Agenda 05/24/2012 �CITYok�..ne
�
Val�e �
�
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
May 24, 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
70HN G.CARROLL SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP
RUSTiN HALL
RoD HIGGINs
STEVEN NEILL
MARCIA SANDS DEANNA GRIFFITH,SECRETARY
JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: May 24, 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.
Deliberations were conducted on May 10, 2012 and continued.
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 12, 2012 and testimony was received. All
comments have been previously provided for review. On May 10, 2012 the Commission began
deliberations with the assistance of Attorney Tadas Kisielius.
The discussion led by Mr. Kisielius focused on his review of the draft Goals and Policies. He highlighted
areas where the draft goals and policies may be more restrictive than what the DOE Guidelines require,
and areas where policy decisions are appropriate based on local circumstances. He also discussed
language changes to numerous policies to reflect the statutory standard regarding key SMA concepts of
no net loss and critical areas. During deliberations directives were informally given to staff to modify
specific policies. The table has been modified to reflect the Planning Commission changes within the
Language Recommendation Column. The Commission changes are highlighted in yellow for easy
identification. The Commission should be prepared to discuss policies of concern and recommend
modifications to the policies, or provide staff with other direction. Due to the amount of material, the
Commission should focus on those policies that require further discussion or modification.
The Planning Commission has received considerable information at this point. As a reminder, the
document under review is the Shoreline Advisory Group Draft for Public Hearing—Attachment 1. When
discussing the draft goals and policies bear in mind that all changes will relate to this document. Several
public comments were provided on this draft and in track changes form. These changes may or may not
be supported by staff or our consultants. All specific comments have been transferred to the comment
table with a staff recommendation noted. Hence, the two key documents referenced during discussion
are the Goals and Policies SAG Draft for Public Hearing labeled as Attachment 1 and the Comment Table
working document. The table is modified after each discussion, and it is intended to replace the table
previously provided. The table is identified in the upper left corner noting which meeting it is prepared
fo r.
1 of 2
OPTIONS: The Planning Commission may recommend that the Council accept the draft goals and
policies as presented; recommend acceptance with modifications, recommend the proposal not be
accepted, or forward no recommendation to City Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The Commission has a motion on the table to recommend that the Council
accept the Draft Goals and Policies. The Commission should complete their deliberations and then vote
on the motion.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Previously provided with March 22, 2012 Study Session Materials:
Attachment 1. Shoreline Advisory Group Draft Goals and Policies for Public Hearing
Attachment 2. Attorney Tadas Kisielius Memo March 15, 2012
Attachment 3. Centennial Properties Comments July 19, 2011
Attachment 4. Doug Pineo's Comments July 22, 2011
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
New Attachments:
Attachment 14: Comment Table—Expanded Modified for May 24, 2012 Meeting
2 of 2
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Enhance the City's shorelines Enhance and utilize the City's "use"is always better Futurewise Comments: No change.
by establishing and shorelines by establishing than"utilize",and is Shoreline enhancement is
implementing goals,policies, and implementing goals, more consistent with the important to economic
and regulations which policies,and regulations SMA. However,this development and quality of life.
promote a mixture of which promote a mixture of goals statement is about The policy of the Shoreline
reasonable and appropriate reasonable and appropriate the SMA's prime Management Act,in RCW
shoreline uses that improve shoreline uses that improve directive to enhance and 90.58.020 directs the
the City's character,foster its the City's character,foster its protect the natural enhancement of the public
historic and cultural identity historic and cultural identity, character,resources and interest.So it is appropriate
and conserve environmental and conserve environmental ecology of shorelines of that Goal SMP 1 calls on the
resources. resources. statewide significance. city to°[e]nhance the City's
The very same sentence shorelines"
already includes the
phrase"which promote K Anderson comments:
a mixture of Enhance the City's shorelines
reasonable and by establishing and
appropriate shoreline implementing goals,policies,
uses",making the and regulations which promote
addition of either"use" a mixture of reasonable and
aor"utilize"redundant appropriate shoreline uses tbat
� and syntactically �+��r;+„��,.�,....,.r,..
�
obnoxious.
m
0
� ,.�,.i.
Page 1 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Coordinate shoreline Coordinate shoreline This sentence already K Anderson comments: RCW 90.58.130 sets No change—the city
planning between the City of planning between the City of contains the phrase, Coordinate shoreline planning out the legal has made efforts to
Spokane Valley,agencies Spokane Valley,agencies "adjoining jurisdictions". between the City of Spokane standard for involve private
� with jurisdiction,adjoining with jurisdiction,adjoining More redundancy. All Valley,private proqertv owners, participation and the property owners,
jurisdictions,the State of jurisdictions,the State of constituencies,including agencies with jurisdiction, City has some and will continue to
Washington,and the State of Washington,and the State of property owners,are adjoining jurisdictions,the State discretion in do so. The public
Idaho into which the river ldaho into which the river already included in the of Washington,and the State of choosing how to review process
basin extends,and consider basin extends,and consider phrase"special interest Idaho into which the river basin implement the allows numerous
the plans of non-government the plans of adiacent groups". extends,and consider the standard. According opportunities for
organizations(NGO's)and/or iurisdiction.propertv owners, plans of non-government to the statute the involvement. The
special interest groups. the Citv vision.non- organizations(NGO's)and/or City should"invite" intent of this policy
government organizations special interest groups. and"actively is to coordinate with
(NGO's)and/or special encourage"the other groups or
interest groups. participation of the agencies that may
general public, be engaged in
private groups,and planning functions.
local and state
agencies.
Moreover,the
statute directs local
governments and
state agencies to
take advantage of
the opportunity and
actively participate.
� Thus to some
�� degree the City can
� choose how it
a encourages the
� participation of these
m various groups.
a "Coordination"
osuggests a broad
U version of
participation,but this
a is within the City's
� discretion to choose
�
this ath.
Page 2 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Ensure that the City of Ensure that the City of The law and rules See Memo section B It is recognized that
Spokane Valley Shoreline Spokane Valley Shoreline require that GMA and for discussion of different standards
Master Program is consistent Master Program is consistent SMA/SMP provisions consistency with exist between the
with the Washington State with the Washington State must be consistent,and GMA critical areas SMA and the GMA.
Shoreline Management Act Shoreline Management Act that new and updated regulations. However the intent
and Growth Management and Growth Management SMPs must be of the policy is to
Act,the basic concepts, Act,the basic concepts, consistent with those of With respect to ensure consistency
goals,policies,and land use goals,policies,and land use adjacent(adjoining) consistency with the as directed by the
plan of the City of Spokane plan of the City of Spokane jurisdictions. This SMPs of rules. The following
Valley Comprehensive Plan Valley Comprehensive Plan phrase should be neighboring change is
and development regulations, and development regulations retained. jurisdictions,the City recommended for
the City of Spokane Valley is required to invite clarification:
ICritical Areas Ordinances, , and encourage
and the Shoreline Master participation Change: Ensure
Programs of adjacent D...........�..F...a�........t including municipal that the City of
jurisdictions. �s. and public Spokane Valley
� corporations,having Shoreline Master
interests or Program is
responsibilities consistent with the
relating to the Washington State
shorelines of the Shoreline
I state Management Act,
N aa�4 Growth
� Management Act,
m I
� and to the extent
0
practical the basic
a concepts,goals,
� policies of the
,� fol lowinq
� documents: �a�
a L4and use plan of
L the City of Spokane
� Valley
r Comprehensive
�3 � Plan�a+�c1
� development
� regulations,the City
.N of Spokane Valley
� Critical Areas
U Ordinances,and the
�`! Shoreline Master
a Programs of
� adjacent
�
'urisdictions.
Page 3 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Ensure that all shoreline uses Ensure that all shoreline uses The SMP Guidelines Futurewise Comments: See discussion of Change
oand development are and development are and the SMA itself Ensuring no net loss of critical areas in recommended that
�� regulated in a manner that regulated in a manner that require that SMPs and ecological function is the section B of the will replicate the
� guarantees no net loss of �acaafees protects no net their implementation cornerstone of the updated memo. It may be language of the
� shoreline ecological functions loss of the current of result in no net loss of shoreline master program and simpler and more WAC and eliminate
� shoreline ecological functions shoreline ecological is required by state guidelines. clear to simply use confusion regarding
�o to the areatest extent function(WAC 173-26- Policy SMP 1.3 calls for the language of the policy intent.
o possible. 201(2)(a)). Use of the ensuring no net loss of statutory standard
w word"protects"in this ecological functions.The City for protection of Ensure that all
`o sentence would make no of Spokane Valley is wise to critical areas. shoreline uses and
N grammatical sense. The include it as development are
� standard in the law and one of its basic policies. regulated in a
� rule also make no manner that
z � provision for"to the �araat�ees assures
z greatest extent no net loss of
�? possible". The standard shoreline ecological
a is"no net loss of functions
� shoreline ecological
�
function."
