The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 05/10/2012 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 - . � [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 proj ects. 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 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: May 10, 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. The table has been expanded to include comments received and staff recommendations specific to policies. Compiling information in this manner allows persons to compare and contrast the opinions and recommendations with each affected policy. It should be noted that not all comments received are conducive to this format since they may deal with a comprehensive issue rather than a specific policy. However, all comments will be considered. While the table provides a useful tool to process the information, it results in an abundance of material. Bear in mind that not every comment requires discussion. The public review process provides an opportunity for comment, while the Commission determines if the comments require a change to the draft, or warrant further discussion. Commissioners should review the table and determine which items they would like to discuss, while also considering the issues noted in the staff recommendation column. Mr. Kisielius will be present to provide assistance to the Commission during deliberations. 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 1 of 2 Attachment 3. Centennial Properties Comments July 19, 2011 Attachment 4. Doug Pineo's Comments July 22, 2011 New comments received: Attachment 5: Jacob McCann—April 17,2012 Attachment 6: Jamie Short, DOE—April 12, 2012 Attachment 7: Jamie Short, DOE- April 5, 2012 Attachment 8: Nathan Smith—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: Centennial Properties—April 12, 2012 Attachment 14: Comment Table— Expanded May 3, 2012 2 of 2 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 April 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 Bariow - — From: snort, 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 Atta�he�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! —Jaime Jaime Short WA State Dept of Ecology ' 4601 N. Monroe ' Spokane,WA 99205 ' 509.329.3411 l . 1 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. (SO496625; 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 future�vise Building communities Protecting the lond 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 Va11ey'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 .0 1 . 1• City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission April 12, 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,Publicarion 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 April 12, 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.�ov/publications/00056/wdfw00056.pdf �Id. at pp. 56—57. City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission April 12, 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,identify where mining may be an appropriate use of the shoreline, which is addressed in this section and in the environment designarion 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 shoreline." • The date on this letter is incorrect. This letter was �� "'�1�I��] received by the Community Development �� Department on April 17, 2012 before the close of the Building comme�nities comment eriod. Deanna Griffith AA, Communit Protecring rhe lund 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 � � �iiiVISTA° i I April 12, 2012 �� I i I'� Spokane Valley Planning Commission City of Spolcane Valley 11707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 ! RE: Shoreline Master Program 2Q12 Policies i Dear Spokane Valley Planning Commission, � Thanl<you for the opp�rtunity for public comment on the draft Shoreline Master Program. I am �', representing Avista for tonight's comments and was also a member of the Shoreline Advisory ', Group during the development of this document. I� I would like to suggest minor changes tp Section 3.1 Utilities. Attached is a copy af language regarding our utilities that would assist for clarification and interpretation purposes regarding �', our facilities and future growth for Avista. Sincerely, ,- - ,• � �, � ;i Robin L. Bekl<edahl Sr. Environmental Scientist Attachment � 1411 East Mission Avenue I PO Box 3727 800.227.9187 Spokane, Washinqton 99220-3727 www.avistautilities.r.pm I� 3 Policies SMP 3.1 Lacatian Locate new public facilities and utilities, including, but not lirnited ta, utility production, processing, distribution, and transmission facilities outside of the shoreline jurisdiction whcnever feasible. SMP 3.2 Place Underground Require new utilities and facilities that nnust be located within the shoreline to be built underground, if feasible, and utilize low impact, low profile design and construction methods to the maxiinum extent possible. �� e°,,�� li :i1� �.�;,, R.�quir� n��,v utilities and fas,i_lities that n�it�st l�� loc,ated �viihi�� tl�e slioreline to b� built under�-ot�iid, if f�asibl�,ancl t�tili�e tl�e l�est coristructioii ai�d design met.l�o�ls to the exter�t possible. .�� '� � ��'l�'C_��. �t..:;l��'�,1'l�, :.'�l" ,4,-� �.J; �. ��i.. �r-r,�jC<:(�C� � fr� ; '1 jf?j,S c�v1% 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 Maintienance �-��!:� ��_ � .�.r__�_ Design When existing utilities I;.:;i ,� < :; ,� ,,,�� •i �. __: located within shoreline jurisdiction �.�,,:i require maintenance or other improvements, the maintenance/impravement shauld be designed and i►nplemented to minimize additional impacts on the shor�line environment: ::�:�, �i },.;�:.;ii.t:�: ::.> � ., _.�f; �.•�� _ ; �,,; ._. �._ Ar�ista�reeds to �toi o��tly k.ee�� t1�e facilities i?�i goorl, r�elar�ble cor�c�itio�! crr�c�i�vo1•ki��g o��der �ttt alro t1�e t�igl7ts c�f'i��c�y. Vegetc7tio�� ntcrnczge��errt of the rights �f i��cry is c�fieec�ec��rirl tkecessrr;y rtem to e3rslrre -�'rcrl tr.ttl �ro��iiag tr�ces rlc� i�n1 fnll or jeo�>�,�c�i�.� th� lirtes, Ih,r��rgroiri��l lirres r�I,s� �reerl vegetatior� �, � � i'; � "� � ..�,i !�� f _ .� !� - _-ri�_% 1 . . ��_'� tl I _.7��i.��, _ _ �:.?...%f r i'(.%'.�,..iir.� �/iiC':1'. � .�'_. _. . - _. . . i SMP 3.5 Preference to Existing Facilities and Utilities I�, Give preference to established utility corridors and rights-of-way for upgrades, j!!��i�?r=::,:� ��;�: and reconstruction of existing utilities and faeilities, tmless a location with less potential to impact the shoreline environment is available. SMF 3.6 Stormwater Facilities I Stormwater utilities will be designed and located as to minimize environmental impacts within the '� shoreline jurisdiction. If located within the shoreline jurisdiction they shall rec�uire the use oi best I management practices(c.g. biofiltration measures)and landscaping with native vegetation to provide II habitat,ecological restoration, aild aesthetic improvements.All stormwater facilities must protect water quality,manage runoff and address erosion control and sedimentation. 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 afou] 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 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Enhance the Citys shorelines Enhance and utilize Ihe City's "use"is always better than Fu[urewise Comments: No change. byestablishing and shorelines byestablishing and "utilize",and is more consistent Shoreline enhancement is importantto implementing goals,policies, implementing goals,policies, with ihe SMA. However,ihis economic development and qualiry of and regulationswhich promote and regulationswhich promote goals statement is aboutthe life.The policyof the Shoreline a mixture of reasonable and a mixNre of reasonable and SMA's prime directive to enhance ManagementAct,in RCW 90.58.020 appropriate shoreline uses lhat appropriate shoreline uses that and protect the naNrel charecter, directs the enhancement of the public improve ihe Citys charecter, improve ihe Citys character, resources and ecology of interest So it is appropriate that Goal foster its historic and wlturel foster its historic and cWtural shorelines of statewide SMP 1 calls on the city to"[e]nhance lhe identity and conserve identity,and conserve significance.The very same Citys shorelines" environmenfal resources. environmenfal resources. sentence already includes the phrese"which promote a K Anderson comments: mixture of reasonable and Enhance Ihe Citys shorelines by appropriate shoreline use5', establishing and implementing goals, making the addition ofeither"use" policies,and regulationswhich promote or"utif¢e"redundant and a mlxNre of reasonable and appropriate syntacticallyobnoxious. shorelineuses'�F;��tT� reseurces Coordinate shoreline planning Coordinate shoreline planning This sentence already contains K Anderson comments: RCW 90.58.130 sefs out the legal No change—the city has made between the Ciry of Spokane between Ihe Ciry of Spokane the phrese,"adjoining Coordinate shoreline planning between standard for participation and the City has efforts to involve private property I Valley,agencies with Valley,agencies with jurisdictions". More redundancy. the City of Spokane Valley, rip vate some discretion in choosing how to owners,and will continue to do jurisdiction,adjoining jurisdiction,adjoining All constiNencies,including properN owners,agencies with implement the standard.According to the so.The public review process jurisdictions,the State of jurisdictions,the State of property owners,are already jurisdictioq adjoining jurisdictions,the staNte the Cityshould"invite"and allows numerous opportunities — Washington,and Ihe State of Washington,and the State of induded in Ihe phrese"special State of Washington,and Ihe State of "actively encourage"Ihe participation of for involvement The intent of Idaho into which the river basin Idaho into which the river basin interest groups". Idaho into which Ihe river basin extends, the generel publiq private groups,and Ihis policy is to coordinate with a extends,and consider Ihe extends,and consider the and consider the plans of non- local and state agencies. Moreover,the other groups or agencies that plans of non-govemment plans of adiacent iurisdiction, govemment organizations(NGO's) staNte directs local governments and may be engaged in planning organizatiore(NGO's)and/or propertv owners,the Citv and/or special interest groups. state agencies to take advantage of ihe functions. — specialinterestgroups. vislon non-government opportuniryandactivelyparticipate.Thus organizatiore(NGO's)and/or to some degree the Ciry can choose how U special interest groups. it encoureges ihe participation of ihese various groups "Coordination"suggests a a broad version of participation,but this is g within the Citys discretion to choose this � ath. Page 1 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni�«14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Ensure that the Cityof Ensure that lhe Cityof The law and rules require that See Memo section B for discussion of It is recogn¢ed ihat different Spokane Valley Shoreline Spokane Valley Shoreline GMA and SMA/SMP provisions consistencywith GMA critical areas standards exist between the Master Progrem is consistent Master Progrem is consistent must be consistent,and ihat new regulations. SMA and the GMA. However with ihe Washington State with ihe Washington State and updated SMPs must be Ihe intent of the policy is to Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Management Act and consistentwith those of adjacent With respect to consistencywith the ensure consistency as directed � Grow[hManagementAct,the GrowthManagementAct,the (adjoining)jurisdictions.This SMPsofneighboringjurisdictions,the bytherules.Thefollowing basic concepts,goals,policies, basic concepts,goals,policies, phrese should be retained. City is required to invite and encourege change is recommended for and land use plan of the City of and land use plan of the Ciry of participation including municipal and darification: a Spokane Valley Spokane Valley public corporations,having interests or Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan and responsibilities relating to Ihe shorelines Change: Ensure ihat the Ciry of development regulations,the development regulations�t�e of Ihe state Spokane Valley Shoreline City of Spokane Valley Critical Bitr-'°°-'�-��: Master Program is consistent a Areas Ordinances,and ihe ..:aa�-"°.�;.e��.,-en�...::� with ihe Washington State Shoreline Master Progrems of �-"°�e""��x,°�a�r�.;.� Shoreline ManagementAct,aa� adjacentjurisdictions. �s""�;;;;�le:.�. Grow[h ManagementAct,and to the extent practical Ihe basic concepts,goals,policies of the followinq documents:�aA Lland use plan of Ihe Ciry of � Spokane Valley Comprehensive %q Planyaac�devel op m ent �j regulations,the City of Spokane ValleyCritical Areas Ordinances, a and the Shoreline Master g Progrems of adjacent � �urisdictions. Ensure Ihat all shoreline uses Ensure that all shoreline uses The SMP Guidelines and lhe SMA Fu[urewise Comments: See discussion of critical areas in section Change recommended lhat will and development are regulated and development are regulated itself require that SMPs and lheir Ensuring no net loss of ecological B of the memo. It may be simpler and replicate the language of the in a manner ihat guarentees no in a manner ihat�� implementation result in no net function is the cornerstone of the more dear to simply use the language of WAC and eliminate confusion net loss of shoreline ecological protects no net loss of ihe loss of shoreline ecological updated shoreline master progrem and is the statutory sfandard for protection of regarding policy intent. functions current of shoreline ecologlcal function(WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)). requlred by state guidelines.PolicySMP critical areas. functions to the preatest extent Use of the word'protects"in this 1.3 calls for ensuring no net loss of Ensure that all shoreline uses v�Ti o�. sentence would make no ecological functions.The Cityof and development are regulated gremmatical sense.The standard Spokane Valley is wise to include it as in a manner ihat�� in the law and rule also make no one of its basic policies. assures no net loss of shoreline _ provision for"to lhe greatest ecological funetions a o extent possible".The standard is g o "no net loss of shoreline �w ecolo ical function." Page 2 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Protect the interests of ihe Protect Ihe interests of Ihe Fu[urewise Comment: See section C of the memo. No change. public in attaining the goals of public in attaining Ihe goals of Property rights are important.Policy Y the Shoreline Master Progrem, the Shoreline Master Progrem, SMP 1.4 which recognizes the need to in a manner consistent wilh all in a manner^w;.:i:Fa�:, achieve Ihe goals of ihe Shoreline relevant coretitutlonal and that protects all relevant Master Progrem in a manner consistent a other legal limitations on the coretiWtional and other legal with all relevant constitutional and other � regulation of private property. limitations on Ihe regulation of legal limitations on Ihe regulation of private property. private property. � K Anderson Comments: Protect nrivate nronertv riahts in nromotina Ihe interests of the public in a attaining the goals of the Shoreline Master Progrem,'�:.a--��a:.