} April 12, 2012 Page 2 -------------------------------------------------- without classifying either site. Nothing in the updates to the SMP or other regulations has been modified warrant the classification of these sites. CPM, along with Acme Materials & Construction commenced operation of the Sullivan Road site pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit issued by Spokane County on March 8, 1976, with final approval from the Department of Natural Resources in 1979. Similarly, Acme Materials & Construction, CPM's predecessor in interest at the Park Road site received its initial approval in 1971 and renewed permitting approval in 1995 from Spokane County and the Department of Natural Resources. It was generally acknowledged by both the Department of Natural Resources and Spokane County that the mining operations resulted in exposed ground water and not surface water. Il. DISCUS5ION CPM's objections are twofold. First, it believes that its operations are solely regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. Second, the Department of Ecology's SMP Handbook provides clear guidance that gravel pits are not within the jurisdiction of the SMA until such time as reclamation activities have been completed. First, the Park Road and Sullivan Road are both regulated by the Department of Natural Resources. This is consistent with RCW 78.44.050, which vests exclusive authority for surface mining reclamation regulation to the Department of Natural Resources. CPM's operations at both the Park Road and Sullivan Road gravel pits are pursuant to a conditional use permit and reclamation plans approved by the Department of Natural Resources requiring, upon the conclusion of active mining on the site, that the site be reclaimed. Any regulation under the SMA or the SMP will interfere with the authority conferred upon the Department of Natural Resources to regulate surface mining and burden CPM's obligations to reclaim the sites at the conclusion of the gravel mining operations. Second, the Department of Ecology's SMP Handbook provides guidance regarding the inclusion of gravel pits within the City's SMP. The SMP Handbook specifically states: If these standards [of the Department of Natural Resources] are followed... it will need the protection provided by the SMA when reclamation is complete. SMP Handbook, Ch. 5, p. 11. The SMP Handbook also provides guidance indicating that gravel mines should only be included: if a minin�operatin�will end within the next few years... SMP Handbook, Ch. 5,p. 12. {50496625;1 } April 12, 2012 Page 3 -------------------------------------------------- CPM continues to actively use both sites in compliance with the approved permits and anticipates that it will continue to do so on into the future. Reclamation has not been completed on either site. Since CPM is actively mining both sites and it is not anticipated that the operations will discontinue in the near future, neither pit should be included within the City's SMP update. III. CURRENT AND PROPO5ED GOALS AND POLICIE5 Currently, the City has two goals specifically tailored to gravel pits, they are: SMP12-49 Gravel Pit O�erations 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 plats, 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. � CPM believes that these are inconsistent with the SMP Handbook. Rather, to be consistent with the SMP Handbook, CPM proposes the following in lieu of the above: SMP 12-49 Gravel Pit Operations The existing gravel pits within the City of Spokane Valley continue to be fully operational. Since mining operations will not cease in the next few years, these gravel pits are excluded from the jurisdiction of the City's shoreline plan until completion of the active mining operation and reclamation as required by an applicable reclamation plan approved by the Department of Natural Resources. (50496625; 1 } April 12, 2012 Page 4 -------------------------------------------------- SMP 12-50 Subseguent Uses Operational and accessory uses related to gravel mining operations are permitted and allowed to expand after the completion of reclamation. Operational uses include both above water and below water gravel extraction, processing and crushing. Accessory uses include, but are not limited to, concrete batch plats, 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. CPM appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the draft goals and policies and looks forward to working with the City in the future on the next steps in SMP update process. Very truly yours, WITHERSP Y -----_.�_�� . Smith NGS/ G Jana McDonald, CPM Development Corp. (via e-mail) {50496625; 1 J 3-22-12 SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT Kevin Anderson 11122 E. 35th Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 kands(�a,cet.com The following written comments are provided as neither an opponent nor proponent but rather as a review of the plan in comparison to the RCW and WAC regulations. Specifically I am concerned about (1) the lack of distinction between goals for Public versus Private property and(2) the range of subjects that appear to go beyond the original legislative intent. The key to the following is: Red=remove; Green = add; Blue = reference; ? = comment or question. 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. RCW90.58.020...coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. .....This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental o� thereto. �' � a� � RCW90.58290 The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the � fair market value of the property. � � � Policies SMP 1.1 Coordinated Planning Coordinate shoreline planning between the City of Spokane Valley,private property owners, 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 1.3 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. WAC 220-110-020(68)"No-net-loss" means: (a)Avoidance or mitigation of adverse impacts to fish life; or (b)Avoidance or mitigation of net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life; or (c)Avoidance or mitigation of loss of area by habitat type. Mitigation to achieve no-net-loss should benefit those organisms being impacted. 1 3-22-12 SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT SMP 1.4 Public Interest and Private Property Rights Protect private property rights in promoting 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. RCW90.58.100(6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single-family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. 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. 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. RCW90.58.100(g)An historic, cultural, scientific,and educational element for the protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values; Policies SMP 2.1 Sites and Structures Identify,preserve, and manage public held 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 of private property may be accomplished through gifts,bequests, grants, or donations of buildings or sites having cultural, scientific, educational, or historical value should be encouraged. ? Couldn't find in RCW's. 