Protect the interests of the Protect the interests of the Futurewise Comment: See section C of the
public in attaining the goals of public in attaining the goals of Property rights are important. memo.
the Shoreline Master the Shoreline Master Policy SMP 1.4 which PC change 5/10/12:
w Program,in a manner Program, in a manner recognizes the need to achieve
� consistent with all relevant �t#that protects the goals of the Shoreline Afefes4Balance
� constitutional and other legal all relevant constitutional and Master Program in a manner the interests @f-t�2
r limitations on the regulation other legal limitations on the consistent with all relevant y�lis in attaining
Q of private property. regulation of private property constitutional and other legal the goals of the
° limitations on the regulation of Shoreline Master
a rivate ro ert Pro ram,in a
-a P P P Y 9
� manner consistent
m
�, K Anderson Comments: with all relevant
� Protect orivate orooertv riahts constitutional and
� in promotinq the interests of other legal
� the public in attaining the goals limitations on the
� of the Shoreline Master regulation of private
a Program,�^^� property
c
a ,.i..,.a,.�H,..i,.,...i
c� I'...�4..4�....�....41.... ��i..t�......F
�
Page 4 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Designate shoreline Designate shoreline This"flexibility"language Policy 1.5 articulates No change.
environments for the City of environments for the City of reflects a fundamental one of the
Spokane Valley shorelines Spokane Valley shorelines misunderstanding of the fundamental
that are consistent with the that allow for flexibilitv and SMA,which requires planning steps
Comprehensive Plan land that are consistent with the analysis and planning up involved in the SMP
uses,shoreline management Comprehensive Plan land front in the development development and
practices,and shoreline uses,shoreline management of the SMP,so that recognizes the
inventory within each practices,and shoreline property owners and the importance of the
designated area inventory within each rest of the community, inventory to the
designated area. Allow for locally and statewide, designation process.
flexibilitv in the desicrnation of know what to expect. It is part of the
shoreline environments Some property owners required shoreline
based upon specific detailed want to have their cake process.
I shoreline inventorv within and eat it too: "we want
each desianated area BOTH flexibility and It is not clear what
certainty-"just tell us Centennial is
what the rules are". This requesting in its
suggested language is revision calling for
also redundant,since "flexibility"in the
the SMP planning effort environments. More
is already fundamentally explanation or
based on the shoreline inquiry may be
inventory and analysis beneficial before
weighing the benefit
of this comment.
w
For example,the
� regulations do allow
� for flexibility to some
� degree. They allow
° for"parallel
.�
� environments"that
w
-o divide shorelands
�
� into different
� sections generally
'� running parallel to
p the shoreline or
� along a physical
'� feature such as a
`o bluff or railroad right
cLi� of way,which allows
�
for more
a stratification of the
� shoreline. WAC
�
173-26-211 4 c
Page 5 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Give preference to those K Anderson comments: Both Policies 1.6 Change: Add policy
shoreline activities which Give preference to those and 1.7 reflect most 1.8 to address
fulfill long range shoreline activities which fulfill but not all of the priority uses and
Comprehensive Plan goals long range Comprehensive policy language from shoreline
and the Shoreline Plan goals and the Shoreline RCW 90.58.020, alterations.
Management Act policy Management Act policy and as such,the
priorities,as listed and priorities,as listed and Policy is consistent
discussed below: discussed below: with the statute.
IAlthough all of the
It is the policy of the City to It is the policy of the City to statutory provisions
provide for the management provide for the management of apply regardless of
of its shorelines by planning its shorelines by planning for whether
for and fostering all and fostering all reasonable incorporated into the
reasonable and appropriate and appropriate uses.Policies Goals and Policies,
uses.Policies are designed are designed to ensure the if the City is
to ensure the development of development of the City's choosing to
the City's shorelines in a shorelines in a manner which incorporate some
manner which will promote will promote and enhance the aspects of RCW
and enhance the public public interest.These policies 90.58.020,it may
interest.These policies will will protect against adverse help to include some
� protect against adverse effects to the^��"'�^�„�"^^�.,' --�,'",'",� of the remaining key
effects to the public health, land,its vegetation and aquatic concepts from RCW
the land,its vegetation and life and wildlife,and the waters 90.58.020 to
aquatic life and wildlife,and of the Spokane River,Shelly acknowledge the
the waters of the Spokane Lake and the Sullivan Road SMA's balanced
N River,Shelly Lake and the and Park Road Gravel Pits and approach. For
� Sullivan Road and Park Road their aquatic life. example,the City
'� � Gravel Pits and their aquatic might consider
Llife. including in a new
cn policy the language
� from 90.58.020
o regarding priority
� uses(e.g.,single
� family residences,
� ports,shoreline
w recreational uses,
�
Q water dependent
a� industrial and
w
� commercial
�O. developments)and
a the general
� recognition of
� shoreline alterations.
Page 6 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
The State Legislature has Futurewise Comments: See comments Change:
declared that the interest and Establishing order of use accompanying 5. �revide Increase
benefit of all of the people preferences provides clarity Policy 1.6 above. public access to
shall be paramount in the and reserves our limited publicly owned
� management of shorelines of shoreline areas,only 200 feet areas of shorelines;
-O state-wide significance,and from the ordinary high water
� therefore preference shall be mark,for those uses that make
�a given to uses in the following the best use of these limited
� order of preference which:. areas.Policy SMP 1.7
� � 1. Recognize and incorporates the use
� protect statewide interest preferences for shorelines of
'� over local interest state-wide significance into the
0 2. Preserve the natural shoreline master program
� character of the shoreline policies.
0 3. Allow uses that
;� result in long-term over short- J Short—DOE
c°�i term benefits 5.Should say"increase"
� 4. Protect the instead of"provide"per RCW
w resources and ecology of 90.58.020
�
Q shorelines
N � � 5. Provide public
� � access to publicly owned
'� � areas of shorelines
� `� I
`� 6. Increase
a'�
�.� recreational opportunities for
�� the ublic on the shorelines.
Page 7 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
This additional
policy addresses the
legal counsel
comments regarding
policy 1.6.
Change:
SMP 1.8 Prioritv
Uses and Shoreline
Alterations
Uses shall be
preferred which are
consistent with
control of pollution
and prevention of
damaae to the
natural environment.
or are unique to or
deoendent uoon 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
orioritv for sinale-
familv residences
and their
appurtenant
structures,
� shoreline
0
recreational uses
.�
� and other
Q improvements
a� facilitatina oublic
'� access,industrial
o and commercial
� develooments wh ich
� are particularlv
� dependent on their
a`�i location on or use of
� the shorelines.and
other development
`o that will orovide an
a` opportunitv for
00. substantial numbers
a Page 8 of 66 of the people to
� eniov the shorelines
� „r+tio�+.,+o
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Ensure that the requlatorv This an entirely See memo section No change—Staff
burden of enhancinq the unnecessary element. C. does not support
� shoreline environment The SMP Guidelines adding the language
� protectinq the ecoloqical rules(WAC 173-26- proposed.
a functions and usinp the 201(2)(c),(e),(f))specify
� shoreline is born not iust bv in detail that shoreline
� the propertv owners subiect restoration is a shared
� to the Shoreline Reaulations, enterprise with the bulk
a but bv the communitv as a of the responsibility
00. � whole with a series of borne by public entities.
a a offsettinq benefits and
� � flexibilitv in administerina the
cn m
ro ram.
Protect the historic,cultural, K Anderson comments: No change. The
scientific or educational sites language clarifies
within the shoreline that Protect the historic,cultural, the sites intended to
N reflect our community's scientific or educational sites be protected.
a unique heritage and create or within the shoreline�"^'•�"^^'
� contribute to our collective
� sense of place
m
0
C�
Identify,preserve,and K Anderson comments: No change. The
manage shoreline sites and Identify,preserve,and manage principal is intended
� structures having historical, public held shoreline sites and to apply to the
� cultural,scientific or structures having historical, shorelines to
a`�i educational value,and cultural,scientific or provide protection to
in ,n develop regulations that educational value,and develop any site with
� � avoid,minimize,or miti ate re ulations that avoid, archaeolo ical and
N� 9 9 9�
a o any adverse impacts to these minimize,or mitigate any historic resources.
�..��. resources. adverse impacts to these WAC 173-26-
�� resources. 221 1 b.
Public acquisition through K Anderson comments: No change.
a o gifts,bequests,grants,or Couldn't find in RCW's. Unnecessary
�w
�'N donations of buildings or sites Public acquisition of private language since the
a`�i a l having cultural,scientific, propertv mav be accomplished policy infers the
in Q educational,or historical through gifts,bequests,grants, acquisition of private
�! a� value should be encouraged. or donations of buildings or property.