�i:F# wi:��:.�"�..�.�. � ,es�.,,�,..::��,..,�„�,..,,P;e�::et��,.,�:�w �=p. Designate shoreline Designate shoreline This"Flexibility'language reFlects Policy 1.5 articulates one of the No change. environments for the City of environments for the Ciry of a fundamental misundersfanding fundamenfal planning steps involved in Spokane Valley shorelines that Spokane Valley shorelines tliat of Ihe SMA,which requires Ihe SMP development and recognizes the are consistentwith the allow for flexibilitv antl that are analysis and planning up front in importance of Ihe inventory to Ihe � Comprehensive Plan land consistentwith the the development of the SMP,so designation process. It is part of Ihe uses,shoreline management Comprehensive Plan land that propertyowners and Ihe rest required shoreline process. .c practices,and shoreline uses,shoreline management of the community,locally and w inventorywithineach practices,and shoreline statewide,knowwhattoexpect ItisnotdearwhatCentennialis designated area inventorywithin each Some property owners want to requesting in its revision calling for designated area.Allow for have ihelr cake and eat It too: "Flexlbllity'In the environments. More flexibilitvinthedesiqnationof "wewantBOTHFlexibilityand explanationorinquirymaybebeneficial — shoreline environments based certainty-"just tell us what ihe before weighing ihe benefit of this p upon specific tletailed shoreline rules are".This suggested commenL For example,the regulations inventorv within each language is also redundant,since do allow for Flexibiliry to some degree. = desipnated area the SMP planning effort is They allow for'parallel environments"Ihat already fundamenfally based on divide shorelands into different sections in the shoreline inventory and generelly running parellel to lhe shoreline analysis or along a physical feature such as a bWff a or ralroad right of way,which allows for g more shatification of Ihe shoreline.WAC � 173-26-211 4 c Page 3 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Give preference to those K Anderson comments: Both Policies 1.6 and 1 J reFlect most but Change:Add policy 1.8 to shoreline activities which fulfill Give preference to those shoreline not all of Ihe policy language from RCW address priority uses and long renge Comprehensive activities which fWfill long renge 90.58.02Q and as such,Ihe Policy is shoreline alterations. Plan goals and Ihe Shoreline Comprehensive Plan goals and the consistentwith the stalute.Although all of ManagementActpolicy ShorelineManagementActpolicy thestatutoryprovisionsapplyregardless priorities,as listed and priorities,as listed and diswssed below: of whether incorporated into the Goals diswssed below: and Policies,if the City is choosing to It is the policy of the City to provide for incorporete some aspects of RCW It is the policy of lhe Ciry to lhe management of its shorelines by 90.58.02Q it may help to include some of provide for the management of planning for and fostering all reasonable the remaining keyconcepts from RCW = its shorelines by planning for and appropriate uses.Policies are 90.58.020 to acknowledge the SMA's and fostering all reasonable designed to ensure the development of balanced approach. For example,the in and appropriate uses.Policies the Citys shorelines in a manner which City might consider including in a new = are designed to ensure ihe will promote and enhance the public policy the language from 90.58.020 � development of the Citys interest These policies will protect regarding priority uses(e.g.,single family shorelines in a mannerwhich against adverse effects to the yW>Ns residences,ports,shoreline recreational will promote and enhance the "°"" "°land,its vegefation and uses,water dependent industrial and public interest These policies aquatic life and wildlife,and the waters of commercial developments)and the will protect against adverse the Spokane River,Shelly Lake and the generel recognition of shoreline effects to Ihe public health,the Sullivan Road and Park Road Grevel alteretions. land,its vegetation and aquatic Pits and their aquatic life. j life and wildlife,and the waters of the Spokane River,Shelly a Lake and the Sullivan Road g and Park Road Grevel Pits and � their a uatic life. The State Legislature has Fu[urewise Comments: See comments accompanying Policy 1.6 Change: � dedared that the interest and Establishing order of use preferences above. 5.Previcle Increase public benefit of all of the people shall provides darity and reserves our limited access to publicly owned areas � be paremount in the shoreline areas,only 200 feet from the of shorelines; .3 management of shorelines of ordinary high water mark,for those uses � state-wide significance,and that make the best use of Ihese limited therefore preference shall be areas.Policy SMP 17 incorporetes the � given to uses in the following use preferences for shorelines of state- order of preference which:. wide significance into Ihe shoreline 1. Recogn¢eandprotect masterprogrem = statewide interest over local policies. interest � 2. Preserve the naturel J Short—DOE charecter of ihe shoreline 5.Should say"increase"instead of 3. Allow uses that result "provide"per RCW 90.58.020 in long-term over shorhterm benefits 4. Protecttheresources and ecology of shorelines 5. Provide public access j� to publicly owned areas of shorelines a� 6. Increase recreational g.m opportunities for the public on �� the shorelines. Page 4 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable AnacMneni�«14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received This additional policy addresses Ihe legal counsel comments regarding policyl.6. Change: SMP 1.8 PrioriN Uses and Shoreline Alterations Uses shall be oreferred which are consistentwith control of nolWtion and nrevention of damaae to the naturel environment.or are uniaue to or denendent unon use of the state's shoreline.Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state,in those limited instances when authorized,shall be qiven prioriN for sinqle-familv residences and their appurtenant structures. shoreline recreational uses and other improvements facilitatinq public access,industrial and commercial developments which are particularlv dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines,and other development that will provide an opportunitvfor substantial numbers of the people to eniov the shorelines of the state Ensure that the reaulatorv This an entirely unnecessary See memo section C. No change � burden of enhancina the element The SMP Guidelines - shorelineenvironment rules(WAC173-26- a nrotectina the ecoloaical 201(2)(c),(e),(f))speclfy In detail functions and usina the that shoreline restoretion is a shoreline is born not iust bv the shared enterprise with the bulk of — propertvownerssubiecttothe [heresponsibilirybomebypublic a' Shoreline Requlations,but bv entities. the communitv as a whole with a a a series of offsettinq benefits g� and flexibilitv in administerinq �m the ro ram. Protect Ihe historiq cWturel, K Anderson comments: No change. The language scientific or educational sites darifies Ihe sites intended to be within the shoreline that reFlect Protect the historic,culNrel,scientific or protected. our communitys unique educational sites within the shoreline tkaF heritage and create or contribute to our collective ��-�°-°'�'��°-'--.��°-"-°",^- sense of lace Page 5 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Identify,preserve,and manage K Anderson comments: No change.The principal is �? shoreline sites and structures Identify,preserve,and manage public intended to apply to the having historical,cWWrel, held shoreline sites and structures shorelines to provide protection in... scientific or educational value, having historical,cWturel,scientific or to any site with archaeological and develop regulations lhat educational value,and develop and historic resources.WAC ain avoid,minimize,or mitigate any regulations that avold,minlmlze,or 173-26-221(1)(b). g� adverse impacts to these mitigate any adverse impacts to Ihese �10 resources. resources. Public acquisition Ihrough gifts, K Anderson comments:Couldn't find No change. Unnecessary '" bequests,grents,or donations in RCW's. language since ihe policy infers 0 of buildings or sites having Public acquisition of nrivate nronertv mav the acquisition of private �.°_;? cWturel,scientifiq educational, be accomnllshed through giffs,bequests, property. a m'� or historical value should be grents,or donations of buildings or sites g�� encouraged. having cWturel,scientifiq educational,or �10¢ historical value should be encoure ed. Discouregepublicorprivate Discouregepublicorprivate Anybuildingorotherelementof JShort—DOE Change: DeletePolicy. Itwas development and development and the built environment can be Do you reallywant to discourege not intended to discourage redevelopmentactivitiesonany redevelopmentactivitiesonany removedfollowedbyecological redevelopmentofhistoricbuildings? developmentorredevelopment, site,area,or bullding identified site,area,or building identified rehabilitatlon of Ihe disturbed site. but to encourege the as having historical,cWtural, as having historical,wlturel, However,the SMA requires the preservation of historically educationalorscientificvalue educationalorscientificvalue inventoryofsuchsitesand significantsites.Thisis unless there is a positive buildings and requires generelly accomplished in policy 2.1. impact on Ihe shoreline s Iheir protection.The proposed ecoloqical functions. phrases should not be added. �:.:::�� Work with Vibal,state,federel K Anderson comments: No change.The policy directs and local governments as Should be a one time event except in Ihe ongoing coordination to maintain appropriate to maintain an case of discoveryof unknown sites the inventory.The policy does inventory of all known not require additional significant local historiq inventories. � wlturel,and archaeological sites in observance of applicable state and federel a� laws protecting such �� information from public disclosure Pa3e 6 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Ensure earlyand continuous - This Policy is consistent with state law, No change.This policy is site inspection,consWtation or but the extent to which it is required or is consistentwith current permit evaluation by a professional more than what is required,depends on processing actions. Notice is archaeologist in coordination the amount of dowmented archaeological provided to the Tribe upon with affected Vibes for all sites in the vicinity. Protection of receipt of a shoreline perm it. permits issued in areas archaeological resources is governed by On-site inspections occur for the — documented to contain staNte. It is unlawful to disNrb majoriryof ihe permits,and lhe � archaeological resources. archeological resource or site without a hibe is oken involved in those w permitfromDAHP. RCW27.53.O60The inspections.Thetribemay staNte primarily addresses discovered request additional inspections archaeological resources. However, Ihrough the permit process to manylocal jurisdictions have chosen to assure that no historical sites are � include a pre-project site inspection under deshoyed by conshuction SEPA authoriry and/or because there are activities. known archaeological resources in the area.Additionally,the DAHP publishes a in list of locations where a permit is required in advance. See RCW 27.53.130.Thus aearly site inspection is only required � where there is evidence or dowmentation � of archaeolo ical resources in the area. Locate new public facilities and K Anderson comments: No change.The policywould utilities,including,but not Locate new public facilities and utilities, not be effective if the location limited Iq utiliryproductioq including,butnot limited tq utility were determined bythe utiliry. processing,disVibution,and production,processing,dishbution,and Feasible is defined in the WAC — transmission facilities outside hansmission facilities outside of ihe 173-26-020(15). Relief from of Ihe shorelinejurisdiction shorelinejurisdiction whenever feasible Ihis policy is found in the whenever feasible. and acce table to the utilit rovider. definition. Require new utilities and Require new utilities and This would simply be Ihe needless Avista chanaes reauested: No change.The SAG was facilitiesihatmustbelocated facilitiesihatmustbelocated expansionofalreadybad Requirenewutilitiesandfacilitiesthat purposefulinaddingthelow within the shoreline to be built within Ihe shoreline to be built grammar into execreble must be located within ihe shoreline to impact,low profile design underground,if feasible,and underground,if feasible,and 'bureaucratese". be built underground,if feasible,and language to minimize impacts. utilize low impact,low profle aNNae prefer Ihe utilization of utilize The phrese"to the maximum design and construction low impact,low profile design The SMA,at RCW 90.58.90(4), Ihe best construction and desiqn extent possible"acknowledges methods to ihe maximum and construction methods to states'The department(Ecology) methods to ihe,:.m;��extent possible that these methods may not extent possible. �,.Q.�...�„��a�::ti,:a. shall approve those segments of always be achieved.Alsq see Ihemasterprogramrelatingto KAndersoncomments: commentsabove. shorelines of statewide Require new utilities and facilities that significance only after determining must be located within ihe shoreline to � Ihe progrem provides the optimum be built underground,if feasible,and implementation of the policy of acceptable to the utilitvprovider,and Ihis chapter to satisfy the utilize low impact,low profile design and vstatewide interest" RCW construction methods to ihe maximum 90.58.900sfates'This extentpossible. a chapter...shall be liberelly conshued to give full effect to ihe aobjectives and purposes forwhich g itwas enacted."This phrese � should,iherefore,be retained. Pa3e 7 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received When existing utilities and/or When existing utilities located The concept of correcting Avista chanqes requested: See Memo Section C regarding Ihe Change:The intent was to utiliry corridors located within within shorelinejurisdiction (restoring,rehabilitating)past Maintenance and Operation Design language addressing requirements to address ihe maintenance and shorelinejurisdiction require require maintenance or other impacls is at the core of,and When existing utilities facilities and restore. operetion needs of the Utility. maintenance or other improvemenfs,the imbued throughout the SMA and riqhts of waos�se�s are The language darifies lhe intent. improvements,the maintenance/improvement its implementing rules. READ located within shorelinejurisdiction and maintenance/improvement shouldbedesignedand WAC173-26-201(2)(f). requlremaintenanceorother Q ThePCshoulddiscuss shouldbedesignedand implementedtominim¢e improvemenls,the whethertoremm�ethe implementedtominim¢e additionalimpactsonthe maintenance/improvementshouldbe restorariailonguage.The additionalimpactsonthe shorelineenvironmentaac+-it designedandimplementedtominim¢e L%nlirypoliciesayptpto shorelineenvironmentand,if ��:.iA:e�-sarssat-r;a�i additionalimpactsontheshoreline pubticenftties,andperthe I posslble,tocorrectpast �°-°aai�-sau��Rhz-NN:k-y. environmentaa��as:.iA;e�-a�rsaE memo,themkingsissue Impacts caused by Ihe utility. [Should also show�s;. �a:.t-�.paeE�caa��r does no[appty. Vegetation Management Plans �aT:..".