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. ? Should be a one time event except in the case of discovery of unknown sites. Utilities Element Goal SMP 3: Maintain and provide adequate utility services within the shoreline environment while preserving and enhancing the natural environment and ecology of the shoreline. 2 3-22-12 SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT 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 and acceptable to the utiliry provider. SMP 3.2 Place Underground Require new utilities and facilities that must be located within the shoreline to be built underground, if feasible acceptable to the utility provider, and utilize low impact, low profile design and construction methods to the maximum extent 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 existing utilities and facilities,unless a location with less potential to impact the shoreline environment is available. ? Can we dictate utility corridor use? Circulation Element Goal SMP 4: Provide a safe, convenient,and multimodal circulation system which will minimize disruption to the shoreline environment. RCW90.58.110(2)(d)A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the shoreline use element; Policies SMP 4.1 Transportation Access Ensure that a system of arterials, scenic drives,pathways,public transit routes, and bikeways adj acent to and within the shoreline areas correlated with the shoreline use 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. 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. ? Does this match e�sting codes or will we have to create new ones? SMP 4.6 Parking Facilities for Public Access Public Parking facilities for public access to the shoreline and water should be kept as far from the shorelines as feasible. 3 3-22-12 SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT 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. ? Is this special emphasis beyond public access requirement? 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. ? Outside scope of SMA? 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 cot-ridor where possible. ? Outside authority of SMA? 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. ? Outside authority of SMA? 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. RCW90.58.100(2)(a)An economic development element for the location and design of industries, projects of statewide significance,transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state; 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. ? How do you give preference to private property without rezoning? 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. ? Who would determine the reason and level of restoration? 4 3-22-12 SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT SMP 5.4 Encourage Regional Tourism Strengthen regional tourism by expanding and developing neighborhood and regional linkages and improvements that use the shoreline areas. ? SMA scope is tourist facilities relative to the shoreline, not tourism? 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. RCW90.58.020 The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines..... (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; SMP 5.8 Promote Recreational Uses Promote Increase recreational uses 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 in the shoreline. RCW90.58.020(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. SMP 5.9 Water-Enjoyment Areas Establish and identify Promote the identification and establishment of water-enjoyment areas, such as parks, view points, beaches and pathways as attractions. RCW90.58.020(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. SMP 5.11 Redevelopment Encourage the and provide incentives for redevelopment of e�sting sites that includes points of public access, areas designed for public enjoyment,improve fish and wildlife habitat, or improve fish passage. ? How do you legally provide incentives to private property owners? SMP 5.12 Building Orientation New public and pi-ivate 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. ? How do you legally provide incentives to private property owners? 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.Achieve no net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline. 5 3-22-12 SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT Policies: SMP 6.1.Public 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 SMP 6.3 Acquisition of Unique Shoreline Areas Acquire and maintain private property, through conseivation 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. RCW90.58.100(fl A conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection; ? I think the suggestion of using taxpayer funds is outside the scope of SMA. 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. ? How would a regulation define and prove cumulative impacts? Restoration Goal SMP 7: Policies Restore habitat and the natural systems to improve shoreline ecological functions. WAC173-26(31)"Restore," "restoration" or"ecological restoration" means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions. SMP 7.1 Restoration Plan on Public Land 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 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. ? Incentives again. Critical Areas Element Policies 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 90.58.060 Review and adoption of guidelines --Public hearings, notice of--Amendments. ? Wrong RCW? 6 3-22-12 SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT WAC173-26(13)"Ecological functions" or"shoreline functions" means the work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. 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. ? Mitigation measures can be extremely expensive and never ending since there are no quantifiable results by which to measure and judge success. 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 e�sting homes only when relocation or reconstruction is infeasible. Do not allow structural shoreline stabilization that will result in a net loss of ecological function. RCW90.58.100(6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single-family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. 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 10.3 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). (A)Where the local government provides more effective public access through a public access planning process described in WAC 173-26-221 (4)(c). (B)Where it is demonstrated to be infeasible due to reasons of incompatible uses,safety, security, or impact to the shoreline environment or due to constitutional or other legal limitations that may be applicable. 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. ? Could have a chilling affect on large,new economic developments. 