N C
a a sites having cultural,scientific,
�'� educational,or historical value
�00 should be encoura ed.
Page 9 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Discourage public or private Discourage public or private Any building or other J Short—DOE Change: Delete
development and development and element of the built Do you really want to Policy. It was not
redevelopment activities on redevelopment activities on environment can be discourage redevelopment of intended to
any site,area,or building any site,area,or building removed followed by historic buildings? discourage
identified as having historical, identified as having historical, ecological rehabilitation development or
cultural,educational or cultural,educational or of the disturbed site. redevelopment,but
scientific value scientific value unless there However,the SMA to encourage the
is a oositive imoact on the requires the inventory of preservation of
shoreline's ecolopical such sites and buildings historically
functions. and requires generally significant sites.
their protection.The This is
proposed phrases accomplished in
w should not be added. policy 2.1.
m
Q
E
�
� �
Q� ,,;�;��,�� �
��t; r
� �-2fA2-9F^
>
N
� h.., ..��I
M
N
a ��ae
Work with tribal,state,federal K Anderson comments: No change. The
and local governments as Should be a one time event policy directs
o appropriate to maintain an except in the case of discovery ongoing
� inventory of all known of unknown sites coordination to
° significant local historic, maintain the
� cultural,and archaeological inventory. The
>
� sites in observance of policy does not
u? applicable state and federal require additional
a ,� laws protecting such inventories.
�.°� information from public
�� disclosure
Page 10 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Ensure early and continuous - This Policy is No change. This
site inspection,consultation consistent with state policy is consistent
or evaluation by a law,but the extent to with current permit
professional archaeologist in which it is required processing actions.
coordination with affected or is more than what Notice is provided to
tribes for all permits issued in is required,depends the Tribe upon
areas documented to contain on the amount of receipt of a
archaeological resources. documented shoreline permit.
archaeological sites On-site inspections
in the vicinity. occur for the
Protection of majority of the
archaeological permits,and the
resources is tribe is often
governed by statute. involved in those
It is unlawful to inspections. The
disturb archeological tribe may request
resource or site additional
without a permit inspections through
from DAHP. RCW the permit process
27.53.060 The to assure that no
statute primarily historical sites are
addresses destroyed by
discovered construction
archaeological activities.
resources.
However,many
local jurisdictions
have chosen to
include a pre-project
site inspection under
SEPA authority
and/orbecause
there are known
archaeolog ical
� resources in the
0
'� area. Additionally,
� the DAHP publishes
> a list of locations
w
a where a permit is
m required in advance.
o See RCW
'� 27.53.130. Thus
Q early site inspection
� is only required
a� where there is
in evidence or
�O. documentation of
aarchaeolog ical
� resources in the
�
area.
Page 11 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Locate new public facilities K Anderson comments: No change. The
and utilities,including,but not Locate new public facilities and policy would not be
limited to,utility production, utilities,including,but not effective if the
� processing,distribution,and limited to,utility production, location were
° transmission facilities outside processing,distribution,and determined by the
0 of the shoreline jurisdiction transmission facilities outside of utility. Feasible is
� whenever feasible. the shoreline jurisdiction defined in the WAC
M whenever feasible and 173-26-020(15).
a acceotable to the utilitv Relief from this
� provider. policy is found in the
�
definition.
Page 12 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Require new utilities and Require new utilities and This would simply be the Avista chanqes requested: The Planning No change. The
facilities that must be located facilities that must be located needless expansion of Require new utilities and Commission SAG was purposeful
within the shoreline to be built within the shoreline to be built already bad grammar facilities that must be located questioned whether in adding the low
underground,if feasible,and underground,if feasible,and into execrable within the shoreline to be built undergrounding of impact,low profile
utilize low impact,low profile at+4i�e orefer the utilization of "bureaucratese". underground,if feasible,and utilities was design language to
design and construction low impact,low profile design utilize consistent with the minimize impacts.
methods to the maximum and construction methods to The SMA,at RCW �es�iga-a�i the best statutory mandate of The phrase"to the
extent possible. '"^^�^�;^���^�^�'^^' 90.58.90(4),states:"The construction and desian ensuring no net loss maximum extent
�essibl� department(Ecology) methods to the^�^��n of shoreline possible"
shall approve those extent possible ecological functions. acknowledges that
I segments of the master The policy is written these methods may
program relating to K Anderson comments: to require not always be
shorelines of statewide Require new utilities and undergrounding"if achieved. Also,see
significance only after facilities that must be located feasible." As noted comments above.
determining the program within the shoreline to be built in the definition of
provides the optimum underground,if feasible,and "feasible,"this
implementation of the acceptable to the utilitv qualifying language
policy of this chapter to orovider.and utilize low impact, provides some
satisfy the statewide low profile design and flexibility to pursue
interest." RCW construction methods to the other options if the
90.58.900 states: "This maximum extent possible. action is unlikely to
chapter...shall be achieve the intended
liberally construed to results. WAC
give full effect to the 173.26.020(15).
objectives and purposes Thus,the qualifying
for which it was language appears to
enacted." This phrase provide sufficient
should,therefore,be flexibility to pursue
retained. other options if
undergrounding is
inconsistent with low
impact design and
the statutory
requirement of"no
net loss,"more
� generally. The
o planning
� commission could
a� consider additional
� language to clarify
�
� that undergrounding
� shall not be required
a if it results in a net
�! loss of shoreline
M
a ecological functions.
� WAC
�
173.26.020 15.
Page 13 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
When existing utilities and/or When existing utilities located The concept of Avista chanqes requested: See Memo Section Change: The intent
utility corridors located within within shoreline jurisdiction correcting(restoring, Maintenance and Operation C regarding the was to address the
shoreline jurisdiction require require maintenance or other rehabilitating)past Design language maintenance and
maintenance or other improvements,the impacts is at the core of, When existing utilities facilities addressing operation needs of
improvements,the maintenance/improvement and imbued throughout and riahts of wavs^^�'� requirements to the Utility. The
maintenance/improvement should be designed and the SMA and its serric�e�s are located within restore. language clarifies
should be designed and implemented to minimize implementing rules. shoreline jurisdiction and the intent.
implemented to minimize additional impacts on the READ WAC 173-26- require maintenance or other
additional impacts on the shoreline environment aac�-i# 201(2)(f). improvements,the Q ThePC
shoreline environment and,if , maintenance/improvement should
possible,to correct past should be designed and diseuss
impacts caused by the utility. [Should also show implemented to minimize whether to
Vegetation Management additional impacts on the remove the
Plans should be recognized shoreline environment aac�-i# restoration
as maintenance activities. "as °;"'^ ' language
deleted,but doesn't.] The L'tility
Vegetation Management Plans polieies
should be recognized as apply to
maintenance activities publie
� entities,and
K Anderson comments: per the
When existing uiilities and/or memo,the
utility corridors located within takings
shoreline jurisdiction require issue does
maintenance or other not apply.
improvements,the PC Change 5/10/12
maintenance/improvement Maintenance and
should be designed and Operation Design
implemented to minimize When existing
additional impacts on the utilities facilities and
shoreline environment aa�,�# riahts of wavs
�,�*'„�"-''�'t'r
�,.,��, th,.„«,r+„ �S are located
Vegetation Management Plans within shoreline
� should be recognized as jurisdiction and
maintenance activities require maintenance
or other
improvements,the
maintenance/improv
ement should be
designed and
implemented to
minimize additional
impacts on the
a� shoreline
�' environment and,#
�
{�essil�lee n c o u ra a e d
� ,-to correct past
� impacts caused by
� the utility.
�� Vegetation
� Page 14 of 66 Management Plans
? should be
M �o��n���o���
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Give preference to Give preference to This phrase should be Avista chanqes requested: The City's language Change:The intent
established utility corridors established utility corridors retained since the SMA Give preference to established is within the range of was to allow equal
and rights-of-way for and rights-of-way for and SMP Guideline rules utility corridors and rights-of- discretion provided preference for an
� upgrades and reconstruction upgrades and reconstruction (WAC 173-26-201(e) way for upgrades,maintenance to the City for alternate location if
of existing utilities and of existing utilities and require that the least and reconstruction of existing ensuring no net loss. the site will result in
facilities,unless a location facilitie°.,-a^,„�^��-a'^^�.,'�^^ harmful alternative is utilities and facilities,unless a There is some less impact. The
with less potential to impact used,and that location with less potential to confusion over the policy did not intend
the shoreline environment is +"^^"^•^'�^^^^,,;•^^^�^^'�^ unavoidable impacts are impact the shoreline intent of the to preclude
available. ��^��' ,�^"'^. fully mitigated. environment is available. language in the maintenance.