�w�'w� Vegetation Management Plans should � should be recogn¢ed as zws:.k��°-�'°�� be recognized as maintenance activities Maintenance and Opera[ion maintenance activities. ��'as deleted,but Design doesn't.] K Anderson comments: When existing utilities facilities When existing utilities and/or utiliry and riqhts of wavs�y corridors located within shoreline sewJAers are located within jurisdiction require maintenance or other shorelinejurisdiction and improvemenfs,the require maintenance or other maintenance/improvementshould be improvements,the o designed and im plem ented to m in im¢e m aintenance/imp rovem ent additional impacts on the shoreline should be designed and � environm ent as�,'�a�::ti,:a,'-�� implemented to m in im¢e ��F;.:.�E�ax�. additional impacts on the - Vegetation Management Plans should shoreline environment and,if gbe recognized as maintenance activities possible,to correct past impac[s causedbytheutility.Vegetation aManagement Plans should be g recognized as maintenance � activities Give preference to established Give preference to established This phrese should be retained Avista chanaes reauested: The City's language is within ihe renge of Change:The intent was to allow utility corridors and rights-of- utility corridors and rights-of- since the SMA and SMP Give preference to established utility discretion provided to the City for equal preference for an alternate � wayfor upgrades and wayfor upgrades and Guideline rules(WAC 173-26- corridors and rights-of-way for upgredes, ensuring no net loss.There is some location if ihe site will resWt in reconshuction of existing reconstruction of existing 201(e)require that Ihe least maintenance and reconshuction of confusion over the intent of the language less impact The policy did not utilities and facilities,unless a utilities and facilities.•z:;.:��:a harmful alternative is used,and existing utilities and facilities,unless a in the SAGs drafL If the SAGs intent is intend to preclude maintenance. - location with less potential to {e-saN-°•��:�,d�a that unavoidable impacts are fully location with less potential to impact Ihe to require use of a location with less � impacttheshoreline ��.".ac-'��,;:.� mitigated. shorelineenvironmentisavailable. potentialimpacttotheshorelineoveruse oenvironment is available. �:r:i:-°��"��. of Ihe existing utiliry corridor,ihen Ihe Give preference to established � K Anderson comments: policy may be more resVictive than what utility corridors and rights-of-way Can we dictate utilitycorridor use? is required,if the utiliry can show for upgrades.maintenance and continued use of the existing corridor reconstruction of existing utilities ensures no net loss. If the SAGs intent and facilities,unless a location a`w was to allow equal preference to altemate with less potential to impact the = locations,then Centennial's proposed shoreline environment is a� revisionappearstodeleteFlexibiliryby available g� allowingrelieffromihepreferencegiven �10 to existin corridors and ri his-of-wa. Pa3e 8 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Stormwater utilities will be Stormwater utilities will be This concept was discussed at See memo section C. Restoration is an Change: Accept change designed and located as to designed and located as to length in Ihe SAG meetings,and aspiretion,but should not be a proposed to clarify Ihe intent and minim¢eenvironmental minim¢eenvironmenfal thelawrequiresasnotedabove requirementtoavoidconstitutional eliminatecoretiWtional impacfs within the shoreline impacts within lhe shoreline that degraded shoreline areas implication. implications since storm water jurisdiction.If located within lhe jurisdiction.If located within the shall be ecologically rehabilitated utilities are likely to be shorelinejurisdictiontheyshall shorelinejurisdictiontheyshall tothemaximumextentfeasible. conshuctedbybothprivateand require the use of best r�:r�:;.��use e�best READ WAC 173-26-221(a),(b),(c). public property owners. managementpractices(e.g. managementpractices(e.g. biofilVation measures)and biofiltration measures)and Stormwater utilities will be landscaping with native landscaping wilh native designed and bcated as to vegetation to provide habitat, vegetation t�avJa-"�� minim¢e environmenlal impacts ecological restoretion,and ��"-�a within the shoreline jurisdiction. aestheticimprovemenfs.All a�E:aE:P;.:°�-�,p,e:�:.�:.F�.AII Iflocatedwithintheshoreline - stortnwaterfacilitiesmust stortnwaterfacilities must jurisdictioniheyshall� protectwaterquality,manage protectwaterquality,manage usee�bestmanagement runoff and address erosion runoff and address erosion prectices(e.g.biofiltretion control and sedimentation. control and sedimentation. measures)and landscaping wilh 3 native vegetation Fe{�revi�e E in AII stortnwaterfacilities must aprotectwater quality,manage g runoff and address erosion � conhol and sedimentation. Provide a safe,convenient,and Provide a safe,convenient,and The change proposed by Centennial Change: Provide a safe, �a multimodal circulation system multimodal circulation system replaces Ihe undefined phrese convenient,and mWtimodal -�� which will minimize disruption which will minimize�iscayNea (disruption)with a phrese that has more circulation system which will ��_ to Ihe shoreline environment nepative impacts to the legal interpretation and understanding. minimize�iscayNea n�ative 10 shoreline environment impacts to the shoreline U WC7 environment Ensure that a system of Ensure that a system of K Anderson comments: See memo section B. Change: Ensure ihat a system arterials,scenic drives, arterials,scenic drives, Ensure Ihat a system of arterials,scenic of arterials,scenic drives, pathways,public transit routes, pathways,public transit routes, drives,pathways,public trensit routes, pathways,public trensit routes, and bikeways adjacent to and and bikeways adjacent to and and bikeways adjacent to and within Ihe and bikeways adjacent to and � within the shoreline areas within Ihe shoreline areas shoreline areas correlated with the M within the shoreline areas provide appropriate access to provide appropriate access to shoreline use pr.,:��,;�-w�» provide appropriate access to the Spokane River in a way the Spokane River in a way �-F".�-'e„�� Ihe Spokane River in a way Ihat that meets the needs and that meets Ihe needs and ��i:a�t;.ac-�:.'� meets ihe needs and desires of F desiresofthecommunityas desiresofthecommuniryas asreFlectedintheComprehensivePlan, IhecommunityasreFlectedin reFlected in the Comprehensive reFlected in Ihe Comprehensive while also preserving ecological function Ihe Comprehensive Plan,while �� Plan,while also preserving Plan,while also ryreseKwag of the shorelines. also��assurinq no net ecological function of the protectinp ecological function of loss of ecological function of the ¢ shorelines. lheshorelines. shorelines. 3 Locate new streets or sheet Locate new sheets or street Terrible word for public policyor No Change. Reasonable is expansions outside of the expansions outside of the regulation. IPs a great concept defined wi[hin Ihe definition of Z shorelinejurisdiction,unless no shorelinejurisdiction,unless no that is wide open to arguable and feasible. �� other options are available or other options are reasonablv politically expedient interpretation. feasible.In all cases,streets available�::��.In all The reasonableness of the SMP should be on Ihe landward side cases,streets should be on Ihe is to be built in during the planning °�'" of development landward side of development. process.The phrase"feasible"is - a foundation of reasonableness, a v and is well defined. Feasibility is g"° also a higher standard ihan fn fn w '7easonable". Page 9 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Plan,locate,and design Plan,locate,and design This phrese is not only clear and The revision proposed byCentennial No change. proposed hansportation proposed trensportation reasonable,iPs required by the eliminates language that mirrors ihe facilities where routes will have facilities where routes will have law and lhe WAC. READ WAC applicable staNtory standard for the least possible adverse the least possible adverse 173-26-201. protection of critical areas.The standard effect on shoreline ecological effect on shoreline ecological applies whether or not it appears in the �Y N functions,will not result in a net functions,;:i;:;-,�:��a.t'-,�°�3 Goals and Policies,but to Ihe extent that loss of shoreline ecological ��:af�.".ac-"°�agiw; Centennial's proposed revision suggesfs a�= functions,or adversely impact taasNea�or adversely impact that it does not apply,the revision is g@ existing or planned water existing or planned water inconsistent with state law. For clariry the ��LL de endent uses. de endent uses. Cit can choose to include Ihe reference. All development within Ihe Fu[urewise Comments: No change. shorelinejurisdiction area shall II is good policy to take every opportunity provide stormwater treatrnent to prevent pollution and protect water The ciry currently regulates for all new and redeveloped quality.Policy SMP 4.5 requires ihat all stortnwater byChapter 22.150 polWtion generating impervious development within the shoreline Stormwater Management � surfaces. jurisdiction area shall provide stormwater Regulations.The Spokane heatrnent for all new and redeveloped Regional Stromwater Manual is FpolWtion genereting impervious surfaces. adopted by reference within this This is consistentwith the Shoreline Chapter. Management Act policy of giving 3 preference to uses which prevent E polWtion and ihe Shoreline Master in Program Guidelines. aK Anderson comment: g Does this match existing codes or will we � have to create new ones? Parking facilities for public J Short-DOE No Change.The policy is access to ihe shoreline and Parking should be kept outside of consistentwith the law and water should be kept as far shorellne jurisdiction when feasible per supported by the SAG.Parking — from ihe shorelines as feasible 173-26-241(3)(k). facilities are not a preferred use Y a' and whenever possible,even if a`o K Anderson comments: associated with public access, �v Public Parking facilities for public access should be located outside of a='" to the shoreline and water should be shorelinejurisdiction. �LL¢ kept as far from ihe shorelines as feasible. Parking facilities should only be Parking facilities should only be Locating parking,which is not a Fu[urewise Comments: The language regarding location of No change. allowed as necessary to allowed as necessary to preferred or waterdependent Parking does not benefit from or parking facilities outside ihe shoreline is a support permitted shoreline support permitted shoreline shoreline use,outside of enhance shorelines.SMP 4.6,direcfs policychoice Ihe Citycan make Ihat - uses,and not as a primary use, uses,and not as a primary usc, shorelines whenever possible is that parking should be as far from Ihe reFlects Ihe guidance in 173-26-241(3)(k). - and must be located outside of required at WAC 173-26- shoreline as feasible,and SMP 4.7, It is based on Ihe assumption Ihat runoff the shoreline jurisdiction area If 241(3)(k). It is well withln the establishes that parking as a primarily from parking facilltles can impact other options are available and authorityof local communities use should not be allowed within shoreline functions. However,ihe Ciry -°' feasible. teasi6Je. under the SMA to prohibit new shorelinejurisdiction.Our shoreline might be able to ultimately choose a a� parking within shorelines areas are very limited and should be different approach so long as ihe consistentwith this WAC,and reserved for uses that require or benefit approach is supported byscience and a� many SM Ps statewide do so. from a shoreline location,not uses that can demonstrete no net loss. g a can locate anywhere as primary parking tn m facilities can. Pa3e 10 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Retain unused public rights-of- Retain unused public rights-of- Fu[urewise comments: Centennial's proposed revision appears to No Change. waywithin ihe shoreline area to waywithin ihe shoreline area to Public access is a communiry value. eliminate Flexibilityby deleting one of ihe provide visual and physical provide visual and physical Policy SMP 4.9 calls for retaining unused available options to overcome ihe — access to the shoreline unless: access to ihe shoreline unless: public rights-of-wayas shoreline preference for retaining righfs of way in The street vacation The sheet vacation accesses.These public owned corridors the shoreline. Bypursuing the proposed ? enables the Ciry to acquire the enables Ihe City to acquire the are excellent opportunities to allow Ihe revision,the Cirywould be making Ihe property for beach or water property for beach or water public to see and access shorelines. policy more rigid. � access purposes,boat access purposes,boat 3 moorage or launching sites, moorege or launching sites, park,public view,recreatioq or park,public vlew,recreatioq or educational purposes,or other educational purposes,or other � public uses or the Citydedares public uses�� that the sVeet or alley is not ':at-t.".��E:�-'�;:�=i�E — presently being used and is not ��a:d;9��i:.�:a-'��.;.aF a' suitable for the above �'-'-°-�'.,.�.."�F purposes;or {x�Weses;or The street vacation The sheet vacation � enables the Ciry to implement a enables the City to implement a plan,ihat provides comparable plan,ihat provides compareble or improved public access to or improved public access to �¢ the same shoreline area to the same shoreline area to — which the streets or alleys which Ihe sheets or alleys aT sought to be vacated,had the sought to be vacated,had the g r properties included in the plan properties included in the plan �a not been vaca[e not been vacated Improve non-motorized access K Anderson comments: No change.The policy reFlecfs a to Ihe shoreline by developing, Is this special emphasis beyond public community preference and � ° whereappropriate,pathways, accessrequirement? priorityfornon-motorized c¢� trails and bikeways along and access. �z°a_ �o N o adjacenttotheshoreline. a� Connectiviry between non- g �o motorized access points is �� encoure ed. Recogn¢e the importance and Recogn¢e the importance and The SMA,at RCW 90.58.02Q K Anderson Comment:Outside scope The Citys discussion and description of No Change:The intent was to uniqueness of the Spokane uniqueness of Ihe Spokane dearly sefs forth the prioritized, of SMA? Ihe public access provided by Ihe require that treil development be River Centennial Treil to the River Centennial Treil to the preferred uses for shorelines of °asag;.iz� Centennial hail is one of the generel done with ihe least impact,not City of Spokane Valley,the City of Spokane Valley,the statewide significance,which aai�s�:.