7 3-22-12 SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT SMP 10.11 Incentives Incentives such as density or bulk and dimensional bonuses should be considered if development proposals include additional public access beyond that required by this SMP. ? Incentives again. SMP 11.8 Non-Motorized Recreation Preference shall be given to non-motorized recreational activities. ? Would you need an ordinance banning motorized use? Shoreline Use Element Policies Gene�al Use Policies 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. 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. ? Can be low priority per 12.13 but can't be prohibited without zone change. Shoreline Moclifications SMP 12-24 Restoration of Impaired Ecological Functions Plan for the restoration of impaired ecological functions where feasible and appropriate,while accommodating permitted uses. ? Public or private property? ? Who would define and determine the impaired function? Piers and Docks SMP 12-28 Dock Size Restrict the size of new docks to the minimum necessary to serve a proposed water-dependent use. RCW90.58.030(3)(e)"Substantial developmenY'.... The following shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this chapter: (vii)Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multiple-family residences. ? I do not see size within the RCW's. 8 3-22-12 SHORELINE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT SMP 12-31 Joint Use and Community Docks Require residential development of more than two dwellings to provide community docks,rather than individual docks. ? Can you require this without a zone change? SMP-12-48 Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects Advocate and foster habitat and natural public system enhancement projects which restore the natural character and function of the shoreline provided they are consistent with the Restoration Plan. Gravel Pits SMP 12-50 Water Dependent Uses E�sting Gravel Pit Operations are considered water dependent uses. WAC173-26-20(39) "Water-dependent use" means a use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the water and which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. 9 � Attachment 10 futur��vise Bur►ding comrriuniiies Pratecring rhe l�rrrd April 12, 2012 Mr. Bill Bates, Chairman City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,Washington 99206 Dear Chairman Bates and Planning Commissioners: Subject: Comments on the Draft Goals and Policies for the Shoreline Master Program for the April 12, 2012 Planning Commission public hearing Sent by email to: planning @ spokanevalle, .y or� & d�riffith @ spokanevalle. .y or� Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Spokane Valley's draft Goals and Policies for the Shoreline Master Program. These comments are submitted on behalf of Futurewise, The Lands Council, and the Spokane Riverkeeper. Futurewise is a statewide public interest group working to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland, forests and shorelines today and for future generations. Futurewise, The Lands Council, and the Spokane Riverkeeper have members across Washington State, including the City of Spokane Valley. Futurewise, The Lands Council and the Spokane Riverkeeper strongly support the shoreline master program update and the draft goals and policies. The draft goals and policies improve the management of the City of Spokane Valley's shorelines including the valuable Spokane River. Goals and Policies We Particularly Support While we support the goals and policies, with some suggestions, we want to mention our support the following goals and policies: ■ Shoreline enhancement is important to economic development and quality of life. The policy of the Shoreline Management Act, in RCW 90.58.020 directs the enhancement of the public interest. So it is appropriate that Goal SMP 1 calls on the city to "[e]nhance the City's shorelines". ■ Ensuring no net loss of ecological function is the cornerstone of the updated shoreline master program and is required by state guidelines. Policy SMP 1.3 calls for ensuring no net loss of ecological functions. The City of Spokane Valley is wise to include it as one of its basic policies.l � For example WAC 173-26-186(8)(b)provides that"[l]ocal master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions." While the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines are called"guidelines,"they are actually binding rules and all local government shoreline master programs have to comply with the guidelines. RCW 90.58.080(7). � � � � 11 •' 1� - � • � � 1 . � 1 . 1. F• ' City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission Apri112, 2012 Page 2 ■ Property rights are important. Policy SMP 1.4 which recognizes the need to achieve 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. ■ Establishing order of use preferences provides clarity and reserves our limited shoreline areas, only 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, for those uses that make the best use of these limited areas. Policy SMP 1.7 incorporates the use preferences for shorelines of state-wide significance into the shoreline master program policies. ■ It is good policy to take every opportunity to prevent pollution and protect water quality. Policy SMP 4.5 requires that all development within the shoreline jurisdiction area shall provide stormwater treatment for all new and redeveloped pollution generating impervious surfaces. This is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act policy of giving preference to uses which prevent pollution and the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines. ■ Parking does not benefit from or enhance shorelines. SMP 4.6, directs that parking should be as far from the shoreline as feasible, and SMP 4.7, establishes that parking as a primarily use should not be allowed within shoreline jurisdiction. Our shoreline areas are very limited and should be reserved for uses that require or benefit from a shoreline location, not uses that can locate anywhere as primary parking facilities can. ■ Public access is a community value. Policy SMP 4.9 calls for retaining unused public rights-of-way as shoreline accesses. These public owned corridors are excellent opportunities to allow the public to see and access shorelines. ■ Ensuring consistency with other environmental policies is a practice of good government. The Critical Areas Element on pages 8 and 9 is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act policy of protecting the natural environment and the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines which require no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.� ■ Avoidance of impacts is the best defense. We strongly support the avoidance polices; Policy SMP 6.6 provides that"[d]evelopment shall avoid and if avoidance is not possible, mitigate negative impacts ..." Other policies also address avoiding impacts. Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the Mitigation that Works Foruin emphasized the need to avoid impacts on wetlands and other aquatic resources to effectively protect these resources.3 Because mitigation is expensive, avoidance can help developers too. ■ As our population increases, we need more public access. One of the policies of Washington's Shoreline Management Act is to increase public access to publicly owned rivers, streams, and lakes.4 The development needed to accommodate growth can interfere with the traditional public accesses that locals have used for years to boat, swim, and fish. The Shoreline Master Program Guidelines implement the Shoreline �RCW 90.58.020;WAC 173-26-186(8)(b). 3 Washington State Department of Ecology,Making Mitigation Work The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum p. 7 (Olympia,Washington: Dec. 2008,Publication No. 08-06-018). Accessed on April 11, 2012 at:http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0806018.pdf ``RCW 90.58.020. City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission Apri112, 2012 Page 3 Management Act policies by including more specific requirements for public access in WAC 173-26-221(4)(d). Policy SMP 10.3 captures this policy and the requirements for public access well. ■ Docks have significant impacts to ecological functions. Public and shared docks should be the standard practice wherever possible where there is a demand for docks. However we support the Shoreline Advisory Group's provisions in SMP 12-26 and SMP 12-27 as a reasonable compromise to balance the interests of the community and the conclusions of the city's shoreline inventory and research into the feasibility of docks conducted by URS. Recommendations Proposed Policy SMP 6.1 on page 7 Proposed Policy SMP 6.1 directs "[a]reas that provide open spaces, scenic vistas, contribute to shoreline aesthetics, natural vegetation and, fish and wildlife habitat should be preserved[.]" The Shoreline Master Program Guidelines in WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) require that "[1]ocal master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions." The use of"should" in this policy indicates that protection of these areas is not always required. To be consistent with the requirements of WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) the "should" must be changed to "shall." Proposed Policy SMP 9.4 on page 10 "Gravel extraction is widely perceived to yield flood control benefits, but there is little hard evidence that the perceived benefits are real or more than ephemeral."5 However, the adverse effects of gravel removal for flood control on fish habitat and other ecological functions are real and significant.6 WAC 173-26-221(3)(c)(v) sets the minimum conditions applicable to gravel mining for flood control: provides that "Require that the removal of gravel for flood management purposes be consistent with an adopted flood hazard reduction plan and with this chapter and allowed only after a biological and geomorphological study shows that extraction has a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction, does not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and is part of a comprehensive flood management solution." Proposed Policy SMP 9.4 allows "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." While we agree that the limitations of this policy and WAC 173-26-221(3)(c)(v) should not apply to the existing permitted gravel operations, given the lack of flood control benefits of gravel removal and its very real impacts, the addition requirement that the removal be part of a comprehensive flood management solution should be added to proposed Policy SMP 9.4 so that the flood control benefits are carefully evaluated. 5 G. Mathias Kondolf,Matt Smeltzer,Lisa Kimball, White Paper:Freshwater Gravel Mining and Dredging Issues p. 81 (Prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Transportation by Center for Environmental Design Research University of California,Berkeley CA: Dec. 10,2001). Accessed on April 11,2012 at: http://wdfw.wa.�o v/publications/00056/wdfw00056.pdf �Id. at pp. 56—57. City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission Apri112, 2012 Page 4 Proposed Policies SMP 12.13 and SMP 12.50 on pages 14 and 18 We are concerned that proposed Policies SMP 12.13 and SMP 12.50 that define the existing gravel mines as water dependent uses misinterpret the concept of water dependency. WAC 173-26-020(39) defines a "[w]ater-dependent use" as "a use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the water and which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations." The gravel mines to not meet this definition. They are in their location because of gravel resources, not because they cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the water. So they cannot be defined as water dependent uses. We do not disagree with policies that allow these uses to continue with necessary measures to ensure no net losses of shoreline resources, but they do not meet the definition of water dependent and so cannot be given that classification.� Proposed Policies 12.43 and 12.44 on page 17 Proposed Policies 12.43 and 12.44 allow instream structures. Instream structures can have very significance adverse impacts on the shoreline environment and in water recreation. We recommend these policies be modified to prohibit instream structures in Natural and Conservancy Environments and their equivalent environments. Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information please contact me at telephone (509) 838-1965 or e-mail KittyC�futurewise.org Sincerely, Kitty Klitzke Eastern Washington Program Director Futurewise www.futurewise.or� Mike Petersen Executive Director The Lands Council www.landscouncil.or� Bart Mihailovich Program Director Spokane Riverkeeper www.spokaneriverkeeper•or� �The Shoreline Master Program Guidelines provide in WAC 173-26-241(3)(h)that"[a] shoreline master program should accomplish two purposes in addressing mining. First,idenrify where mining may be an appropriate use of the shoreline, which is addressed in this section and in the environment designation sections above. Second,ensure that when mining or associated activities in the shoreline are authorized, those activities will be properly sited,designed,conducted, and completed so that it will cause no net loss of ecological functions of the shareline." • The date on this letter is incorrect. This letter was f u�t u r�e �1 V I�� received by the Community Development Department on April 17, 2012 before the close of the e�►�d;nyr,�o,r,rr,�,r��*►�� comment eriod. Deanna Griffith AA, Communit Prcrteciir�g the►nnd p y Development D r-r r-r May 17, 2012 � S � Mr. Bill Bates, Chairman ? City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission � 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Dear Chairman Bates and Planning Commissioners: Subject: Additional comments on the Draft Goals and Policies for the Shoreline Master Program update Sent by email to: plannin ,spokanevallev.or�& d�riffith(c�spokanevallev.or� Thank you for leaving the record open until April 17, 2012 for public