SAGs draft. If the
K Anderson comments: SAG's intent is to
Can we dictate utility corridor require use of a Give preference to
use? location with less established utility
potential impact to corridors and rights-
the shoreline over of-way for upgrades,
� use of the existing maintenance and
= utility corridor,then reconstruction of
� the policy may be existing utilities and
� more restrictive than facilities,unless a
N what is required,if location with less
� the utility can show potential to impact
�� continued use of the the shoreline
� existing corridor environment is
a� ensures no net loss. available
�N If the SAG's intent
W was to allow equal
o preference to
� alternate locations,
° then Centennial's
� proposed revision
�
� appears to delete
a` flexibility by allowing
'f? relief from the
M
a preference given to
� existing corridors
� and ri hts-of-wa .
Page 15 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Stormwater utilities will be Stormwater utilities will be This concept was See memo section Change: Accept
designed and located as to designed and located as to discussed at length in C. Restoration is an change proposed to
minimize environmental minimize environmental the SAG meetings,and aspiration,but clarify the intent and
impacts within the shoreline impacts within the shoreline the law requires as should not be a eliminate
jurisdiction.If located within jurisdiction.If located within noted above that requirement to avoid constitutional
the shoreline jurisdiction they the shoreline jurisdiction they degraded shoreline constitutional implications since
shall require the use of best shall�e�7-ie use e�best areas shall be implication. storm water utilities
management practices(e.g. management practices(e.g. ecologically rehabilitated are likely to be
biofiltration measures)and biofiltration measures)and to the maximum extent constructed by both
landscaping with native landscaping with native feasible. READ WAC private and public
vegetation to provide habitat, vegetation#� 173-26-221(a),(b),(c). property owners.
Iecological restoration,and
aesthetic improvements.All All Stormwater utilities
stormwater facilities must stormwater facilities must will be designed and
protect water quality,manage protect water quality,manage located as to
runoff and address erosion runoff and address erosion minimize
control and sedimentation. control and sedimentation. environmental
� impacts within the
shoreline
jurisdiction.If
located within the
shoreline jurisdiction
they shall ce�+iKe
t�ie use e�best
management
practices(e.g.
biofiltration
measures)and
N landscaping with
� native vegetation te
� '�
�U
� �
..4�.. ...J
N '
� �i�o����
� +�e�eaaeats.All
o stormwater facilities
in must protect water
�O quality,manage
ro
a runoff and address
� erosion control and
�
sedimentation.
Page 16 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Provide a safe,convenient, Provide a safe,convenient, The change Change: Provide a
and multimodal circulation and multimodal circulation proposed by safe,convenient,
system which will minimize system which will minimize Centennial replaces and multimodal
� disruption to the shoreline �+s�+ea neaative impacts the undefined circulation system
� environment to the shoreline environment phrase(disruption) which will minimize
W� with a phrase that �+sr�t+ea neaative
o a has more legal impacts to the
'�� interpretation and shoreline
�� understanding. environment
.� o
U(7
Ensure that a system of Ensure that a system of K Anderson comments: See memo section Change: Ensure
arterials,scenic drives, arterials,scenic drives, Ensure that a system of B. that a system of
pathways,public transit pathways,public transit arterials,scenic drives, arterials,scenic
routes,and bikeways routes,and bikeways pathways,public transit routes, drives,pathways,
adjacent to and within the adjacent to and within the and bikeways adjacent to and public transit routes,
shoreline areas provide shoreline areas provide within the shoreline areas and bikeways
appropriate access to the appropriate access to the correlated with the shoreline adjacent to and
Spokane River in a way that Spokane River in a way that use^•^����'^^^^•^^•�^'^^^^^^^ within the shoreline
meets the needs and desires meets the needs and desires areas provide
N of the community as reflected of the community as reflected �"^'^�^^`^'"^^^^�'^^^�' appropriate access
� in the Comprehensive Plan, in the Comprehensive Plan, s to the Spokane
Q while also preserving while also�ese� reflected in the Comprehensive River in a way that
o ecological function of the protectinq ecological function Plan,while also preserving meets the needs
'� shorelines. of the shorelines. ecological function of the and desires of the
o shorelines. community as
�- reflected in the
w
� Comprehensive
H Plan,while also
� I �esew+�assurinq
a no net loss of
� ecological function
�
of the shorelines.
Page 17 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Locate new streets or street Locate new streets or street Terrible word for public No Change.
expansions outside of the expansions outside of the policy or regulation. It's Reasonable is
,°� shoreline jurisdiction,unless shoreline jurisdiction,unless a great concept that is defined within the
� no other options are available no other options are wide open to arguable definition of feasible.
I or feasible.In all cases, reasonablv available-eK and politically expedient
� streets should be on the #easil�Ie.In all cases,streets interpretation. The
� landward side of should be on the landward reasonableness of the
z development. side of development. SMP is to be built in
� � � during the planning
°_ o process. The phrase
� � "feasible"is a foundation
� Q of reasonableness,and
�`!w is well defined.
a a� Feasibility is also a
�w higher standard than
��
"reasonable".
Plan,locate,and design Plan,locate,and design This phrase is not only The revision No change.
proposed transportation proposed transportation clear and reasonable, proposed by
facilities where routes will facilities where routes will it's required by the law Centennial
have the least possible have the least possible and the WAC. READ eliminates language
adverse effect on shoreline adverse effect on shoreline WAC 173-26-201. that mirrors the
ecological functions,will not ecological functions,wiU-ae� applicable statutory
result in a net loss of ^^��'+�^^^^"^^^^' standard for
shoreline ecological protection of critical
functions,or adversely '��^^'��„^^,^r adversely areas. The standard
,� impact existing or planned impact existing or planned applies whether or
°? water dependent uses. water dependent uses. not it appears in the
�� Goals and Policies,
`4 but to the extent that
�
o Centennial's
'� proposed revision
o suggests that it does
,� not apply,the
�
� revision is
H inconsistent with
? state law. For clarity
c
a the City can choose
� to include the
�
reference.
Page 18 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
All development within the Futurewise Comments: No change.
shoreline jurisdiction area It is good policy to take every
shall provide stormwater opportunity to prevent pollution The city currently
treatment for all new and and protect water quality. regulates
redeveloped pollution Policy SMP 4.5 requires that all stormwater by
generating impervious development within the Chapter 22.150
surfaces. shoreline jurisdiction area shall Stormwater
provide stormwater treatment Management
� for all new and redeveloped Regulations. The
� pollution generating impervious Spokane Regional
m surfaces.This is consistent with Stromwater Manual
� the Shoreline Management Act is adopted by
H
� policy of giving preference to reference within this
3 uses which prevent pollution Chapter.
� and the Shoreline Master
o Program Guidelines.
� I
'f? K Anderson comment:
aDoes this match existing codes
� or will we have to create new
� ones?
Parking facilities for public J Short—DOE No Change. The
° access to the shoreline and Parking should be kept outside policy is consistent
� water should be kept as far of shoreline jurisdiction when with the law and
" from the shorelines as feasible per 173-26-241(3)(k). supported by the
� feasible SAG.Parking
a� I K Anderson comments: facilities are not a
Y N Public Parking facilities for preferred use and
a � public access to the shoreline whenever possible,
� � and water should be kept as far even if associated
c a from the shorelines as feasible. with public access,
a�`—' should be located
�a outside of shoreline
'urisdiction.
Page 19 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
IParking facilities should only Parking facilities should only Locating parking,which Futurewise Comments: The language Ale-slaaa5a TypO
be allowed as necessary to be allowed as necessary to is not a preferred or Parking does not benefit from regarding location of correction:
support permitted shoreline support permitted shoreline water-dependent or enhance shorelines.SMP parking facilities
uses,and not as a primary uses,and not as a primary shoreline use,outside of 4.6,directs that parking should outside the shoreline Parking facilities
use,and must be located use,^^�'^, ^'"^'^^^`^�' shorelines whenever be as far from the shoreline as is a policy choice the should only be
outside of the shoreline �+^��'^^'`"^^"^•^'�^^ possible is required at feasible,and SMP 4.7, City can make that allowed as
N jurisdiction area if other ��^�'� '�^^^•^^�'^`"^• WAC 173-26-241(3)(k). establishes that parking as a reflects the guidance necessary to
� options are available and ��^�'^"'^^^�' It is well within the primarily use should not be in 173-26-241(3)(k). support permitted
� feasible.l,[A1]�[A2] #easil�le^^ authority of local allowed within shoreline It is based on the shoreline uses,and
E communities under the jurisdiction.Our shoreline areas assumption that not as a primary
a` SMA to prohibit new are very limited and should be runoff from parking use,and must be
�4 parking within shorelines reserved for uses that require facilities can impact located outside of
° consistent with this or benefit from a shoreline shoreline functions. the shoreline
� � WAC,and many SMPs location,not uses that can However,the City jurisdiction area if no
- statewide do so. locate anywhere as primary might be able to other options are
�� parking facilities can. ultimately choose a available and
� different approach feasible.