��#�-'��°��, areas where Ihere is significant room for minimal impact The change region,and Ihe state, Future region,and the state, Future renders these changes and added policy choices that will allow Ihe City to from proposed language would treil development including treil hail development including trail language inappropriate. recognize Ihe significant public access be significant However,visual extensions,new access points, extensions,new access points, ��dia�ll already available to the Spokane River access could be encoureged as whether public or private,shall whether public or private,shall within the City. Much of the discussion part of ihe design. be designed to have the least be designed to have'"-� and description maybe better addressed adverseimpact. minimaladverseimpactwhile . intheforthcomingpublicaccessplanthat 0 TIrePCshoutddiscuss at the same tlme provide both is currently under development rather whether to encourage visual and phvsical access to Ihan in Ihese goals and policies. uual access¢spartojthe - the shorellne. design. The purpose of Centennial's proposed � edit is not clear. It appears to be more reshictive in ihat it suggests Ihat public access must be designed to include both avisual and physical access.When g required,public access does not always � result in h sical access to lhe water. Pa3e 11 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Allow new rail lines and the Allow new rail lines and the K Anderson comment: Oufside Both policies in SMP 4.12 and 4.13 may No Change. Issues regarding expansion of existing reil expansion of existing rail authorityof SMA? be preempted by federel law.The reil lines are outside the corridors within ihe shoreline corridors within ihe shoreline �,�,:,:.��: generel jurisdiction provision of ihe authorityof SMA. However,not jurisdiction only for Ihe purpose jurisdiction eaVy for Ihe purpose �;;-i�F;.s�.;i;c�m�=:+;E"',.�;.;rt��-'��,:;.� Interstate Commerce Commission all policies result in regulations of connecting to existing reil of connecting to existing reil Termination Act of 1995 QCCTA)provides as noted in Tadas Kiselius linesorrights-of-way. linesorrights-of-waysolOflq w;.aasEk.�i,,;i�t;;.g�.;i;��rTi,°g.hF� thatthejurisdictionoftheSurface memo.Thepolicydoesprovide Construct new rail Ilnes within as thev enhance the vlabllltv of sfway--�ap�KaaFae..-;a"'��vlEAia-aa Transportatlon Board(STB)over reil a framework for dlscussion,If the an existing rail corridor where the shoreline and its ecolopical �;;-i�F;.s�;i;��:��:ie;a hansportation and the remedies provided ciry is faced with this situation. possible. functions.Conshuct new reil under the ICCTA are exclusive"and lines within an existing reil preempt the remedies provided under corridor where possible. Federel or State law."49 U.S.C.§ 10501(b).Thecourtshaveinterpreted this language broadly,frequently holding that the ICCTA preempts Ihe application of local land use laws. See,e.g.,Ciry of Au6urn v.United States,154 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir.1998),cert.denied,527 U.S. 1022(1999).The ICCTA preempts any local requirements that otherwise would be applied to facilities that are an integrel part of ihe reilroad's interstate operetions. Applying this test,the STB has specifically held that"zoning ordinances - and local land use permit requirements � are preempted where the facilities are an 3 integrel part of the reilroad's interstate Z operetions."Thus the Ciry may choose to preserve ihese policies to reFlect Ihe Citys policychoice that can be taken into aconsideretion with the understanding that g Iheir may be legal constreinfs in their � im lementation. Construct,where feasible,all - K Anderson comment: Outside No change-see above. new reil I ines so that they do authority of SMA? not com p rom ise Ihe publ Ic's aa�kaaF.�v.�'ere�ea�'�.,,'-'e�:;°-•-..�::;ad ��=v abiliry to access ihe shoreline ;i;.�T:,Pt,"�aFr.-��x'� �m a'¢ safely. ^�,�'-,'ia��-'�� Encourege and supportwater Encourege and support water This is open-ended,undefined K Anderson comment: No change. dependent,water oriented,and dependent,water oriented,and language not related to ihe SMA. Encourage and supportwater water related economic water related economic dependent,water oriented,and water activities within the shorelands activities within the shorelands related economic activities within the of the City of Spokane Valley of Ihe City of Spokane Valley shorelands of ihe Ciry of Spokane Valley � that will be an asset to ihe that will be an asset to ihe ':aF��:::;'-�a�:a'�-F�--°-,�-�.a:.rm economy of the area and that economy of the area.enhance tke-area-anA that will protect and will protect and maintain Ihe the viabiliN of the Citv and lhat maintain Ihe ecological functions of Ihe ecological functions of ihe will protect and mainfain the shoreline environment shoreline environment ecological functions of ihe � shoreline environment Pa3e 12 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Give preference to economic Give preference to economic K Anderson comment: The language in policy 5.1 is derived in No change.The language is not development within the development within the How do you give preference to private part from the language in RCW 90.58.020 intended to address residential shorelinejurisdiction that is shorelinejurisdiction that is propertywithout rezoning? which gives priorityto a renge of uses, uses and thus the language is particularly dependent on their water dependent.��vater induding"indushial and commercial appropriate. location on or use of the oriented or water related developments which are particularly shoreline.Encourage new �r.i�a-�°�'-°��i: dependent on their location on or use of development to locate in areas �t�ax-�::,".� the shorelines of the sfate."So long as that have intensive prior use �.�,.,.�.Encourege new "economic development"encompasses and can be upgreded or development to locate in areas only commercial and industrial redeveloped.Encourege new lhat have intensive prior use development and does not include other economic development to and can be upgreded or listed uses(such as development of cluster into areas of the redeveloped.Encourege new single family homes),Ihen the policy shoreline whose current use is economic development to language is consistent with ihe staWte. compatible. cluster into areas of the shoreline whose current use is Centennial's proposed revisions propose compatible. expanding ihe policyto use three defined terms in ihe guidelines. See WAC 173- 26-020. See also WAC 173-26-201(2)(d). These types of uses are allowed within the shoreline and are induded in Ihe preferred order of uses. See 173-26- 201(2)(d).Theguidelinesgivewater � dependent uses the highest priority,but provide for other water-oriented uses � within that order of prioriry. Moreover,the o guidelines give discretion to add uses to Ihe order of prioriry:"Evaluation pursuant �@ to the above criteria,local economic and land use conditions,and policies and wregulations that assure protection of shoreline resources,may resWt in determ ination that other uses are _ considered as necessary or appropriate and maybe accommodated provided that Ihe preferred uses are reasonably provided for in thejurisdiction" Id.Thus aIhe concept proposed in Centennial's g revisions,with some clarificatioq may also consistentwith ihe guideline� Pa3e 13 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Development should be - K Anderson comment: Who would While the second sentence of the policy is Change:Clarify ihat the intent is designed to minimize the determine the reason and level of consistentwith the generel preference for for uses not dependent upon a impacts to ihe shoreline restoration? water dependent uses within ihe shoreline location to locate aesthetic through architecturel, Development should be designed to shoreline,this sentence may be outside of shorelinejurisdiction. landscape,and other design minim¢e ihe impacts to Ihe shoreline unintentionally restrictive. First,Ihe This was diswssed by the SAG. features.All non-shoreline aesthetic through architecWral, phrese"inland"is not defined and may dependent elements of ihe landscape,and other design feaWres.All lead to confusion. Second,while there is 0 ThePCshoutddiscuss developmentshouldbeplaced non-shorelinedependentelementsofthe apreferenceforwaterdependentuses, whethertoresntctnmi- � inland.Encourage design that development should be placed inland. the regulations allow for water related, water ortented seeks to restore damaged or €;.�:a��i�:.t„aFx��.-.'.�rt�� water enjoyment and even non-water developnrentwitNin compromised shoreline Ihrough -'�°-� -°-° oriented uses to be bcated within the shoreline jurisdicrion Incentives. 4".r�es�i�.�. M shorelinejurisdictlon In certain locatlons. p See WAC 173-26-201(2)(d).Thus the Development should be policy is within ihe range of choices Ihe designed to minimize lhe o City could make,but is more restrictive impacfs to ihe shoreline than what is required. aesthetic through architecturel, w landscape,and other design � features.All non-sdeKeliaewater oriented�epeacleaF elements of � the development should be placed outside of shoreline iurisdiction.is�laac�Encourege a design that seeks to restore g damaged or compromised � shorelinethrou hincentives. Historic areas,overlook points, Historic areas,overlook poinfs, This may unintentionally suggest that Change: � shuctures,and points of public sVUCtures,and poinfs of public public access is a necessary component access to ihe waterfront should access to ihe waterbodiesEreaF of all shoreline development,which is When public access is required be incorporeted in economic should be incorporeted in inconsistent with the SMP and under Ihis SMP.#historic areas, development site-planning. economic development site- constitutional protections.The SMP overlook poinfs,strucWres,and — planning stronglyencouregesprovisionofpublic pointsofpublicaccesstothe - access,but,as recognized in the waterfront should be aguidelines,public access is not always incorporated in economic required"due to reasons of incompatible development site-planning. uses,safery,security,or Impact to the shoreline environment or due to �O�° constitutional or other legal limitations Ihat 0 o maybeapplicable" WAC173-26- a`>. 221(4)(d).It may be prefereble to = acknowledge that public access is not a� always required by using an inhoductory �¢ phrese such as'When public access is re uired under lhis SMP..." Shengthen regional tourism by K Anderson comment: SMA scope is No Change. expanding and developing tourism facilities relative to the shoreline, neighborhood and regional not tourism? �� linkagesandimprovements d;aagF".a�gis;.��.,�.�� - that use ihe shoreline areas. w`�F '�".^at-•�x�'.�.�^.-��.^eF^�„'..�-e,�a Pa3e 14 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Require that the short-term °a�ui,�t'"��.".acFt�.:. This evaluation is required at K Anderson comment: To some degree,this Policy proposed by � economic gain or convenience RCW 90.58.020.This policy Require Ihat the short-term eseaeNais the SAG appears to paraphrase the use 0 ThePCshoutddiscuss of development be evaluated should be retained. gain or convenience of development be preference in RCW 90.58.020 that whether to include tNis a,�s��„�..�„,,,,_.�., against ihe long-term and az,aa�Ft#a�;aa3-Ea;.:.-a»� evaluated agalnst the long-term and Identifles a preference for uses ihat"result polic}�,dete[e'u,orn�odifp - potentially cosHy Impalrments �EeaNa':yaed:yi'�"a;r.:.�a:� potentially cosHy impairmen5 to ihe In long term over short term benefit," it¢s ducribed in tegal � to the naNrel environments ta-F'�:��a;a4-°�"��:rt� natural environments and state-wide "recognlze and protect the statewide rounset commen[s. �� and state-wide interest Ihat ��taEe��,,..�:��FFhaE interest Ihat may resWt Interest over local interesC,and"preserve may result �� lhe naNrel charecter of Ihe shoreline." See also Policy 17.The policy does not w reference ihe countervailing emphasis in RCW 90.58.020 on fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses and recognition of alteretion of lhe naNral �'�u shoreline.The state policy goals are w applicable,regardless of their inclusion here.As such,it is within the range of adiscretion to Include ihis policy,delete it, � or modify it to emphasize other concepts in RCW 90.58.020. Promote recreational uses of 5.�7 Promote recreational Public access is a foundation of K Anderson comment: The changes proposed by Centennial No change. � the shorelines to contribute to uses throuph the use of public the SMA,but is only one of many °ca��lncrease recreational uses of would limit the preference for recreational the economic athactiveness of access of the shorelines to elements of public recreational lhe shorelines to conhibute to the uses solely to public access opportunities. the city. Seek opportunities to conhibute to the economic opportunities. economic athactiveness of Ihe city. The Ciry may choose to promote '�°' partner with public and private atVactiveness of the city. Seek opportunities to partner with public recreational uses more generally,rether o� property owners to increase Seek opportunities to partner and private property owners to increase than just public access. a o public recreational with public and private public recreational opportunities in ihe - opportunities in lhe shoreline. property owners to increase shoreline. a� public recreational �� opportunities on public access in the shoreline. Promote the identification and K Anderson comment: No change.The Spokane River I � establishmentofwater- °�,m,�'"-'-'-°"�� and its recreational opportunities v�L�N enjoyment areas,such as ��i�.�"r.