comments. The purpose of this letter is to reiterate that the key requirement for shoreline master program updates is no net loss of aquatic resources. As the Washington State Supreme Court has held: The SMA is to be broadly construed in order to protect the state shorelines as fully as possible. The policy of the SMA was based upon the recognition that shorelines are fragile and that the increasing pressure of additional uses being placed on them necessitated increased coordination in their management and development. The SMA provides that it is the policy of the State to provide for the management of the shorelines by planning for and fostering all "reasonable and appropriate uses". This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally the public right of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.i To implement this policy the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines require, in WAC 173- 26-186(8)(b), that"[1]ocal master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions." While the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines are called"guidelines," they are actually binding rules and all local government shoreline master program updates have to comply with the guidelines.� The Shoreline Management Act's policy to protect shorelines is underlined in a recent decision of the court of appeals. In Samson v. City ofBainbridge Island, the court of appeals concluded that"our legislature did not intend any special preference for private docks" in the Shoreline Management Act.3 The court went on to uphold Bainbridge Island's amendment to its shoreline master program to prohibit private docks on Blakely i Buechel v. State Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196,203, 884 P2d 910,915 (1994)footnotes omitted. �RCW 90.58.080(7). 3 Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 149 Wn. App. 33, 51,202 P.3d 334,343 (2009)review denied by Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 166 Wn.2d 1036,218 P.3d 921 (2009). � ■ 11 ■ •` i� • a I• � City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission ATTACHMENT#12 May 17, 2012 Page 2 Harbor to protect views of the harbor and the harbor's fish and wildlife habitat.4 The court also concluded that the prohibition did not violate the state or federal constitutions.s The Washington Supreme Court chose not to review the court of appeals decision.6 Like docks on salt water, docks on fresh water lakes, rivers, and streams can adversely impact shoreline views, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitats.� We urge you to adopt policies and regulations for docks that will achieve no net loss of ecological functions as the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines require. These regulations must also protect the public interest in navigating our rivers, lakes, and streams.8 Of course docks are not the only shoreline developments that threaten our rivers, streams, and lakes. We urge you to adopt policies and regulations to protect our shorelines from all of these threats and to protect the public interest in accessing our rivers, lakes, and streams and protecting our shorelines.9 Thank you for considering our comments. If you require additional information please contact me at telephone (509) 838-1965 or e-mail Kitty@futurewise.org Sincerely, Kitty Klitzke Eastern Washington Program Director Tim Trohimovich, WSBA No. 22367 Director of Planning and Law 4 Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 149 Wn. App. 33, 57-58,202 P.3d 334,346-347(2009). s Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 149 Wn. App. 33,60—64,202 P.3d 334,348—50(2009). 6 Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 166 Wn.2d 1036,218 P.3d 921 (2009). 'Jose Carrasquero of Herrera Environmental Consultants, White Paper Over-Water Str�uctures:Freshwater Issues pp. 5 to 20(submitted to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Ecology,&Washington Department of Transportarion: April 12,2001). Accessed on April 16,2012: http://wdfw.wa.�ov/publications/00052/wdfw00052.pdf 8 Buechel v. State Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wn2d 196,203, 884 P.2d 910, 915 (1994). 9 RCW 90.58.020. Attachment 12 �I�'�'1SS�'"'�a April 12,��12 Spolcane 4'alley�lanning Cammsssion City of S�okarZe Valley 117�7 E S�rague AvQnueA Suite 1C16 5�olcane 1+'alley,WA 99206 R�: 5horelira� NVaster Program 2D12 ?�licies Dear 5pokane V�Iley Pl�nning C�rrtmission, Thank you For the opportunity fo�'�auk�lic ec�mrnent on tl�e draft Shore#ine Master Pragram. I am reqresenting Avista for tonig3�t's�ornments ar�d was aisa a memher of the Shoreline Advisary Group during the development ef this document. I waufc� lilce to suggest m�nor�hang�s to Section 3.�.1Jtilities. Atta�hed is a capy of language regardit�g aur utilities that wauld assist for e[arification and interpr�tation purposes regarding aur fiacilities and future growt�far Avista. Sincerely, ;, � Robin L. B�Icltedahl Sr. ErovRranmental5cientist Attachment 1411 East Missinn Avenue Pp Bax 3727 8�6Q.2279�87 Spokane, Washingtan 99220-3727 www.aWisiaut�f+Yies.r,vm � Polr`cies SNiP 3.1 Latatian L�cate new pieblic faeil�ties attd utils�ies, including, but not litni�ed to, utility production, pr4cessing, dist�ibution,and transmissi�n facilities autside of die shoreline jurisdi�tion wl�enever feasible. SMP 3.�Place Underground F�equire new utilities and facilities that must be �acat�d within tl�e shoreli»e ta be bui�t undergraui�d, if feasible, and titili�e !ow i�npact, lc�w �rofile design azzd constructioi3 ir�ethods to the maxinnum exten#p�ssible. Y'�r.�'�!i'�•�e� Y�:s���l,:i��� R.ed�uir•�ne�v ti�tiliti��; �izrl f:icilitie� #hr�t �tt+�st he lacated t�;i#hijZ #l�� slkor�lin� ta f�e bisilt t�tle�er�t`[��ti�ci. if f�asi�lo,�i��i islilize the l�c.st cc�r�sft�.�ctiou�i��l�e�'tgn r�3efhorfs t�the exte�t� possi6le. 11�5r.�r�. �t� ��r:`1 r' rlj��i��'I,;:r �•1{r,�i.� f��, (�'�`:�rr!C�lC�,�;Tt'zlf t'1J 11"r�r:�' fr7 �,..-�i;l f�175��t7tx� � SMP 3.3�xisting Rigltts-o�►�ay Require new u#ilities and facilities to�ie Ioca�ed in existing rights-c�f-way whenevee�passible. SMI'3.�t Mai�it�nance ��,.,� �s,;�:,;,�3f:� Design Whe�� existing utilities f.�ci����, . .��.� �a�:i,�.; r�f , , :,r.° lacafed within shoreline jurisdictipn :��?�.i require mainteiiance or otlter impr�vements, the maintenancelirnp��o�einent shvuld be designed and implementsd to mi�limiz�: additic�r�al itnpacts a�i the shoreline en�ironment.- �:.�: }' �;•:::, f° `�. :-. .., �'t�_-rt ��4i�!�-� . ,:e'E ._� � - I; . �� 'k� — .4>>r�1cr�reec�s t��tn� arrly�kee�� th�fcrcilrries rri gor�rl, r��lr'abl�co��r�i�rnrl �i��tf►�•car°kir�g�rc��r° birt rrlsv�he rfglrls r±f ti►�rry. �'�ge�calrcara arac7i�crgeart�rr!of tlre rigl�ls�rf��i�c�v rs ex�reedec�r����!r��'c'eFSr:��}� iCer�r 1� e�rs�rre lf�cr! ,�trl1 �7r�n���itt� �r�r:es r1c� ►tcrl %rrfl u�-j�r��?n?'ea�it.p th� li�r�.e. l'Ii�r1e����•ca���re-�li�ie,s r7jse� r��er� ir3=�ete�tiat� � ,r ,r�, � �r. �',ni;;;_ 'j• , �. � :i?,. �� V.I;Ii� ,., i t r 1:ri . l�.'r i � � !,+ ��� . . SMP 3.S�'re�'erence#o Exrsting Facili#ies and Utilities Gi�e prefe�-ence ta establis�ied util�ty C�1"1'1i�fl1`S and rights-of-way for u�grades. �u:��jar=:,�,.