�' so long as the
� approach is
a supported by
'� science and can
c
a demonstrate no net
� loss.
�
Page 20 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Retain unused public rights- Retain unused public rights- Futurewise comments: Centennial's No Change.
of-way within the shoreline of-way within the shoreline Public access is a community proposed revision
area to provide visual and area to provide visual and value.Policy SMP 4.9 calls for appears to eliminate
� physical access to the physical access to the retaining unused public rights- flexibility by deleting
m shoreline unless: shoreline unless: of-way as shoreline accesses. one of the available
� � The street vacation The street vacation These public owned corridors options to overcome
N enables the City to acquire enables the City to acquire are excellent opportunities to the preference for
� the property for beach or the property for beach or allow the public to see and retaining rights of
° water access purposes,boat water access purposes,boat access shorelines. way in the shoreline.
3 moorage or launching sites, moorage or launching sites, By pursuing the
park,public view,recreation, park,public view,recreation, proposed revision,
° or educational purposes,or or educational purposes,or the City would be
L other public uses or the City other public uses^"+� making the policy
°' declares that the street or more rigid.
� �ii�„�� nii, H��nr
� alley is not presently being
� used and is not suitable for
a the above purposes;or ;or
-O � The street vacation The street vacation
�
� enables the City to implement enables the City to implement
j a plan,that provides a plan,that provides
� N comparable or improved comparable or improved
� � public access to the same public access to the same
�Q shoreline area to which the shoreline area to which the
�m streets or alleys sought to be streets or alleys sought to be
a�N vacated,had the properties vacated,had the properties
�a included in the plan not been included in the plan not been
vacate vacated
Improve non-motorized K Anderson comments: No change. The
� access to the shoreline by Is this special emphasis policy reflects a
� � developing,where beyond public access community
��� appropriate,pathways,trails requirement? preference and
� `o o and bikeways along and priority for non-
��N adjacent to the shoreline. motorized access.
� Connectivity between non-
�z °i motorized access points is
encoura ed.
Page 21 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Recognize the importance Recognize the importance The SMA,at RCW K Anderson Comment: The City's No Change: The
and uniqueness of the and uniqueness of the 90.58.020,clearly sets Outside scope of SMA? discussion and intent was to require
Spokane River Centennial Spokane River Centennial forth the prioritized, °^^^^^��^'"^�^�^^�^^^^^^�' description of the that trail
Trail to the City of Spokane Trail to the City of Spokane preferred uses for public access development be
Valley,the region,and the Valley,the region,and the shorelines of statewide o�,,,,,r,,..�,,....�..i r.,.�i a,,aH,, provided by the done with the least
state, Future trail state, Future trail significance,which r�`„^'c^^'-^^^`�^"^„ `"^ Centennial trail is impact,not minimal
development including trail development including trail renders these changes ^^�'`�^^`^`^ ���`��•^ one of the general impact. The change
extensions,new access extensions,new access and added language �•^�'�'^„^'^^^,^^'�^^�'"�'�^^'•^'' areas where there is from proposed
points,whether public or points,whether public or inappropriate. significant room for language would be
private,shall be designed to private,shall be designed to policy choices that significant.
have the least adverse have#�-ie-leas4 minimal will allow the City to However,visual
impact. adverse impact while at the a�uer�e�as� recognize the access could be
same time provide both significant public encouraged as part
visual and phvsical access to access already of the design.
I the shoreline. available to the
Spokane River C�I ThePC
within the City. should
Much of the diseuss
discussion and whether to
deseription may be eneourage
better addressed in visual
the forthcoming aeeess as
public access plan partofthe
that is currently design.
� under development
rather than in these
.� I goals and policies.
H
� The purpose of
'� Centennial's
� proposed edit is not
� clear. It appears to
be more restrictive
° in that it suggests
o that public access
'� must be designed to
o include both visual
� and physical access.
When required,
� public access does
a not always result in
� physical access to
�
the water.
Page 22 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Allow new rail lines and the Allow new rail lines and the K Anderson comment: Both policies in SMP No Change. Issues
expansion of existing rail expansion of existing rail Outside authority of SMA? 4.12 and 4.13 may regarding rail lines
corridors within the shoreline corridors within the shoreline ^"^�^�^^�^�•^�"�^^^^^�""^ be preempted by are outside the
jurisdiction only for the jurisdiction ea�y�for the federal law. The authority of SMA.
purpose of connecting to purpose of connecting to ^••��'^•^,^,�`��^`"^^"^•^';^^ general jurisdiction However,not all
existing rail lines or rights-of- existing rail lines or rights-of- �•�^�'�^`�^^^^'„'^•'"^^��•^^^^ provision of the policies result in
way.Construct new rail lines way so lona as thev enhance Interstate regulations as noted
within an existing rail corridor the viabilitv of the shoreline '�^^^^••�^"'^^',.,^„ r^^^'•�� ' Commerce in Tadas Kiselius
where possible. and its ecoloaical functions. •^�"�^^^,^,�`��^^^^��^';^^ Commission memo. The policy
Construct new rail lines within Termination Act of does provide a
an existing rail corridor where 1995(ICCTA) framework for
possible. provides that the discussion,if the city
� jurisdiction of the is faced with this
Surface situation.
Transportation
Board(STB)over
rail transportation
and the remedies
provided under the
ICCTA are exclusive
"and preempt the
remedies provided
under Federal or
State law." 49
U.S.C.§10501(b).
The courts have
interpreted this
language broadly,
frequently holding
that the ICCTA
preempts the
application of local
land use laws. See,
e.g.,CityofAuburn
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 integral
part of the railroad's
interstate
operations.
� Applying this test,
the STB has
specifically held that
Page 23 of 66 "zoning ordinances
and local land use
normi4 ron�iiromon4c
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Construct,where feasible,all - K Anderson comment: No change—see
�.�'N new rail lines so that they do Outside authority of SMA?^ above.
M� not compromise the public's
�� ability to access the shoreline ' '
�n� safely. ,.�,. „��„,.,,N�,,.��
�.� ..h�r�,^m tH,.�H,..,,r,.,.
�
(n J
Encourage and support water Encourage and support water This is open-ended, K Anderson comment: No change.
dependent,water oriented, dependent,water oriented, undefined language not Encourage and support water
and water related economic and water related economic related to the SMA. dependent,water oriented,and
activities within the activities within the water related economic
shorelands of the City of shorelands of the City of activities within the shorelands
Spokane Valley that will be Spokane Valley that will be of the City of Spokane Valley
� an asset to the economy of an asset to the economy of
a the area and that will protect the area.enhance the that
� and maintain the ecological viabilitv of the Citv and that will protect and maintain the
� functions of the shoreline will protect and maintain the ecological functions of the
� environment ecological functions of the shoreline environment
shoreline environment
Page 24 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Give preference to economic Give preference to economic K Anderson comment: The language in No change. The
development within the development within the How do you give preference to policy 5.1 is derived language is not
shoreline jurisdiction that is shoreline jurisdiction that is private property without in part from the intended to address
particularly dependent on water dependent.water rezoning? language in RCW residential uses and
their location on or use of the oriented or water related 90.58.020 which thus the language is
shoreline.Encourage new ^��'^•'� -'^^^^�'^^t^^ gives priority to a appropriate.
development to locate in range of uses,
areas that have intensive �"^•�,,,,�'�^^.Encourage new including"industrial
prior use and can be development to locate in and commercial
upgraded or redeveloped. areas that have intensive developments which
Encourage new economic prior use and can be are particularly
development to cluster into upgraded or redeveloped. dependent on their
areas of the shoreline whose Encourage new economic location on or use of
current use is compatible. development to cluster into the shorelines of the
areas of the shoreline whose state." So long as
current use is compatible. "economic
developmenP'
encompasses only
commercial and
industrial
development and
does not include
other listed uses
(such as
development of
single family
homes),then the
policy language is
consistent with the
I statute.
Centennial's
proposed revisions
propose expanding
the policy to use
three defined terms
in the guidelines.
See WAC 173-26-
020. See also WAC
173-26-201(2)(d).
These types of uses
are allowed within
the shoreline and
are included in the
preferred order of
uses. See 173-26-
201(2)(d). The
guidelines give
water dependent
uses the highest
priority,but provide
Page 25 of 66 for other water-
oriented uses within
tL.n4 i.r.Jor i.f nrii.rih�
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Development should be - K Anderson comment: Who While the second Change: Clarify that
designed to minimize the would determine the reason sentence of the the intent is for uses
impacts to the shoreline and level of restoration? policy is consistent not dependent upon
� aesthetic through Development should be with the general a shoreline location
architectural,landscape,and designed to minimize the preference for water to locate outside of
other design features.All impacts to the shoreline dependent uses shoreline
non-shoreline dependent aesthetic through architectural, within the shoreline, jurisdiction.This
elements of the development landscape,and other design this sentence may was discussed by
should be placed inland. features.All non-shoreline be unintentionally the SAG.