-°��Establish and identifv are an economic asset. a Q!o parks,view points,beaches water-enjoyment areas,such as parks, Promotion is a means to ��w¢ and pathways as atVactions view points,beaches and pathways as capitalize on those assets. atVactions Encourege and provide J Short-DOE: Incentives are a common tool incentives for redevelopment of Where in the City of Spokane Valley utilized to encourage existing sites that indudes would redevelopment improve fish development to provide specific points of public access,areas passage? feaWres above the m inimum designed for public enjoyment, requirements of a code. improve fish and wildlife K Anderson comment: How do you Incentives are usually in the form habi[at,or improve fish legally provide incentives for property of density bonuses,height � passage. owners? increases,setback variances, Encou rege a�-iasea�ues-�e the etc. o redevelopment of existing sites ihat — includes points of public access,areas Change: Encourege and w designed for public enjoyment,improve provide incentives for ° fish and wildlife habitat,or improve fish redevelopment of existing sites � passage.i that includes points of public access,areas designed for public enjoyment,and improve fish and wildlife habitat� Pa3e IS nraft cook o„aPoltoies-cmn»,e„r7 b1e Anoolnne„t k t4 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Newpublicandprivate KAndersoncomment: Thismaypolicymaybemorerestrictive � shorelineusesand Newpublic�shorelineuses thanwhatthestatuterequires.Thereare 0 ThePCshoutddiscuss developments should be and developments should be planned times when providing public access or whether to include tNis planned and designed to athact and designed to athact the public to ihe attrecting the public to Ihe water front is polic}�,dete[e'u,orn�odifp thepublictothewaterfront. waterfront. notappropriateorrequired.The it¢sducribediniegal guidellnes recognlze,forexample,that rounsetcommen[s public access is not always appropriate or 0 required"due to reasons of incompatible uses,safery,security,or impact to the — shoreline environment or due to m constitutional or other legal limitations Ihat maybeapplicable" WAC173-26- 221(4)(d). In particular,imposing publlc aaccess requirements on private shoreline � uses may not always have the required nexus. K Anderson comment: How do you No Change. Incentives are a Incentives should be created to legally provide incentives for property common tool utilized to �? encourage developers to owners? encourege development to 'aa U incorporete design features into *�c-„F9zri'___.'-'`�'_=.=�= provide specific features above the waterside of ihe building. encourage developers to incorporate Ihe minimum requirements of a design features into the waterside of the code. Incentives are usually in a' building. Ihe form of densiry bonuses, g v height increases,selback �LL variances,etc.. Support and maintain ihe 7 Short—DOE: Change:Support��'�a existing aggregate mining Delete"maintain". It is not the Gty's Ihe existing aggregate mining aindusVyas a significant responsibility to maintain a private industryas a significant g component of the area industrial operation component of Ihe area economy. � econom . Encourape Economic This proposed Policymayfall within ihe � Development of the shoreline discretion of the City,especially in light of 0 ThePCshould discuss aarea that wlll enhance the the other policles In Ihis section that whether to include this � viabililvoftheCitvasawhole. reFlectotherkeySMAconcepts. poG'ep. Pa3e 16 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Areasthatprovideopen Areasthatprovideopen Unnecessary,misleadingphrese. FuturewiseComments: Thispolicycoversseverelkeyshoreline 0 ThePCshoutddiscuss spaces,scenic visfas, spaces,scenic vistas, Regulation is also required to Proposed Policy SMP 6.1 directs"[a]reas topics including public access(view whether to modif}�tlris contribute to shoreline conhibute to shoreline preserve ihe listed shoreline that provide open spaces,scenic vistas, access),shoreline vegetation policy�ro r�eta aesthetics,naturel vegetation aesthetics,naWrel vegetation attributes. conhibute to shoreline aesthetics,naturel conservation,and critical areas. While mon�[amq�shallsmtement and,fish and wildlife habitat and,fish and wildlife habitat vegetation and,fish and wildlife habitat shoreline regulations often seek to protect s well as Cwnennial should be preserved should be preserved throuqh should be preserved[.]"The Shoreline these characteristics to varying degrees, Propertiessmtements the use of communitv Master Progrem Guidelines in WAC 173- the SMA does not require complete regarding incentn�es. incentives. 26-186(8)(b)require that"[I]ocal master preservation of existing views,shoreline progrems shall include policies and aesthetics,naturel vegetation,or wildlife � regulations designed to achieve no net habitaL The legal standard allows more loss of those ecological functions."The Flexibility,even with respect to critical use of"should"in this policy Indlcates areas. See WAC 173-26-201(2)(c)(the a lhat protection of these areas is not concept of"neP'in Ihe no net loss always required.To be consistent with standard anticipates some impact).Thus the requirements of WAC 173-26- the proposed Policy is more restrictive 186(8)(b)the"should"must be changed than what Is requlred. to"shall" ¢ However,lhe revision proposed by KAndersoncomment: Centennialcompletelyeliminates � SMP 6.1. Public Areas to be regulatory tools to address these g Preserved(TiHe change) concems and represents ihe opposite � extreme. Protect existing vegetation and Protect the existing vegetation Buffer avereging does not work in The policy is consistent with the generel 0 ThePCshoutddiscuss shoreline ecological function by and shoreline ecological the SMA context because a net approach to ensuring no net loss of whether to include tNe designating buffers and function by designating buffers loss of ecological function always existing shoreline functions.CentenniaPs additionailanguage setbacks that are supported by and setbacks ihat are occurs when it is used. proposed edit is diffiwlt to hack but described in legai rounset the 2010 Shoreline Inventory. supported by the 2010 appears to suggest using tools in addition romments Shoreline Inventory or their to standard buffers. Manyjurisdictions ,,C`w incentives that buffer averapinp have used a variety of tools to provide m naWral veqetation and are some Flexibiliry from the standard buffer Change: Protect existing specific to the area. concept,while ensuring protection of no vegetation and shoreline ? net loss.Accordingly,while Centennial's ecological function by wording is not sufficiently clear and may designating buffers and setbacks indude more detailed concepfs ihan is Ihat are supported bythe 2010 appropriate at this sfage,the City can Shoreline Inventory.and allow consider including language that would for the use of innovative encourageconsiderationofother techniauesandstreteaieswhile innovative techniques and stretegies for ensurina no net loss of providingmoreFlexibilitywhileensuring ecoloaicalfunctions.- a� protection of no net loss,induding �� concepts like buffer avereging,or common bt line set backs. Pa3e 1 i Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Acquire and maintain,Ihrough K Anderson comment: The No change.These tools are conservation futures, suggestion of using taxpayer funds is commonlyused for public — donations,grents,generel outside ihe scope of SMA. acquisition purposes. �`� funds,or other sources, � shoreline areas containing Acquire and maintain private propertv. w naturelelementsespeclally 'h��.t'-saa�waEi�'��,donations, worthy of preservatlon or grents,�,�m,or other sources, especially attractive to Ihe shoreline areas confaining naWrel ¢¢ publiq such as beaches,forest elements especiallyworthy of covers,hees,wldllfe preservation or especially athactive to ao populations,vistas and other lhe publiq such as beaches,forest g r scenic feaNres. covers,hees,wildlife populations,visfas �� and other scenic features. Utilize 2010 shoreline inventorv Restoring degreded shorelines is The concept proposed by Centennial of No Change recommended. to establish baselines for the a principal goal of the SMA and using the shoreline inventory as a functions and values of SMP Guidelines rule,so the baseline for measuring no net loss is 0 ThePC may wish m shoreline. To the extent ihat a Spokane Valley shoreline consistentwith the SMA and Ecology nsider the reworded propertv owner wants to inventory is,appropriately,a guidance on Ihis subject The City may proposal prepare its own invenforv,relv description of existing conditions, also consider Ihe additional concept upon the individualized and NOT a baseline for desired suggested byCentennial though Ihe exact Utilize 2010 shoreline inventorv assessment. fuWre conditions. Because ihe wording and mechanics may need to be to establish baselines for the SMA protects ihe publids further refined.While a shoreline owner functions and values of inalienable rights in the shorelines may not necessarily prepare its'bwn shoreline. ProperN owners mav which include statewide interests, inventory'it maybe possible to allow an provide additional information to the planning process is largely owner to present sWdies and infortnation supplement the inventorv in funded by Ihe public through the specific to their property in preparetion of preparation of a development IegislaWre's grents to update a development proposal.This concept is proposal. SMPs.Ownervfunded inventories used regularly in GMA critical areas 3 of individual parcels are almost regulations of manyjurisdictions where never based on watershed level property owners prepare and submit analysis as required in lhe SMA critical areas reports Ihat provide more and SM P Guidelines. detailed information about the specific � Furthermore,they represent property charecteristics lhan are included "plecemeal,uncoordinated In the Citys more general mapping. development",specifically = recognized in RCW 90.58 020 as "inherentlyharm(ful)".This in proposed language is lherefore not consistent with Ihe law,SM P aGuideline rules,or ihe � deliberetions of the Spokane Valley SAG. Protect and preserve ecological 6.45 Protect and preserve This language is impossibly See memo Section B,regarding the legal Change: viabilityandconnectivity ecologicalviabilityand vague,underminingtheplanning standard. � through use of habitat islands connectivity Ihrough use of process and ignoring modern Assure no net loss of FseEesF and corridors wilhin the habitat islands and corridors scientific standing of shoreline More generelly,lhe Citymay be required �tcological viabiliry a��5 shoreline area. within[he shoreline area that ecology,and further,is obviated to ensure no net loss provided Ihat the and connectivity through use of — are reasonable and that take bythe planning process required science demonstretes that habitat habitat islands and corridors ao� into consideration existinp and bythe law and WAC. connectivity or corridors are shoreline within Ihe shoreline area. �w U fuWre uses and development of ecological functions. the area. Pa3e 18 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Retain existing open space and 6.56 Retan Incentivize the Execreble synfax which would This Policyappropriately identifies Change title: environmentallysensitive areas refention of existing open lose Ihe intent of the policy. incentives as a possible tool for helping > on private property through the space and environmenfally achieve SMA goals.There may be some SMP 6.5 Incentives for e use of incentives. sensitive areas on private confusion,however,from ihe title of the Retention of°a�aa:�� property��g;-F��xa: policywhich refers to'7esource lands" �as�clsCritical Areas and Open ° . (whichtyplcallyreferstoagricWture, Space ,`w, forestry,and minerel resource lands—see a�N e.g.,RCW 36JOA.060)and the subject g� matter,which refers to open space and �o� critical areas. Development shall avoid and if 6.67 Development shall avei� This language must be retained. Fu[urewise comments: See Memo section B.The Policy appears No Change. avoidance is not possible, �aseas-aeF READ WAC 173-26-201(2)(e), Avoidance of impacts is ihe best to Iry to introduce the concept of � mitigate negative impacts to yessiNl�mitigate negative which states Ihat SMPs SHALL defense.We strongly support ihe mitigation sequencing. See WAC 173-26- steep banks,surface and impacts to steep banks, apply mitigation sequencing. avoidance polices;Policy SMP 6.6 201(2)(e).The details of mitigation ground water quality,ecological surface and ground water provides that"[d]evelopment shall avoid sequencing are often handled at Ihe Z functions,fish and wildlife quality,ecological functions, and if avoidance is not possible,mitigate implementing regulation phase rether habitat,vegetative cover,and fish and wildlife habitat, negative impacts..."Other policies also Ihan in policies.Avoidance,is ihe highest erosion of the soil. vegetative cover,and erosion address avoiding impacts.Making priority and ihe first step in the mitigation of the soil. Mitigation Work:The Report of the sequence. By proposing removal of the � Mitigation that Works Forum emphasized sentence,Ihe change proposed by Ihe need to avoid impacts on wetlands Centennial's maybe vulnereble to Ihe and other aquatic resources to effectively challenge ihat it is inconsistent with SMA �� protect these resources.3 Because requirements a g mitigation is expensive,avoidance can �� hel develo ers too. Regulations shall assure that K Anderson comment: How would a This is consistent with WAC 173-26- No Change. Regulations will the commonly occurring and regulation define and prove cumulative 186(8)(d),which indicates that"(d)Local anticipate impacts from common foreseeable cumulative impacts impacts? master programs shall evaluate and uses and create standards to of development do not cause a °a�;eP,e;.T�...".a�{la�:.�'"�� consider cumulative impacts of address ihe impact. net loss of ecological functions reasonablyforeseeable fuWre of the shoreline development on shoreline ecological :.d�a+x�a-:.m;a��..�-�;agiw; functions and other shoreline functions �',e;.�t��-'�m;.