-,�.� and recarxstruction nf existixig utilities a�id fa�ilities, ui�less a locatitrzi with less pateiitial to impact the shoreline environment is available. SMP 3.6 Stormwater Facilities Storinwater utilities wili be designed a�ad Iacated as to minimiz�environmental impacfs within tt�e shareiine jurisdic#io». if lacated w�thin the s#�o�•eline jurisdiction fhey shall r�equis�e tiye use af best managernent praetices te.g. biofilti�ation measures}and la�3dsca�ing with nati�e�egetatiwi ta�ror�ide habitat,ecalogical resfraration, and aesthetic imprrorrements. A[1 stormwater facilities rr4ust protect water q�aality,rnanage r�inoff���cl add��ess erasivn cc�ntrol and sedi��entation. Attachment 13 �� W I T H E R S P O O N•K E L L E Y SPOKANE � COEUR D'ALENE Attorneys&Counselors F.J.Dullanty,Jr., Admitted in Washington email:fjd@witherspoonkelley.com April 12, 2012 City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission Attn: Lori Barlow & Deanna Griffith Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline ManagementAct Plan Proposed Goals and Policies Dear Planning Commission Members: We have been asked by Centennial Properties and Pinecroft Business Park, both property owners in Spokane Valley, whose property borders the Spokane River, to comment on the proposed goals and polices which are currently before you for public hearing. We have reviewed in detail both the memorandum from Tadas Kisielius of VanNess Feldman GordonDerr, attorneys in Seattle, dated March 15, 2012, as well as the attached matrix. For the most part, we are in agreement with Mr. Kisielius's comments as indicated both in his memorandum of March 15, 2012, and his attached matrix. First, it is important to understand that our comments are based upon, in part, the policy of the Shoreline Management Act found in RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 36.70A.480 of the Growth Management Act which sets forth the relationship of the Shoreline Management Act with respect to the Critical Areas requirement found under the GMA. Second, it is our clients' intent that whatever goals and policies are adopted and the regulatory framework which will follow thereafter be such that the Spokane River, the primary water body contained within the City, become a prominent feature enjoyed by all while at the same time, improving and restoring the river protecting the quality of the river and its ecological function and values. The SMA states: It is a policy of the State to provide for the management of shorelines of the State by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to ensure the development of the shorelines in a manner which, while allowing 422 bb`. Riverside Avenue, 5uice I I 00 Iel: 509.624.5265 5pokane, �h�ashinf;tt�n 992Q1-0300 Pax: _i0�3.45a.2728 �vN�w.�vitherspoonkel le�y.con�i 50497027.DOCX City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission April 12, 2012 Page 2 -------------------------------------------------- for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigation waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land, vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protectin� en�v public ri� continuing of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. RCW 90.58.020. Further, it is stated: In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the State shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interests of the State and the people generally. � Id. The key to the Shoreline Management Act is that it fosters all reasonable and appropriate uses of the Shoreline and waters of the State. With that in mind, our comments are as to the matrix supplied by Mr. Kisielius regarding the goals and policies drafted both by the Shoreline Advisory Group and with changes as submitted by Centennial Properties are as follows. SMP 1.1. We would agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments, as to the degree of coordination the City can provide with adjacent jurisdictions. Centennial's comments were meant to further encourage and require that coordination. The Spokane River travels through a number of jurisdictions, each of which has their own Shoreline Master Plan. In one area, from Upriver Dam to Plantes Ferry Park, a stretch of river which is unique and developed with both industrial and residential uses is within four separate jurisdictions. It would be appropriate if the Shoreline Master Plan for this area conceivably could be the same and/or coordinated within the various jurisdictions. SMP 1.2. Again, we would agree with Mr. Kisielius, especially as his comment relates to Section B of his memorandum. Centennial's strikeout was to clear up any confusion with respect to the relationship of the Critical Area Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Plan. RCW 36.78.480(3)(a) states The policies, goals and provisions of Chapter 90.58 RCW [Shoreline Management Act] and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of the Shoreline Master Program with this chapter except as the Shoreline Master Program is required to comply with internal consistency provisions of RCW 36.78.070, 36.78.040(4), 35.63.125, and 35A.63.105. City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission April 12, 2012 Page 3 -------------------------------------------------- Not every part of the Spokane River is a "Critical Area" as that term is defined under the GMA. Rather, Critical Areas may include the river, but those sections must be adopted specifically after they meet the criteria found within the Critical Area requirements of GMA. RCW 36.78.480(5) states: Shorelines of the State shall not be considered Critical Areas under the Chapter except to the extent that specific areas located within shorelines of the State qualify for critical area designation based on the definition of critical areas provided by RCW 36.78.030(5) and had been designated as such by local government pursuant RCW 36.70A.060(2). We believe that our suggested strikeout meets that definition and we believe that is consistent with Mr. Kisielius's memorandum, section B. SMP 1.3. The City used the term "guarantee" with respect to a no-net loss regarding shoreline ecological functions. We struck the term "guarantee" and substituted the term "protects". We would agree with Mr. Kisielius that it may be acceptable to use the exact language of the statute and it would appear that our addition of"to the greatest extent possible is acceptable as well" and adds more clarity to the section. SMP 1.4. Substitution of the word "protects" for "consistent with" is stronger and more adequately protects private property rights within the confines of the SMA. Mr. Kisielius's section C of his memo would agree and he clearly lays out the issues with respect to regulatory takings, substantive due process and private property rights. We believe that