Encourage design that seeks dependent elements of the restrictive. First,the
to restore damaged or development should be placed phrase"inland"is Q ThePC
compromised shoreline inland.�^^^��^^^�'^^'^^t"^t not defined and may should
through incentives. lead to confusion. diseuss
Second,while there whether to
is a preference for restrict non-
water dependent water
uses,the regulations oriented
allow for water dwelopment
related,water within
enjoyment and even shoreline
� non-water oriented jurisdietion.
uses to be located
within the shoreline Development should
jurisdiction in certain be designed to
locations. See WAC minimize the
173-26-201(2)(d). impacts to the
Thus the policy is shoreline aesthetic
within the range of through
choices the City architectural,
could make,but is landscape,and
more restrictive than other design
what is required. features.Give
oreference to water-
oriented economic
development,while
limitinq location of
I A1�non-
sl-ieKe4i�-iewater
oriented�ea�le�
elements of the
I development�
� be-qlase�outside of
Q shoreline iurisdiction
o unless the site is
� inappropriate for
� water-oriented uses
� or the development
� demonstrablv
0
o contributes to the
W obiectives of the
`o Shoreline
� Page 26 of 66 Manacrement Act.
'� �Encourage
r'i iJocinn 4L.n4 coo4c hi.
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Historic areas,overlook Historic areas,overlook This may Change:
points,structures,and points points,structures,and points unintentionally
of public access to the of public access to the suggest that public When oublic access
waterfront should be waterbodies�should be access is a is required under
incorporated in economic incorporated in economic necessary this SMP.#historic
development site-planning. development site-planning component of all areas,overlook
shoreline points,structures,
development,which and points of public
is inconsistent with access to the
the SMP and waterfront should be
constitutional incorporated in
protections. The economic
SMP strongly development site-
encourages planning.
provision of public
access,but,as
recognized in the
� guidelines,public
� access is not always
o required"due to
>, reasons of
� incompatible uses,
� safety,security,or
� impact to the
Q
shoreline
m
� environment or due
w
� to constitutional or
a other legal
m limitations that may
� be applicable."
'w WAC 173-26-
a 221(4)(d).It may be
o preferable to
N acknowledge that
o public access is not
'w always required by
o using an
a` introductory phrase
°'? such as"when
apublic access is
� required under this
�
SMP..."
Page 27 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
� Strengthen regional tourism K Anderson comment: SMA No Change.
� by expanding and developing scope is tourism facilities
�.� neighborhood and regional relative to the shoreline,not
° � linkages and improvements tourism?
w� that use the shoreline areas. c`•^^^'"^^� ^"^ ^�"„
c� ,.,�;,.,.,.,.a,�,,,,,,i,.,.;,.,.
� �
0
� a°'i i;,.i,..,.,.�..,.,�;
(n d' +H..�� +H,.�H,..,.i�,.,,..
Page 28 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Require that the short-term o^^���•^'"^""^^"^�'^•^� This evaluation is K Anderson comment: To some degree,
economic gain or eseaea3is-gaiN-ec required at RCW Require that the short-term this Policy proposed Q ThePC
convenience of development ^^'�'^��^'^^^�^^' 90.58.020. This policy eseaea�is gain or convenience by the SAG appears should
be evaluated against the should be retained. of development be evaluated to paraphrase the discuss
long-term and potentially '^^^`^•^,^^�'^^`^^`�^"�� against the long-term and use preference in whether to
costly impairments to the ^^^"„�^, ^,^^`^`^`"^ potentially costly impairments RCW 90.58.020 that include this
natural environments and ^^'��•^'^^„�•^^^,^^`^^^�' to the natural environments and identifies a poliey,
state-wide interest that may �^���'^'^�^•^^ '"^ ^, state-wide interest that may preference for uses delete it,or
result. �es�+l� result. that"result in long modifi�it as
term over short term deseribed in
benefit,""recognize legal
and protectthe eounsel
statewide interest eomments.
over local interest",
and"preserve the PC Change 5/10/12:
natural character of �^`"�,^``",a
the shoreline." See
also Policy 1.7. The
policy does not e€�e�eleqaae�e
reference the eval�atedagaius�
countervailing «"^�^^9'^�;,a
emphasis in RCW ��
90.58.020on �r^^`�`^'".,a
fostering all aaE�ral
� reasonable and �.,�.^'^^^�'
� appropriate uses staEe-wide-i+�teKes�
� and recognition of iha�+x�ay-Kes�al�
'� alteration of the
� natural shoreline.
° The state policy
W goals are applicable,
° regardless of their
o inclusion here. As
� such,it is within the
m range of discretion
w to include this policy,
�O. delete it,or modify it
�
a to emphasize other
� concepts in RCW
�
90.58.020.
Page 29 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Promote recreational uses of 5.�7 Promote recreational Public access is a K Anderson comment: The changes No change.
� the shorelines to contribute to uses throuqh the use of foundation of the SMA, o�^��^�°Increase recreational proposed by
o the economic attractiveness public access of the but is only one of many uses of the shorelines to Centennial would
'� of the city. Seek shorelines to contribute to the elements of public contribute to the economic limit the preference
� opportunities to partner with economic attractiveness of recreational attractiveness of the city. for recreational uses
U
� public and private property the city. Seek opportunities opportunities. Seek opportunities to partner solely to public
� owners to increase public to partner with public and with public and private property access
o recreational opportunities in private property owners to owners to increase public opportunities. The
othe shoreline. increase public recreational recreational opportunities in the City may choose to
a` opportunities on public shoreline. promote recreational
00. access in the shoreline. uses more
a ,n generally,rather
�� than just public
access.
N Promote the identification K Anderson comment: No change. The
� � and establishment of water- o•^^�^'^'"^;�'^^'�F^^"^^^^�' Spokane River and
�Q enjoyment areas,such as esta�4+sk�ieat�€Establish and its recreational
�� parks,view points,beaches identify water-enjoyment areas, opportunities are an
O1 °� and pathways as attractions such as parks,view points, economic asset.
a o beaches and pathways as Promotion is a
�'� attractions means to capitalize
cn w
on those assets.
Encourage shoreline PC Change 5/10/12:
industries and businesses to Encourage shoreline
� maintain a well kept industries and
� appearance and to operate in businesses to
� o a manner that will not cause maintain a well kept
�'� negative environmental appearance and to
mQ impacts to the community. operate in a manner
o O that will not cause
� �. negative
in �,.�„„r.,i
a �
�� aesthetic impacts to
cn_
the communit .
Page 30 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Encourage and provide J Short—DOE: Incentives are a
incentives for redevelopment Where in the City of Spokane common tool utilized
of existing sites that includes Valley would redevelopment to encourage
points of public access,areas improve fish passage? development to
Idesigned for public provide specific
enjoyment,improve fish and K Anderson comment: How features above the
wildlife habitat,or improve do you legally provide minimum
fish passage. incentives for property owners? requirements of a
I Encourage�e code. Incentives
+asea�ives-fe�the are usually in the
redevelopment of existing sites form of density
that includes points of public bonuses,height
access,areas designed for increases,setback
public enjoyment,improve fish variances,etc.
I and wildlife habitat,or improve
fish passage.1 Change: Encourage
and provide
� incentives for
°� redevelopment of
E
�- existing sites that
0
� includes points of
a public access,areas
� designed for public
� enjoyment,and
� improve fish and
a wildlife habitat�
� �
Page 31 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
New public and private K Anderson comment: This may policy may
shoreline uses and New public aa�-�ivate be more restrictive Q ThePC
developments should be shoreline uses and than what the should
planned and designed to developmenis should be statute requires. diseuss
attract the public io ihe planned and designed io attract There are times whether to
waterfront. the public to the waterfront. when providing inelude this
public access or poliey,
attracting the public delete it,or
to the water front is modi�j�it as
not appropriate or deseribed in
required. The legal
guidelines eounsel
reeognize,for eomments
example,that public
access is not always PC Change 5/10/12:
appropriate or
required"due to New public and
reasons of private shoreline
incompatible uses, uses and
safety,security,or developments
impact to the should be planned
shoreline and designed to
environment or due attract the public to
� to constitutional or the waterfront,with
0 other legal exceptions as
w limitations that may allowed by WAC
� be applicable." 173-26-221 (4)(d).
p` WAC 173-26-
� I 221(4)(d). In
a particular,imposing
mpublic access
N requirements on
�
private shoreline
a uses may not
� always have the
�
re uired nexus.
Page 32 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
K Anderson comment: How No Change.