� fostered by the policy goals of ihe act To ensure no net loss of ecological functions — and protection of other shoreline functions � and/or uses,master programs shall U contain policies,programs,and regulations that address adverse acumulative impacts and fairly allocate ihe � burden of addressing wmulative impacts among developmentopportunities" Pa3e 19 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Develop a Restoretion Plan Develop a Restoretion Plan This issue was discussed in K Anderson comment: The restoration plan is an important No Change. thatwillidentifydegraded lhatwillidentifydegreded depth,andsettledbytheSAGas elementoftheSMPupdate. Itwill I areas and provide a fremework areas and provide a fremework a group.The proposed language SMP 7.1 Restoretion Plan on Public provide the basis for restoretion efforts as 0 ThePCn�ay wish m for restoretion efforts to for restoretion efforts to and deletions skews the SAG Land(Title only a resWt of joint public and private efforts. fiscuss the proposaL improve ihe existing ecological improve ihe existing ecological intent,and is not consistent with The restoration plan presenis an function and provide a function and provide a WAC 173-26-201(2)(f). opportuniry to balance against the mechanism for mitigation of inechanism for joint public and regulatory'burden"of the no net loss unavoidable and unforeseeable rip vate mitigation of standard.The restoration plan should fuNredevelopment a:.a;�-'-'�"'-�,.,�:-�x-� identifyopportunitiesforandprogress �future developmentwhile toward restoretion Ihat creates a"net nrovidina incentives for fuNre gain"to balance against potential loss of develonment for mitiaation. shoreline ecological function in other parts of the shoreline. In ihat regard Ihe SAGs dreft policy appropriately charecterizes the approach.The restoration plan should identifyexisting restoretion projects and progrems in the City. As noted in the mitigation sequence, when mitigation is required because a project creates a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and the project proponent cannot accommodate mitigation on-site,a comprehensive restoration plan mayprovide opportunities for off-site m itigation to ensure no net loss ocwrs in ihe shoreline,generelly,as a result of ihe project The Policy,as a drefted,is consistent with the regulations and Ihe statute.The revisions proposed - byCentennial appear to have some typogrephical errors,but the generel v concepts may be within the renge of � discretion afforded to Ihe Ciry.The � guidelines recognize the fact ihat arestoration efforts are a resWt of public g and private initiatives and through non- � re ulato means.WAC 173-26-186 8 c Provide incentives for projecfs Provide incentives for projects This two-word proposed addition J Short DOE: Change: Provide incentives for that include restoration and lhat include restoretion and reads like an attempt to Uses would be Ilmited to those allowed projects ihat include restoretion enhancement components by enhancement components by undermine the public investment through the regs/use table;and and enhancement componenfs v implementing toolswhich may implementing toolswhich may in shoreline inventory,shoreline by implementing toolswhich include but are not limited to: include but are not limited to: ecological functions,and clear, I suggest you allow ihis Flexibility,with may indude but are not limited �� modifying ihe shoreline setback modifying ihe shoreline setback predictable standards. appropriate sideboards,when the project to:modifying ihe shoreline '�w area that would apply to the and buffer areas thatwould will resWt in a net gain of ecological setback area Ihatwould apply to - restored areas or allowing a apply to the restored areas or function.Restoretion or enhancement the restored areas or allowing a greater range of uses or allowing a greater renge of may be required elemenis of a permitted greater renge of uses or Flexible Flexible development standards uses or Flexible development activiry simply to achieve the no net loss development standards(e.g., - (e.g.,setbacks)on properties standards(e.g.,setbacks)on standard. setbacks)on propertles �v providing restoretion and or properties providing restoretion providing restoretion and or �T°�o enhancement. and or enhancement K Anderson comment: ?Incentives enhancement Ihat mav result in �a A ain a net qain of ecoloqical function. Pa3e 20 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Preserve and protect existing Preserve and protect existing These proposed changes both Fu[urewise comments: See memo section B. Change:� ecological functions and ecological functions and lower the stated intent below Ensuring consistencywith other Centennial's proposal to require no net E�rNagAssure no net loss of � ecosystem-wide processes ecosystem-wide processes required standards set forth in environmenfal policies is a prectice of loss only to the extent feasible is not ecological functions and within weHands,critical aquifer within wetlands,critical aquifer WAC 173-26-201 and the SMA good governmenL The Critical Areas consistentwith the stalute. Iretead,ihe ecosystem-wide processes recharge areas,fish and recharge areas,fish and itself,and attempt to inhoduce ihe Element on pages 8 and 9 is consistent concept of feasibiliry may be taken into within weHands,critical aquifer E wildlife habitat conservation wildlife habitat conservation option to eliminate any shoreline with ihe Shoreline ManagementAct consideretion in the mitigation sequence, recharge areas,fish and wildlife w areas,geologicallyhazardous areas,geologicallyhazardous ecologicalattributewithout policyofprotectingthenaturel whendetermininghowanindividual habitatconservationareas, areas and frequently Flooded areas and frequentlyFlooded recognizing mitigation sequencing environment and ihe Shoreline Master project satisfies the staNtory standard. geologically hazardous areas areas. Ensure no net loss of areas.To the extent feasible set forth in WAC 173-26- Progrem Guidelines which require no net and frequenHyFlooded areas. < ecological function within these €ensure no net loss of 201(2)(e). loss of shoreline ecological Ensure no net loss of ecological �a critical areas ecological function williin these Functions. function within lhese critical c g critical areas throuah the use of areas U� a ro riatemiti ation. Ensure the critical area goals �a�sc�'�°�61°�a°�;� J Short,DOE: See memo section B. Change:To Ihe extent — and policies for ihe Shoreline This language should be retained Add"to The extent practirable". SMA nracticable and consistent with .3� Master Plan are consistentwith ;:ie:Ea�°1��e:.�i:ta°',..=::�:�# since iPs required by WAC 173- and the Guidelines provide the threshold RCW 3670A.480€ensure the the critical areas goals and tk�-s�a4areas-gealsaa� 26-191 and WAC 173-26-221(2). requirements for the protection of critical critical area goals and policies v v policies confained in the yelisies-sentaiae�-ia-the areas wrthin shoreline jurisdiction for the Shoreline Master Plan �¢_° Comprehensive Plan. 6euap�reqeasiye-Rlas� are consistentwith the critical a��a° areas goals and policies � = contained in the Comprehensive t�UU m Plan. Ensure regulatory protection Ensure regulatory protection This proposed language would K Anderson comment: Wrong RCW? No change. RCW 90.58.060 measures developed for Ihe measures developed for the make the stated policy both references the adoption shoreline area assure no net shoreline area assure no net internally inconsistent,and guidelines.The policy as drafted loss of shoreline ecological loss of shoreline ecological inconsistent with the requirements is consistentwith law. v� functions necessary to sustain functions necessary to sustain in WAC 173-26-186 and WAC shorelinenaNrelresourcesas shorelinenaturelresourcesas 173-26-201 Z� defined by Washington State defined by Washington State DepartmentofEcology DepartmentofEcology guidelinesadoptedpursuantto guidelinesadoptedpursuantto RCW 90.58.060 RCW 90.58.060 to the maximum extent ossible Rate wetlands based on the Rate wetlands based on the This language would undermine No change.Wetlands are quality of Ihe wetland and the quality of the wetland and the public investrnents in shoreline considered as part of a larger ecological function they serve. ecological function they serve. inventory and analysis required by system. vN Develop protective measures Develop protective measures WAC 173-26,ihe wetland tailored to the wetland quality tailored to the wetland quality mitigation requirements at WAC a``m and function and ihat consider and function and ihat consider 395-196-485,the BestAvailable — 10 the charecteristics and setting the charecteristics and setting Science WAC 395-196-905,and M"�� of Ihe buffer and the impacts of the buffer and the impacts the legislative intent to protect v�� on adjacent land use. on adjacent land use as to the against"ihe inherent harm in an � specificwetland. uncoordinated and piecemeal �o�� development of the state's z°10� shorelines"(RCW90.58.020). Pa3e 21 nraft cook o„aPoltoies-cmn»,e„r7 b1e Anoolnne„t k t4 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Base wetland mitigation on ihe J Short-DOE: The change would be consistent wetland reting and require " and avoidance has been deemed..." with mitigation sequencing. mitigation sequencing.Only v° allowcompensatorymitigation KAndersoncomment: Mitigation Change: Basewetland � after mitigation sequencing has measures can be extremely expensive mitigation on ihe welland reting �-�� been applied and higher priority and never ending since there are no and require mitigation N� meansofmitigationhavebeen quantifiableresultsbywhichtomeasure sequencing.Onlyallow 10 deemedinfeasible. andjudgesuccess. compensatorymitigationafter Z,s� mitigation sequencing has been ��E:a�„ applied and�t7 ��E reF""�°"°�"iuk"..:`ig°ta°'r==:fi+a:.a;."s �� ^�.�.'.��t,;,��=;;q�-�r kaaeavoidance has been — ,;.i�i��;r�a;��:,a;,�_.�-�-� deemed infeasible. = e..a„ig:ac-pr��,..�,��-a,:iHgaFaa ��2. Pa3¢22 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Limit development ihat would SMP 8.45 The original language in this K Anderson comment: The SAG policy mirrors the standard in cause foreseeable risk from policywas discussed at lengih in LImR development ihat would cause WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(ii)pertaining to Q ThePGna}�wish m geological conditions to people Limit development ihat would the SAG.The reference to homes foreseeable risk from geological standards for geologically hazardous fiscuss ivhether m lin�it = or property. Do not allow cause foreseeable risk from only is stated in the law;ihe rest conditions to people or property. Do not areas.The specific fows in the ihird snucturalshareline _ development Ihat will require geological conditions to people of the proposed language allow development Ihat will require sentence on homes,rether ihan smbitization m yrotect shuctural shoreline stabilization or property. Do not allow undermines the intent to prevent sVUCturel shoreline stabilization except in strucWres or uses,more generelly,is ezisringhomes. except in the lim ited cases development that will require new structurel shoreline the limited cases where it is necessary to reFlected in the slatute and in the � where it is necessaryto protect sVUCturel shoreline stabilization stabilization. Public access protect an allowed a:aa;.a°-�"�F regulations. See RCW 90.58.100(6)and an allowed use and no except in the limited cases melhods are appropriately aaatiaw-isavaae:e.Allow shucturel 90.58.030(3)(e)(ii).As a resWt,the SAGs No other changes are alternative location is available. where it is necessary to protect addressed elsewhere in ihe SMP shoreline stabil¢ation to protect existing policy is consistentwith the Guidance. recommended to the policy. � Allow stmctural shoreline an allowed use and no Goals and Policies. homes^�•�::-°�-'-�m stabilization to protect existing alternative location is available. w:.�Kaa".a;.Jaia:��. Do not allow Centennial's proposed change to expand homes onlywhen relocation or Allow stmctural shoreline shucturel shoreline stabilization lhat will the broaden lhe language to protect reconshuctlon Is Infeasible. Do stabilization to protect exlsting result in a net loss of ecological function. "uses"rether than just"homes"Is an - not allow shucNral shoreline t�emesuses onlywhen expansion beyond ihe direct authority _ stabilization Ihat will result in a relocation or reconstruction is recognized in Ihe regulation.The net loss of ecological function. infeasible. Allow limited guidelines for stabilization more generelly strucWral shoreline stabilization offer more Flexibiliry for sfabilization �3 to provide access to the associated with structures,notjust shorel Ines.9aaeLaAllow hom es. 173-26-231(3)(a)(iii). If the structurel shoreline s[abilization planning commission wants to explore that will resWt in a no net loss Ihis concept further,additional research of ecological function with may be required. appropriate mitipation. - With respect to Ihe final sentence,the o SAGs dreft is consistent with the � stalutorystandard. Centennial's r proposed revision adds the concept of m itigation,which is also consistent with Iheguldellnes.WAC173-2Cr201(c) ("The concept of"nef'as used herein, recognizes that any development has - potential or aclual,short-term or long-term impacts and that through application of appropriate development standards and em ployment of m itigation m easu res in o¢ accordance with the mitigation sequence, a� Ihose impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the end aa result will not dim inish Ihe shoreline �= resources and values as theywrrently exist"). Pa3e 23 nraft cook o„aPoltoies-cmn»,e„r7 b1e Anoolnne„t k t4 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Develop measures that assure Develop measures that assure This proposed language adds no No change. no net loss of ecological no net loss of ecological darity or value. v�° functions of river,lake and functions of river,lake and LL�° sheam covidors associated sVeam corzidors associated with fish and wildlife habitat. with fish and wildlife habitat. ° Integrate the protection n of Integrete lhe protection n of ��U fish and wildlife habitatwith fish and wildlife habitatwith vw m Flood hazard reduction and Flood hazard reduction and — other fish and wildlife other fish and wildlife aL0¢ managementprovisions. managementprovisions. `m v 'Developmeasuresthat 'Developmeasureslhat -- authorize and facilitate habifat authorize and facilitate habifat :��¢ and restoretion projects. and restoretion projects in these areas where a ro riate. Allow new structurel Flood J Short-DOE: Change: hazard reduction measures only: "using natural,nabve materials..." Allow new structurel Flood hazard reduction measures only: •Where scientific and engineering analysis has •Where scientific and demonstrated it to be engineering analysis has necessary,and when non- demonstreted it to be necessary, shuctural methods are and when non-shucWrel infeasible and mitigation is methods are infeasible and accomplished;and mitigation is accomplished;and •Landward of associated •Landward of associated wetlands and buffer areas wetlands and buffer areas .�,°— except where no altemative except where no altemative exists,as documented in an exists,as documented in an ° engineering analysis;and engineering analysis;and � •When consistent with wrrent •When consistent with wrrent � bestmanagementprectices, bestmanagementprectices, using naturel materials using naturel n�tive materials whenever feasible. whenever feasible. — Note:An example of a — shuctural Flood hazard reduction measure is a shucture placed by humans in within a sheam or river waterward of the ordinary high amark such as,but not limited to � a diversion or modification of � waterFlowtocontrolFlooding. Pa3e 24 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Allow removal of grevel for Allow removal of grevel for The Central Premix representative Fu[urewise Comments: Change: Flood conhol only if biological Flood control only if biological at the SAG meetings never 'Grevel exhaction is widely perceived to and geomorphological study and geomorphological study brought Ihis up,and in generel Ihe yield Flood conhol benefits,but there is Allow removal of grevel for Flood demonshates a long-term demonsVates a long-term SAG bent over backwards to little hard evidence that the perceived conhol only if biological and benefit to Flood hazard benefit to Flood hazard recognize the unique needs of lhe benefits are real or more ihan geomorphological study � reduction and no net loss of reduction and no net loss of aggregate mining industry in the ephemeral."5 However,the adverse demonsVates that exhaction has ecological functions.This does ecological functions.This does City of Spokane Valley.What effects of grevel removal for Flood control a long-term benefit to Flood not apply to the permitted not apply to the permitted new grevel exhaction on fish habitat and other ecological hazard reduction,does not resWt gravel mining operetions gravel mining operetions opportunities would lie in SMA functions are real and significanL6 WAC aad-aein a net loss of ecological underway at the tlme of SMP underway at Ihe time of SMP jurisdlctlon In the city.