the City should take a strong position with respect to anything that may interfere with private property rights that go beyond the confines of police power under the Shoreline Management Act. SMP 1.5. There may be some confusion on the part of Mr. Kisielius with respect to our suggested changes. Shoreline goals and policies provide the basis for the regulatory framework which is to follow the goals and policies. The shoreline environments are based upon the inventory that was provided and adopted by the City over one year ago. That inventory was very general. In addition, Centennial Properties did its own specific inventory, which was adopted as an appendix to the overall inventary adopted by the City. Regulations within specific environments primarily will rely on the use of "buffers". Historically, the Department of Ecology, as well as other regulatory agencies, attempt to adopt a "one size fits all" buffer regardless of the environment that is indicated by the inventory, or based generally upon a specific inventory or environment which may or may not be appropriate given a specific property. As we go forward with goals and policies, one of the primary concerns is that property owners will be locked in to a specific environment, regardless of its applicability, or its consistency with the actual existing environment. It is Centennial's attempt to begin a process of City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission April 12, 2012 Page 4 -------------------------------------------------- flexibility with respect to determining what the specific "environment" is and more importantly, to ensure the goals and policies provide that flexibility. It should be noted, that the term "buffer" is not a term used in the Shoreline Management Act. In fact, there may be circumstances with respect to various uses and shoreline environments that a buffer may not be appropriate. Yet, the goals and policies, as drafted by SAG, clearly indicate the necessity for a buffer along the entire river with in Spokane Valley. If the City is to require buffers, the burden is upon the City to prove the necessity of that particular buffer.� In short, Centennial is asking that flexibility be available within the specific designation of the Shoreline environments based upon specific detailed shoreline inventory within each of those designated areas. Precedence has already taken place with the City's adoption as an appendix of Centennial's specific detailed shoreline inventory. SMP 1.6. We would agree with Mr. Kisielius and suggest that some modification to this particular goal and policy be made. SMP 1.8. It was Centennial's intent that the burden is on the governmental entity with respect to "buffers" and other regulatory matters which may in fact deprive the property owner of reasonable uses which are used by other property owners in the City but for the fact that they are not within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. We truly believe that if the regulation of shorelines along the river are for the benefit of the City as a whole and the public generally, as found in RCW 90.58.020, then some of the burdens of protecting the ecological functions and values of the shoreline as well as enhancing the shoreline, should fall on the public as a whole and not onto a specific property owners who simply owns property within the jurisdiction of the SMA. That sharing of burden does not have to be monetary, but can be through the use of flexibility and other tools within the SMP and other land use regulations. For example, a well-designed and well-kept shoreline can be an attractive asset to the river, especially for those who actually enjoy the river itself through boating, swimming or other water uses. Centennial is simply asking that the goals allow for offsetting benefits and flexibility with respect to the regulatory framework to be adopted to administer the SMP. SMP 2.6. We agree with Mr. Kisielius's comment and believe that some changes should be made to this particular section. SMP 3.4. Again, we agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments and suggest that Centennial's version reflects the change to ensure property owners can prune, replace, remove and modify vegetative buffers along as the impact is to protect the ecological function and value of the particular water � A "one size buffer "or buffer without any meaning full analysis by the City may run afoul to cases such as Isla Verde v. City of Camas, 146 Wash.2d 740, 49 P.3d 867 (2002); Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 1 14 Wn.2d 320,787 P.2d 907(1990);Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374, 1 14 S.Ct 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304(1994); and RCW 82.02.020. City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission April 12, 2012 Page 5 -------------------------------------------------- body such as the river. Clearly, property owners wish to have the ability to ensure and maintain the value of those properties which lie within the jurisdiction of the SMP. SMP 3.5. We agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments, but are concerned that based upon Section 1.3 the term "guarantee" is used in lieu of the term "ensure". Should that language be changed, his comment is acceptable. SMP 3.6. The term "habitat" restoration is a term that has multiple meanings and may or may not be appropriate at specific locations. Again, based upon Mr. Kisielius's comments, in section C of his memorandum, we believe some change is necessary. We want to make it clear that "habitat management" does not mean that a buffer be created leaving an area in a completely natural and wild state. A determination must first be made as to what "habitat" is being protected. Habitat management in urban areas or areas where development has occurred is completely different than habitat in rural areas where there is no development. Again, that distinction must be made and the burden is upon the municipality to make that distinction in its regulatory framework as well as the goals and policies. SMP 4. We agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments. SMP 4.1. Again, depending upon the term used by the City, we believe our comment of substituting the word "protecting" for "preserving" is more appropriate. Please see SMP 1.3 and 1.4 and the comments thereto. SNIP 4.7. We have some concerns with respect to Mr. Kisielius's comments in this area. First, best available science is not a requirement of the SMA. Secondly, we believe that current wastewater management guidelines as adopted by Spokane County, Spokane Valley, and other jurisdictions are in fact based upon science and would appropriately be able to manage any concerns or problems that may arise. Again, it is our intent to provide flexibility and that parking lots should be allowed given that appropriate concerns can be addressed. SNIP 4.9. We believe the City should clearly research statutes with respect to street vacations. The terms "right-of-way" has many meanings and depending upon how the governmental entity acquired the right-of-way may very well depend on its ability to use it for other than traffic purposes. Generally, abutting property owners own to the center of the right-of-way subject to its particular use. SMP 4.11. We believe Centennial's comments speak for themselves and provide a higher degree of flexibility with respect to the SMA's goals and policies. SMP 4.12. We would agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments. City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission April 12, 2012 Page 6 -------------------------------------------------- SMP 5.1. We would agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments. SMP 5.2. We agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments. SMP 5.3. Our comment assumed that with respect to certain historic areas over the points and that public access was already available. We believe the term water bodies added greater possibilities. SMP 5.6. We believe this particular policy is unnecessary and would add confusion as Mr. Kisielius stated it is in the discretion of the Council whether to prove, delete, or modify the policy, we would request that it would be deleted. SMP 5.16. This section goes to our view of the overall purpose of the SMP and what it means to the City. We believe goals and policies should encourage economic development of the shoreline that will enhance the viability of the City. SMP 6.1. We disagree with Mr. Kisielius's comments, in that we do not believe a proposed revision eliminate regulatory tools that address concerns and represent and opposite extreme. We believe that in appropriate circumstances, wildlife habitat needs to be preserved. However, the type of wildlife habitat and the areas of preservation need to be closely scrutinized. Under the Critical Area requirements of GMA, wildlife habitat may be endangered or threaten species, but clearly not every type of wildlife is covered by those rules. We suggest that large buffers of "natural" and/or "native" vegetation necessarily accomplish that goal, especially if an area is fully developed. SMP 6.2. We are concerned with Mr. Kisielius's comments such as "in addition to standard buffers". There is no such thing as standard buffer. In fact, as stated previously, the term buffer is not mentioned nor required by the SMA. Creating requirements for "standard buffers" may violate case law such as Isla Verde v. Ciry of Camas, Nollon v. California Coastal Commission, Dolan v. Tigard, and RCW 8�.02.020. The City should be very cautious when it uses the term "standard buffer" and attempts to adopt the same. We recognize that "buffers" may need to be a part of the SMP, we are only suggesting that buffer averaging be ensured and that buffers play a true role based upon the shoreline itself and individual cirmcumstances. SMP 6.3. We would agree with Mr. Kisielius and request that Centennial's proposed SMP 6.3 be adopted. SMP 6.4. The responsibility to ensure no net loss and signs demonstrate habitat connectively is a burden that falls on the City. Specific habitat needs to be defined. City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission April ]2,2012 Page 7 -------------------------------------------------- SMP 6.5. We would agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments. SMP 6.6. Again wildlife habitat may or may not be a requirement of a specific environment of a shoreline depending upon its use and the existing condition. We do not believe that our proposed changes are inconsistent with SMA requirements. SMP 7.1. We would agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments. I believe that Centennial's suggested language is appropriate. SMP 8. First, the City must adopt critical areas within the SMP pursuant to RCW 36.7A.�80 before this goal and policy is effective. That should be reflected in SMP 8. SMP 8.1. Again, we would agree with Mr. Kisielius's memo with respect to section B and would suggest that this section be modified to clearly indicate that is applicability is only to those critical areas adopted pursuant to the GMA. SMP 8.5. Centennial's comments appear to be acceptable to Mr. Kisielius, with the exception that we would remove the word "uses" and insert the term "structures". SMP 10.3. We would agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments and believe that our comments adequately address his concerns found in section B of his memorandum. SNIP 10.4. Mr. Kisielius's memo section C would address this section and we believe supports our suggestion of removing the last part of the particular paragraph. SMP 12.5. We want to ensure that the term "non-conforming uses" is clearly understood. Non- conforming uses and/or structures are intended to be eliminated at some point in time. Accordingly, the ability to modify, enhance or possibly enlarge non-conforming uses are generally prohibited and/or highly restricted. What we are suggesting is that the use of "non- conforming uses" be softened in that if property owners wish to enhance a particular use, even though it doesn't met current SMP guidelines, they should be allowed to do so simply because they are in fact improving the shoreline environment. Additionally, Mr. Kisielius's reference to RCW 90.58.620 relates only to residential uses and does not relate to any other type of development or uses along the river. SMP 12.22. We would agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments and believe that our modifications meet those concerns. SMP 12.27. Again, we agree with Mr. Kisielius's comments. Docks are a permitted use within the SMA. We also believe that there are sufficient regulatory guidelines in existence from other agencies which would handle the City's concerns with respect to safety and other issues. We City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission April 12, 2012 Page 8 -------------------------------------------------- also believe that common sense needs to be taken into consideration with respect to this particular section. SMP 12.31. This section is not required by the SMA with respect to community docks. Rather, we believe that community docks can be more appropriate than single docks with respect to the river environments. However, this is one of those areas which community docks should be encouraged and allowed with trade-offs and flexibility. These consist of our comments and while lengthy in nature, we attempted to address the basis of the concerns we raised earlier and the basis of our concerns which we have been unable to provide in the past. We believe Mr. Kisielius has provided an extremely valuable tool to the City and believe that based upon his memorandum and comments substantial modifications to the goals and policies need to take place. We hope that can happen prior to presentation to the City Council. Very truly yours, W[THERSP • KELL . . ullanty, Jr. FJD/kh cc: Doug Yost � John Miller Jamie Traeger Betsy Cowles Deanne Logan