Incentives should be created do you legally provide Incentives are a
to encourage developers to incentives for property owners? common tool utilized
� incorporate design features -�-��'-'�-� �--'�- to encourage
� into the waterside of the encourage developers to development to
� building. incorporate design features into provide specific
� the waterside of the building. features above the
� minimum
� requirements of a
� code. I ncentives
� � are usually in the
> form of density
a� bonuses,height
� � increases,setback
cn_
variances,etc..
Support and maintain the ]Short—DOE: Change: Support
existing aggregate mining Delete"maintain". It is not the ^^�'^��°^'^'^the
� industry as a significant City's responsibility to maintain existing aggregate
� component of the area a private industrial operation mining industry as a
a economy. significant
� component of the
�
area econom .
Encouraae Economic This proposed
Development of the shoreline Policy may fall within Q ThePC
area that will enhance the the discretion of the should
viabilitv of the Citv as a City,especially in diseuss
� whole. light of the other whether to
� policies in this inelude this
a section that reflect poliey.
� other key SMA
�
conce ts.
Page 33 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Areas that provide open Areas that provide open Unnecessary, Futurewise Comments: This policy covers Q ThePC
spaces,scenic vistas, spaces,scenic vistas, misleading phrase. Proposed Policy SMP 6.1 several key should
contribute to shoreline contribute to shoreline Regulation is also directs"[a]reas that provide shoreline topics discuss
aesthetics,natural vegetation aesthetics,natural vegetation required to preserve the open spaces,scenic vistas, including public whether to
and,fish and wildlife habitat and,fish and wildlife habitat listed shoreline contribute to shoreline access(view modijy this
should be preserved should be preserved throuah attributes. aesthetics,natural vegetation access),shoreline policy to
the use of communitv and,fish and wildlife habitat vegetation refleet a
incentives. should be preserved[.]"The conservation,and mandatory
Shoreline Master Program critical areas. While shall
Guidelines in WAC 173-26- shoreline regulations statementas
186(8)(b)require that"[I]ocal often seek to protect weII as
master programs shall include these characteristics Centennial
policies and regulations to varying degrees, Properties
designed to achieve no net loss the SMA does not statements
of those ecological functions." require complete regarding
The use of"should"in this preservation of ineentives.
I policy indicates that protection existing views,
of these areas is not always shoreline aesthetics, PC Change 5/10/12
required.To be consistent with natural vegetation, Two approaches are
the requirements of WAC 173- or wildlife habitat. suggested for
26-186(8)(b)the"should"must The legal standard discussion.
be changed to"shall." allows more
flexibility,even with Areas that provide
K Anderson comment: respect to critical epeN-s�ases scenic
SMP 6.1. Public Areas to be areas. See WAC vistas or,-contribute
Preserved(Title change) 173-26-201(2)(c) to shoreline
� (the concept of"neY' aesthetics should be
in the no net loss preserved
standard anticipates consistent
some impact). Thus constitutional or
the proposed Policy other leaal
is more restrictive limitations that mav
than what is be applicable.;
required. Ensure no net loss
of shoreline
However,the ecological functions
revision proposed by including natural
a Centennial vegetation and,fish
� completely and wildlife habitat
Neliminates regulatory ch..��I.J h.......�....,...J
� tools to address
a these concerns and -or-
� represents the
� opposite extreme. A�eas-l1iaY�reui�e
w
m
� �,�--�„���.,M„�,.�,.
Q
� � ,
...J F�4......a..,�I.�I�F..
a
� �ia�ita�-sue�ld-�e
�
Page 34 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Protect existing vegetation Protect the existing Buffer averaging does The policy is Q ThePC
and shoreline ecological vegetation and shoreline not work in the SMA consistent with the should
function by designating ecological function by context because a net general approach to discuss
buffers and setbacks that are designating buffers and loss of ecological ensuring no net loss whether to
supported by the 2010 setbacks that are supported function always occurs of existing shoreline include the
Shoreline Inventory. by the 2010 Shoreline when it is used. functions. additional
Inventory or their incentives Centennial's language
that buffer averaaina natural proposed edit is deseribed in
veaetation and are specific to difficult to track but legal
the area. appears to suggest eounsel
using tools in eomments
I addition to standard
buffers. Many
jurisdictions have Change: Protect
used a variety of existing vegetation
tools to provide and shoreline
some flexibility from ecological function
the standard buffer by designating
concept,while buffers and
ensuring protection setbacks that are
of no net loss. supported by the
Accordingly,while 2010 Shoreline
Centennial's Inventory,and allow
wording is not for the use of
sufficiently clear and innovative
may include more techniques and
� detailed concepts strateqies while
� than is appropriate ensurinq no net loss
� at this stage,the of ecoloqical
� City can consider functions. -
� including language
,� that would
w encourage
mconsideration of
� other innovative
'— techniques and
� strategies for
� providing more
> flexibility while
� ensuring protection
0 of no net loss,
a including concepts
N
like buffer
�
a averaging,or
� common lot line set
�
backs.
Page 35 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
� Acquire and maintain, K Anderson comment: The No change. These
� through conservation futures, suggestion of using taxpayer tools are commonly
� donations,grants,general funds is outside the scope of used for public
r funds,or other sources, SMA. acquisition
� shoreline areas containing purposes.
�
a natural elements especially Acquire and maintain rip vate
� worthy of preservation or propertv,
especially attractive to the #a#�es,donations,grants,
° ublic,such as beaches, "�^�'^
� p �,or other
4 forest covers,trees,wildlife sources,shoreline areas
�N a� populations,vistas and other containing natural elements
a�N scenic features. especially worthy of
Q W preservation or especially
�?�- attractive to the public,such as
�
a � beaches,forest covers,trees,
�Q wildlife populations,vistas and
other scenic features.
Page 36 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Utilize 2010 shoreline Restoring degraded The concept No Change
inventorv to establish shorelines is a principal proposed by recommended.
baselines for the functions goal of the SMA and Centennial of using
and values of shoreline. To SMP Guidelines rule,so the shoreline Q ThePCmap
the extent that a orooertv the Spokane Valley inventory as a wish to
owner wants to oreoare its shoreline inventory is, baseline for eonsider the
own inventorv.relv upon the appropriately,a measuring no net reworded
individualized assessment. description of existing loss is consistent yroposal.
conditions,and NOT a with the SMA and
baseline for desired Ecology guidance Utilize 2010
future conditions. on this subject. The shoreline inventorv
Because the SMA City may also to establish
protects the public's consider the baselines for the
inalienable rights in the additional concept functions and values
shorelines which include suggested by of shoreline.
statewide interests,the Centennial though Propertv owners
planning process is the exact wording mav provide
largely funded by the and mechanics may additional
public through the need to be further information to
legislature's grants to refined. While a supplement the
update SMPs. Owner- shoreline owner may inventorv in
funded inventories of not necessarily oreoaration of a
individual parcels are prepare its"own development
almost never based on inventory"it may be or000sal.
watershed level analysis possible to allow an
as required in the SMA owner to present
and SMP Guidelines. studies and
Furthermore,they information specific
represent"piecemeal, to their property in
uncoordinated preparation of a
developmenP', development
specifically recognized in proposal.This
RCW 90.58 020 as concept is used
°inherently harm(ful)". regularly in GMA
This proposed language critical areas
� is therefore not regulations of many
� consistent with the law, jurisdictions where
�. SMP Guideline rules,or property owners
° the deliberations of the prepare and submit
� Spokane Valley SAG. critical areas reports
� that provide more
� detailed information
'� about the specific
L property
cn characteristics than
�? are included in the
�
a City's more general
� mapping.
�
Page 37 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Protect and preserve 6.45 Protect and preserve This language is See memo Section Change:
ecological viability and ecological viability and impossibly vague, B,regarding the
m connectivity through use of connectivity through use of undermining the legal standard. Assure no net loss
'� habitat islands and corridors habitat islands and corridors planning process and of A�e�es�a�4
o within the shoreline area. within the shoreline area that ignoring modern More generally,the {�esewe-ecological
W are reasonable and that take scientific standing of City may be required viability and
a� into consideration existinq shoreline ecology,and to ensure no net connectivity through
� and future uses and further,is obviated by loss provided that use of habitat
� T development of the area. the planning process the science islands and
a�� required by the law and demonstrates that corridors within the
��� WAC. habitat connectivity shoreline area.
a � or corridors are
�U shoreline ecological
functions.
Retain existing open space 6.56 Retair�Incentivize the Execrable syntax which This Policy Change title:
and environmentally sensitive retention of existing open would lose the intent of appropriately
� areas on private property space and environmentally the policy. identifies incentives SMP 6.5 Incentives
� through the e use of sensitive areas on private as a possible tool for for Retention of
,°� incentives. property'"•^��^"'"^^��^^^' helping achieve o^^^���•^^^
� +asea�es. SMA goals. There �aa�IsCritical Areas
o may be some and Open Space
� confusion,however,
0
'� from the title of the
� policy which refers
� to"resource lands"
o (which typically
,n refers to agriculture,
> forestry,and mineral
� resource lands—
�
� see e.g.,RCW
� 36.70A.060)and the
� subject matter,
a a which refers to open
� � space and critical
(n J
areas.