�Thls 173-26-221(3)(c)(v)sets the minlmum functions,and Is nart of a adoption and approval. adoption and approval or�the should be left to future SMP conditions applicable to grevel mining for comnrehensive Flood subseauentivannrovedaravel updates Floodconhol:providesthat"Requirethat manaaementsoWtion.Thisdoes minina onerations. . the removal of grevel for Flood not apply to lhe permitted grevel management purposes be consistent m ining operetions underway at with an adopted Flood Ihe time of SMP adoption and � hazard reduction plan and with lhis approval, chapter and allowed only after a biological and geomorphological sNdy shows ihat extrection has a long-term benefit to Flood hazard reduction,does not resWt in a net loss of ecological functions,and is part of a comprehensive Flood management solution." Proposed PolicySMP 9.4 allows '7emoval of gravel for Flood control only if biological and geomorphological sludy demonsVates a long-term benefit to Flood hazard reduction and no net loss of ecological functions.This does not apply to the permitted grevel mining operetions underway at the time of SMP adoption — and approval."While we agree that ihe � lim itations of this policy and WAC 173- � 26-221(3)(c)(v)should not apply to the existing permitted gravel operetions, m given the lack of Flood conhol benefits of � grevel removal and its very real impacts, the addition requirement that ihe 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. Pa3e 25 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Require the dedication and � Requiring public access Fu[urewise comments: The policy is an acwrete charecterization No Change. improvement of public access ��Allow for improvement and development as As our population increases,we need of the guidelines goveming access. in developments for water- development of public access a condition of approval for lhe more public access.One of the policies Importantly,the policy acknowledges the enjoyment,water-related and in developments for waterv stated uses in this section is a of Washington's Shoreline Management important exceptions from ihe generel non water-dependent uses and enjoyment,watervrelated and long settled prectice statewide, Act is to increase public access to requirement when Ihe Ciry provides more for the subdivision of land into non water-dependent uses and and lies among Ihe core principles publidyowned rivers,streams,and effective public access through a public � more than four parcels,with for the subdivision of land into of the SMA(RCW 90.58.02Q lakes.4 The development needed to access planning process and/or there are exceptions as allowed by WAC more than four parcels,with WAC 173-26-221(4)).This accommodate growth can interfere with issues related to safety,incompatibility — 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii). exceptions as allowed by WAC proposed language is not the traditional public accesses ihat locals and constilutional principles of nexus or w 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii). consistentwith the law. have used for years to boat,swlm,and rough proportionality. See Memo section � fish.The Shoreline Master Progrem B.Thus the policys reference to the Guidelines implement the Shoreline "exceptions"capWres Ihe tools available ManagementAct policies by including to the Ciry to create a public access � more specific requirements for public requirement in the development access in WAC 173-26-221(4)(d).Policy regulations Ihat is sensitive to SMP 10.3 captures Ihis policyand lhe constitutional concems and a requirements for public access well. acknowledges Ihe existing access already � present within the Citys shoreline trail system. When improving and When improving and This is a perfeclly legitimate policy See Memo Section C. Change. maintaining existing public maintaining existing public under the SMA and SMP access poinfs,minimize access points,minimize Guideline rules,and was 0 ThePGnay wish m � additional impacts on the additional impacts on the thoroughly diswssed in the SAG. fiscuss ivhether m inciude shorelineenvironmentand,if shorelineenvironmentaa$-U Theoriginallanguageshouldbe therestoranmilanguage. �o possible,correctpastadverse ��:.i;:a.�r:€�;a��:x retained. °' environmenfal impacts caused ��F�•axa When improving and maintaining ¢� bylhe public access. �y-Fh�"��a�. existing public access points, ° minim¢e additional impacts on Ihe shoreline environment and,8 �� yessi4�le so lonq as it is consistentwith constiWtional protections,correct past adverse �� environmenlal impacts caused b the ublicaccess. Require Ihat public access Require that public access Just as not every shoreline site is No change. measures have a design measures have a design appropriate for public access,and appropriate to Ihe site,adjacent appropriate to the site,adjacent not every treil or mountain top is property,and generel nature of property,and generel nature of accessible to all individuals,ihis the proposed development, the proposed development, language should be retained.The while protecting and providing while protecting and providing ADA recognizes this reality.If ¢ views. Public access facilities views. Public access facilities creating access for all persons should be designed with should be designed with with disabilities were required at _ provisions for persons with provisions for persons with all public access locations, odisabilities,where appropriate. disabilities, adverse shoreline impactswould result which are not consistent with ihe prioriCrzed,preferred uses a� in shorelines stated at RCW �� 90.58.020 and WAC 173-26-176 and WAC 173-26-181. Pa3e 26 nraft cook o„aPoltoies-cmn»,e„r7 b1e Anoolnne„t k t4 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Minim¢e ihe impacts to K Anderson comment: This provision,as drefted,may be slightly Change. existing views where ihe view Could have a chilling affect on large,new inconsistent with the Shoreline view is taken from the water or economic developments. protection in 90.58.320. RCW 90.58.320 Minim¢e ihe impacts to existing shoreline,public property or addresses shucNres over 35 feet in views where Ihe view is taken substantial numbers of height that obshuct views from a from ihe water or shoreline, v residences.Water-dependent substantial number of residences,unless public property or substantial � shoreline uses and physical the SMP allows the height andwhen numbers of residences.Water- public access shall have overriding consideretions of public interest dependent shoreline uses and � prioriry over mainfaining a view shall be served.As written,Ihe last physical public access shall � when a conFlict between them sentence in the policy suggests Ihat have priorityover maintaining a is irreconcilable. shoreline uses will be given priority over viewwhen a conFlict between � view,even when prohibited by RCW them is irreconcilable nrovided 90.58.320.This can be addressed by that the water denendent use is simply adding,"...provided Ihat the water consistentwith heiaht dependent use is consistent with height restrictions in RCW 90.58.320.. reshictions in RCW 90.58.320." Incentives such as densiry or J Short—DOE: No Change.The public access bulk and dimensional bonuses This is an interesting concept. I'm plan and forthcoming regulations > should be considered if assuming the forthmming regulations will strive to implement this goal. development proposals indude will explain how you detertnine what the additional public access required level of public axess is so you — beyond that required bythis can cleady Identify a project that goes SMP. above and beyond that threshold. a g K Anderson comment: � Incentives a ain? Preference shall be given to K Anderson comment: No Change.An ordinance is not non-motorized recreational Would you need an ordinance banning required.The policywill be ` activities. motorized use? implemented Ihrough mregulations.The Counry — Commissioners regulate boating a o� activiry on the Spokane River.by �� Ihe Spokane Counry Boating Safet Ordinance. Encouregenewdevelopment KAndersoncomment: NoChange.Thepolicy to contribute to the creation or Encourege new development to encoureges Ihe creation of open �� preservation of open space conhibute to thesreaNe�ec preservation space Regulations will not ��x and/or fish and wildlife habitat of open space and/or fish and wildlife require this concept. along the shorelines through habitat along the shorelines through ihe — the use of tools such as use of tools such as conservation �� conservation futures, futures,conservations easements, conservations easements, hansfereble development rights,and a� trensferable development planned unit developmenfs. �LL rights,and planned unit developments. Pa3e 27 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Legally established uses and Legally established uses and The original language is The Ciry has some discretion in the 0 ThePGnap wish m developments Ihat were developmenis ihat were consistentwith the law,the details of how it regulates legally fiscuss tegall}•estabiished erected and mainfained in erected and maintained in proposed language is not READ established nonconforming uses. Either noncw f rn�ing uses. lawful condition prior to the lawful condition prior to ihe WAC 173-14-055. formulation of Ihe standard under which effective date of ihis Master effective date of ihis Master the City mayallow future development or Change recommended to Progrem,shall be allowed to Progrem,shall be allowed to redevelopment of nonconforming uses accommodate Ihe recent continue as legal continue as legal and shucWres could potentially be staNtorychange is: Legally � nonconforming uses provided nonconforming uses provided considered,Ihough ihere are key established uses and thatfuNredevelopmentor lhatfuNredevelopmentor differences. Forexample,CentenniaPs developments thatwereerected — redevelopment does not redevelopmentdees-aeF proposed formulation could be arguably and maintained in lawful v increase the degree of �ms,=zax'��a��: more restrictive in some applications, condition prior to the effective � nonconformitywith lhis �kis such as the redevelopment of a damaged date of this Master Progrem, progrem. yrec}Kam provides a hiaher nonconforming struclure,because it only shall be allowed to continue as dearee of benefit and allows redevelopment upon a provision of legal nonconforming uses j restoration to the ecoloaical benefit and restoretion,while the SAGs provided Ihat fuNre development function of the shorelines. formulation would allow for rebuild in ihe or redevelopment does not — samefoop�rintwithoutadditional increasethedegreeof restoretion. In either case,Ihe Citywill nonconformirywith Ihis progrem. want to revise this provision to reFlect Expansion,or replacement of more recentstatutorychangesto pre-existinqresidential nonconforming use provisions that structures and their appurtenant consider pre-existing residential uses to strucWres.shall be allowed if it is be'bonforming."RCW 90.58.620. consistentwith the master proqram,includinq requirements for no net loss of shoreline ecolo ical functions.-. Prohibit new non-water Prohibit new non-water This was diswssed in the SAG No change. oriented commercial uses oriented commercial uses and should be retained. — unless Ihey are part of a m ixed- unless they are part of a m ixed- �" U use project or the use provides use project or Ihe use provides ��,� a significant public benefit, a si�aiNsaeF public benefit, �`°'o°' such as public access and such as public access and fn z O U� ecolo ical restoretion. ecolo ical restoration. Pa3e 28 nraft cook o„aPoltoies-cmn»,e„r7 b1e Anoolnne„t k t4 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Give priority to industrial uses Give priority to indushial uses This language is impossibly vague Fu[ure wise Comments: In Ihe case of grevel pits,lhe guidelines Based on Ecology's clarification in the following order: in the following order: and could address ownerships We are concerned Ihat proposed recognize that'9t is appropriate,however, Ihe gravel pits will be retained in • First priotiry is give to • First priotiry is give to and uses having nothing to do Policies SMP 12.13 and SMP 12.50 ihat to determine whether there will be no net Ihe inventory,butwill not be water—dependent water�lependent with ihe aggregate mining define Ihe existing grevel mines as water loss of ecological function based on addressed,until such a time that indushial uses industrial uses industry. dependent uses misinterpret ihe concept evaluation of final reclamation required for Ihe pit enters iPs redamation • Second priority is given • Second priority is given of water dependency.WAC 173-26- the site."173-26-241(3)(f). Moreover, phase.The pifs will no longer be to watervrelated to watervrelated 020(39)defines a"[w]ater-dependent Ecology has provided further guidance dassified as water dependent industrial uses industrial uses use"as"a use or portion of a use which that lakes created by mining activities uses. • The existing legally • The existing legally cannot exist in a location that is not need not be regulated as shorelines of the � permitted grevel pits permitted grevel pits, adjacent to the water and which is state until redamation is complete.There Change: are considered water and their surroundinq dependent on the water by reason of the may be no need to make the mining uses dependent uses. uses in the shoreline inhinsic nature of ifs operetions."The "water dependent uses"and Ihe language Give priority to industrial uses in are�s are considered gravel mines to not meet this definition. can be deleted. Ihe following order: water dependent uses. They are in Iheir location because of . First prioriry is give to gravel resources,not because they water�lependent cannot exist in a location ihat is not industrial uses adjacenttothewater.Sotheycanno[be . Secondpriorityisgiven — defined as water dependent uses.We do to watervrelated not disagree with policies that allow industrial uses � Ihese uses to continue with necessary �T,ri�;;,s��A measures to ensure no net losses of shoreline resources,but Ihey do not a meet Ihe definition of water dependent g and so cannot be given that � classification. Pa3e 29 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Prohibitnewnon-water - KAndersoncomment: WhilewaterdependentindusVialusesare oriented indushial uses Can be low priority per 12.13 but can't be preferred,and the Ciry may choose to 0 The PC n�ay wish m prohibited without zone change. discourege new non-water oriented fiscuss ivhether to resnict industrial uses,the outright prohibition of -water oriented non-water oriented indushial uses in all indusniai uses in instances and in all environmenYS maybe shorellne jurisdicrion more restrictive Ihan what is required. See,e.g.,173-26-241(3)(f) WAC 173-26-241(3)(f)Paregreph 3'. New nonwater-oriented industrial development should be prohibited n shorelines except when'. (i)The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water- j dependent uses and provides a — significant public benefit with respect - to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public ccess and ecological restoretion',or (ii)Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site',and the 0 industrial use provides a significant public benefit with respect to the � Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public ccess and ecological restoretion. Z In areas designated for industrial water-oriented industrial may be allowed if the site is a physically separeted from the � shoreline by another property or ublicri htofwa. Reduce the adverse effects of - Limit allowed shoreline modifications in allowed shoreline modifications number and extent as much as possible is 0 ThePCmay�vish to _ and,as much as possible,limit more restrictive than Is required under the discuss the degree to aw�� allowedshorelinemodifications staNte,whichexpresslyfostersall �vhichsNoretine ��J innumberandextent reasonableandappropriateusesand n�odfotionshouidbe reco nizes alteretions of the shoreline. limited Assure that shoreline Assure that shoreline This language should be retained This Policy appears to address ihe policy modifications individually and modifications individually and since it supports and is supported preferences in RCW 90.58.020 which 0 ThePGnay wish m — cumulatively do not result in a wmulatively do not result in a by,numerous sections of both the gives preference to uses that preserve the fiscuss the retarimssh'ry _ net loss of ecological functions net loss of ecological functions SMA and its implementing rules. natural charecter of the shoreline. benveen yrioriry�uses, - by: by: A quick read of RCW 90.58.02Q However RCW 90.58.020 also fosters"all onabie and ° Giving preference to those • vi:M�:'-�-°�.ax RCW 90.58.10Q WAC 173-26- reasonable and appropriate uses"and appropriate uses,and a w types of shorellne �:.� 181,-186(8),-201 wll help for acknowledges alteratlons.To Ihe extent al[eranons.. g,°� modificationsthathave the auxkGsaNeas�at-qaue--Eke starters. thatthepolicydeemphasizesthepriority least impact on ecological u�le� alteretions identified in RCW 90.58.020 function;and (uasEiea;-as�l and the recognition of shoreline a z� Requiring mitigation of • �requiring mitigation of alteretions,generelly,then the policy may �z LL identified impacts resulting identified impacts resulting be more resVictive Ihan what is required. fromshorelinemodifications fromshorelinemodifications Pa3e 30 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Base shoreline modification Base shoreline modification The two gravel pits provide a unique The Pits will not be regulated by regulations on scientific and regulations on scientific and situation where ihe existing conditiore Ihe SMP until lhey reach the technical information of reach technical information of reach may not provide the best measure for reclamation phase. - conditions for ihe Spokane conditions for ihe Spokane determining no net loss.As recognized in _ River,Shelley Lake,Central River,Shelley Lake,^�a.::a. the guldellnes,"It is appropriate,however, Q ThePCshoutd fi'scuss - Pre-mix and Flora Pit °ra�:�:;�°�'°a,.�.�;a-°;E. to determine whether there will be no net grm�etpies andDOE's � loss of ecological function based on tatestguidance. evaluation of final reclamation required for = the site."173-26-241(3)(f).As further Change: Base shoreline noted in recentcorrespondencefrom modification regulationson in Ecology,lhe City does not need to scientific and technical � regulate Ihe pifs as shorelines until they information of reach conditions enter reclamation phase.Thus Ihe City for the Spokane River,and maywant to consider changes to the Shelley Lake„a°'��'�:n �� policy to address these hvo unique shoreline areas. — Plan for the restoration of K Anderson comment: No change.The regulations and - _ impaired ecological functions Public or private property.�Who would restoretion plan should address a N o o�_- where feasible and appropriate, define and determine the impaired Ihis issue in conjunction with �N��w LL while accommodating function? modifications. erm itted uses. Docks shall be allowed only in Docks shall be allowed only in This proposed language is entirely Futurewise comments: Generally,Ihe regulations allow new 0 ThePC may ivish m locations where Iheywill not locations where theywill not inconsistent with the WAC Docks have significant impacts to docks forwater dependent and residential fiscuss this issue. pose a public safety hazard or pose a public safery hazard or Guidelines. Docks can be an ecological functions.Public and shared uses. See WAC 173-26-231(3)(b). The SAG felt stronglythat Ihe adversely impact shoreline adversely impact shoreline appurtenant use to a single family docks should be the standard prectice Moreover,the regulations allow docks so conditions of ihe Spokane River, ecological functions or process ecological functions or process home on an upland parcel with wherever possible where there is a long as ihey avoid or,if Ihat is not with ihe exception of certain and limited as follows: and limited as follows: shoreline,but docks are not a demand for docks.However we support possible,to minim¢e and mitigate the areas,were not conducive to Spokane River-only in • Spokane River-only in property right atfached to all such the Shoreline Advisory Group's impacfs to ecological functions. docks. reservoir areas,where Flow reservoir areas,where Flow parcels. provisions in SMP 12-26 and SMP 12-27 Accordingly,Ihe language maybe more conditions least resemble conditions least resemble as a reasonable compromise to balance reshictive than what is required by the Change to reFlect removing the the nalurel free-Flowing the naNrel free-Flowing river pocks should only be allowed Ihe interests of the communityand Ihe regulations. However,if there is a public Grevel Pit from regulatory river; unless necessarvto support where their location does not conclusions of ihe citys shoreline health,safetyconcern,the City may have discussion: Shelley Lake; a permitted use; adversely impact shoreline inventory and research into the feasibiliry a sVOng policy reason for resVicting Gravel pits;or • Shelley Lake; ecological function,public of docks conducted by URS. docks in certain areas. Docks shall be allowed only in Severely ecologically • Gravel pits;or navigational access and other locations where theywill not impactedshorelineareas • Severelyecologically normalpublicuse. Formany poseapublicsaferyhazardor with adequate public impacted shoreline areas technical and policy reasons adversely impact shoreline access with adequate public access docks are not appropriate on free- ecological functions or process - Flowing rivers because ihey aren't and limited as follows: consistentwith the SMA. Spokane River-only in reservoir areas,where Flow conditions least resemble the o naNrel free-Flowing river; � Shelley Lake; ��r a •Severely ecologically impacted g shoreline areas with adequate � ublic access Reshict the size of new docks K Anderson comment: No Change. � to the minimum necessary to I do not see size within the RCW's. a N Y serve a proposed water- �N o dependentuse. Pa3e 31 nraft cook o„aPoltoies-cmn»,e„r7 b1e Anoolnne„t k t4 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Require residential �'�l This language should be retained K Anderson comment: Encouragement or requirement ofjoint- 0 ThePGnay wish m development of more than two since iPs supported at WAC 173- Can you require this without a zone use docks is a way to m inim ize impacts fiscuss this issue. �+��,,;a..�..._.,,�a �o° dwellings to provide �welRa}ste-yrew�e 26-241(3)(b),and required under change? on ecologlcal functions. Pollcies communitydocks,retherihan ��--r.;t"-�:. WAC173-26-191(2). encouragingorrequiringjointusedocks TheSAGfeltstronglythatitwas - individual docks. ia�wic�al-desks are common especially in pristine areas. important to limit the impacts of M� The policypresented is within the docks,and this was a rv o discretion of the City,but may be more reasonable and common a U than is required by stalute because docks alternative. g� are not a prohibited use and dock sharing �10 is not re uired b statute. Design and locate new Design and locate new This language should be retained No change.This concept 3 development and lofs created development and lots created since iPs supported by numerous represents proactive efforts to �c Z� through subdivision,partiwlarly thro�gh subdivision,paHis�larly references Ihroughout the SMA minim¢e ihe need for o� those located on steep slopes '" � -' °��'..,�,�� and WAC,including requirements stabilization. and bWffs,to prevent the need �to prevent the need for consistencywith other law: a.m�—O for fuWre sheambank for fuNre streambank READ WAC 173-26-191(1)(e), �o J o protection measures during the protection measures during Ihe and WACA 173-26-221(2). life o the shucWre. life o the structure. Site insheam structures to Fu[urewise Comments: No Change. protect and preserve Proposed Policies 12.43 and 12.44 allow ecosystem-wide processes, instream strucNres.Insheam strucWres Based on a conversation with ecological functions,and can have very significance adverse the URS consultant placement E cWturel resources,including impacts on the shoreline environment of in-water slrucNres should be but not lim ited to fish and fish and in water recreation.We recommend based on localized stream Flow in passage,wildlife and water Ihese policies be modified to prohibit characteristics,not the shoreline resources,shoreline critical insheam strucWres in NaNrel and environment The Commission areas,hydro-geological Conservancy Environments and their may wish to consider different in processes,and naturel scenic equivalent environments water shuctures in preferential a� vistas. Iocations.Jf so,staff will come g y' back with an additional �� recommendation. � Consider Ihe full renge of No change to[his policy.The v public interests,watershed point is adequately addressed in ` functions and processes,and policy 12.43. �m environmental concems when — planning and locating in-stream shucNres,with special �� emphasis on protecting and a o restoring prioriry habitafs and �� s ecies. Advocate and foster habitat K Anderson comment: No Change and naWrel system Advocate and foster habitat and naNrel �� enhancement projects which un blic system enhancement projects �� restore Ihe naturel charecter which restore the natural charecter and a�� and function of Ihe shoreline function of ihe shoreline provided Ihey ��r a provided they are consistent are consistentwith the Restoretion Plan. fn x�z fn w,., N,i��e Restoretion Plan. Pa3e 32 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable AnacMneni�«14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Allow existing grevel pit N Smith for Central Pre-mix comment: 0 The PGnap wish m operetions to continue to CPM believes that ihese are inconsistent fiscuss this issue mid operete and expand consistent with ihe SMP Handbook and suggests nstder the chmige with operetional permits. Ihe following: proposed belo�v. Operetional uses include both above water and below water The existinq qravel pits within the CiN of Change:PAlew-eExisting grevel gravel exhaction,processing, Spokane Vallev continue to be fullv pit operetions m�continue to and crushing.Accessoryuses operationaL'Bince mininq operations operete and expand consistent include,but are not limited to, will not cease in the next few vears, with operetional permi[s. concrete batch planfs,hot mix these aravel nits are excluded from the ��•ax��;;. asphalt plants,aggregate iurisdiction of the Citv's shoreline nlan ��-°��'-��°��: processing and recycling until comnletion of the active minina 3ra=:��»i:.s, plants,customer service Qruck oneretions and redamation as reauired dispatching)offices, bv an annlicable redamation nlan ��a,�•'�•-°�:P maintenance facilities,huck& annroved bv the Denartment of NaNral w;.sF'-�-'.�-�:e:.:�-:aF,:b. equlpment parking,stockpiles, Resources. esR�-P�-a9�� scale houses,retal product , stores,and qualltycontrol c�eme�wse{kusk facilitles. �aaESliia9�-ef�se� ;..�i,,�,��.,,.e r�.a. �^'�ax�-r�:ai;-f,;^� � �� _ �T^Active qravel pits are not requlated as shorelines of the state until reclamation is complete and DNR terminates the Surface Mine Reclamation Pernit. Pa3e 33 Drafi Goads and Policies-CrnmnenlTable Anaclnneni k 14 Pr�ed frn the Itc9�10,2012 Planriirig Cwmnission�eiing Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Comments Staff Recommendation Received Existing Grevel Pit Operetions Futurewise Comments: See comments to Policy 12.13 and 1223. 0 ThePGnap wish m are considered water We are concerned lhat proposed fiscuss this issues mid dependent uses Policies SM P 12.13 and SMP 12.50 ihat whether to jurther address define Ihe existing grevel mines as water noncw f rn�ing uses. dependent uses m isinterp ret Ihe concept of water dependency.WAC 173-26- Policy SM P 12.5 addresses 020(39)defines a"[w]ater-dependent nomconforming uses. use"as"a use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location ihat is not Change proposed to eliminate adjacent to the water and which is grevel pits as a water dependent dependent on the water by reason of the use: �„i�H:.s��°-e.�°F inhinsic nature of its operetions."The .^,°paratiaa�-axz-aen�ra�r gravel m ines to not m eet th is defin ition. They are in Iheir location because of gravel resources,not because Ihey cannot exist in a location ihat is not adjacent to the water.So Ihey canno[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 Iand so cannot be given that classification N Smith for Central Pre-mix comment: CPM believes that ihe policy is inconsistent with the SMP Handbook and suggests the following: SMP 12.50 Subsequent Uses Operational and accessorv uses related to aravel minina onerations are nermitted and allowed to exnand after the comnletion of redamation.Onerational uses indude both above water and below water aravel exhaction. nrocessina and crushina.Accessorv uses include,but are not limited to. concrete batch plants,hot mix asphalt plants,aqqreqate processinq and recvclinq plants,customer service Rruck dispatchinq)offices,maintenance facilities.Iruck and equipment parkinq. stockpiles.scale houses,retailproduct stores and ualit control facilities. Pa3e 34