Page 38 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Development shall avoid and 6.�7 Development shall avei� This language must be Futurewise comments: See Memo section No Change.
if avoidance is not possible, retained. READ WAC Avoidance of impacts is the B. The Policy
mitigate negative impacts to �essibl�mitigate negative 173-26-201(2)(e),which best defense.We strongly appears to try to
steep banks,surface and impacts to steep banks, states that SMPs SHALL support the avoidance polices; introduce the
ground water quality, surface and ground water apply mitigation Policy SMP 6.6 provides that concept of mitigation
ecological functions,fish and quality,ecological functions, sequencing. "[d]evelopment shall avoid and sequencing. See
wildlife habitat,vegetative fish and wildlife habitat, if avoidance is not possible, WAC 173-26-
cover,and erosion of the soil. vegetative cover,and erosion mitigate negative impacts..." 201(2)(e). The
� of the soil. Other policies also address details of mitigation
avoiding impacts.Making sequencing are
Mitigation Work:The Report of often handled at the
the Mitigation that Works implementing
N Forum emphasized the need to regulation phase
� avoid impacts on wetlands and rather than in
� other aquatic resources to policies. Avoidance,
effectively protect these is the highest priority
� resources.3 Because mitigation and the first step in
� is expensive,avoidance can the mitigation
z help developers too. sequence. By
o proposing removal
� ofthe sentence,the
4 change proposed by
� Centennial's may be
� vulnerable to the
� challenge that it is
� inconsistent with
a SMA requirements
�
�
Page 39 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Regulations shall assure that K Anderson comment: How This is consistent No Change.
the commonly occurring and would a regulation define and with WAC 173-26- Regulations will
foreseeable cumulative prove cumulative impacts? 186(8)(d),which anticipate impacts
impacts of development do indicates that"(d) from common uses
not cause a net loss of t"^^^^�^�^^', ^ ^^�' Local master and create
ecological functions of the '^•^^^^^"'^^��^���'^'",^�^�^^^t^ programs shall standards to
shoreline evaluate and address the impact.
"^^^^'^^^'^^�^^"��^ +'^^^ consider cumulative
^'+"^^"^�^'^^ impacts of
reasonably
foreseeable future
development on
shoreline ecological
functions and other
shoreline functions
fostered by the
policy goals of the
act.To ensure no
net loss of
ecological functions
and protection of
other shoreline
functions and/or
uses,master
N programs shall
Qcontain policies,
� programs,and
� regulations that
'— address adverse
.�
� cumulative impacts
� and fairly allocate
U the burden of
'� add ressing
�
a cumulative impacts
� among development
�
0 ortunities."
Page 40 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Develop a Restoration Plan Develop a Restoration Plan This issue was K Anderson comment: The restoration plan No Change.
that will identify degraded that will identify degraded discussed in depth,and is an important
areas and provide a areas and provide a settled by the SAG as a SMP 7.1 Restoration Plan on element of the SMP Q ThePCmay
framework for restoration framework for restoration group.The proposed Public Land(Title only update. It will ti��ish to
efforts to improve the existing efforts to improve the existing language and deletions provide the basis for diseuss the
ecological function and ecological function and skews the SAG intent, restoration efforts as proposal.
provide a mechanism for provide a mechanism for Ioint and is not consistent a result of joint
mitigation of unavoidable and public and private mitigation with WAC 173-26- public and private
unforeseeable future of� 201(2)(f). efforts. The
development �aa#eKeseea43Je�future restoration plan
development while providina presents an
incentives for future opportunity to
development for mitiqation. balance against the
regulatory"burden"
of the no net loss
standard. The
restoration plan
should identify
opportunities for and
progress toward
restoration that
creates a"net gain"
to balance against
potential loss of
shoreline ecological
function in other
parts of the
shoreline. In that
regard the SAG's
draft policy
appropriately
characterizes the
approach. The
restoration plan
should identify
existing restoration
projects and
programs in the City.
� As noted in the
mitigation sequence,
when mitigation is
required because a
project creates a net
loss of shoreline
ecological functions
and the project
proponent cannot
accommodate
mitigation on-site,a
comprehensive
restoration plan may
Page 41 of 66 provide
opportunities for off-
ci4o mitinn4ii.n 4i.
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Provide incentives for Provide incentives for This two-word proposed J Short DOE: Change: Provide
projects that include projects that include addition reads like an Uses would be limited to those incentives for
restoration and enhancement restoration and enhancement attempt to undermine allowed through the regs/use projects that include
components by implementing components by implementing the public investment in table;and restoration and
� tools which may include but tools which may include but shoreline inventory, enhancement
� are not limited to:modifying are not limited to:modifying shoreline ecological I suggest you allow this components by
� the shoreline setback area the shoreline setback and functions,and clear, flexibility,with appropriate implementing tools
L that would apply to the buffer areas that would apply predictable standards. sideboards,when the project which may include
W restored areas or allowing a to the restored areas or will result in a net gain of but are not limited
� greater range of uses or allowing a greater range of ecological function.Restoration to:modifying the
m flexible development uses or flexible development or enhancement may be shoreline setback
o standards(e.g.,setbacks)on standards(e.g.,setbacks)on required elements of a area that would
�% properties providing properties providing permitted activity simply to apply to the restored
o restoration and or restoration and or achieve the no net loss areas or allowing a
� enhancement. enhancement. standard. greater range of
o I uses or flexible
N K Anderson comment: ? development
� Incentives Again standards(e.g.,
�� setbacks)on
� properties providing
� restoration and or
°'? N enhancement that
a � mav result in a net
� ° qain of ecoloaical
cn a
function.
Preserve and protect existing Preserve and protect existing These proposed Futurewise comments: See memo section Change: o•^,��^^,^
ecological functions and ecological functions and changes both lower the Ensuring consistency with other B. aa�-}�Cetesi�
ecosystem-wide processes ecosystem-wide processes stated intent below environmental policies is a Centennial's ��Assure no
within wetlands,critical within wetlands,critical required standards set practice of good government. proposal to require net loss of
aquifer recharge areas,fish aquifer recharge areas,fish forth in WAC 173-26-201 The Critical Areas Element on no net loss only to ecological functions
0o and wildlife habitat and wildlife habitat and the SMA itself,and pages 8 and 9 is consistent the extent feasible is and ecosystem-wide
a conservation areas, conservation areas, attempt to introduce the with the Shoreline Management not consistent with processes within
� geologically hazardous areas geologically hazardous areas option to eliminate any Act policy of protecting the the statute. Instead, wetlands,critical
� and frequently flooded areas. and frequently flooded areas. shoreline ecological natural environment and the the concept of aquifer recharge
� Ensure no net loss of To the extent feasible, attribute without Shoreline Master Program feasibility may be areas,fish and
ecological function within €ensure no net loss of recognizing mitigation Guidelines which require no net taken into wildlife habitat
� these critical areas ecological function within sequencing set forth in loss of shoreline ecological consideration in the conservation areas,
� � these critical areas throuah WAC 173-26-201(2)(e). Functions. mitigation sequence, geologically
W the use of appropriate when determining hazardous areas
� mitiaation. how an individual and frequently
� project satisfies the flooded areas.
a statutory standard. Ensure no net loss
c`4, of ecological
— function within these
U
critical areas
Page 42 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Ensure the critical area goals �^^��•^`"^^•�`�^^'^•^^^^^'^ J Short,DOE: See memo section Change: To the
� and policies for the Shoreline This language should be Add"to the e�ent practicable". B. extent practicable
�o Master Plan are consistent ""^^`^•o'^^^•^^^^��^'^^' retained since it's SMA and the Guidelines provide and consistent with
w a with the critical areas goals required by WAC 173- the threshold requirements for RCW 36.70A.480
3-O and olicies contained in the ^^�'^^'�^�^^^^^`^�^^�''^ "^ 26-191 and WAC 173- €ensure the critical
T� P the protection of critical areas
� `4 Com rehensive Plan. �^^�^•^"^^^�,^°1^^ 26-221 2. area oals and
� �, P ���—� ( ) within shoreline jurisdiction 9
N o � policies for the
�N� Shoreline Master
� N
o Plan are consistent
U � with the critical
�a areas goals and
a.� policies contained in
�U the Comprehensive
Plan.
Ensure regulatory protection Ensure regulatory protection This proposed language K Anderson comment: No change. RCW
measures developed for the measures developed for the would make the stated Wrong RCW? 90.58.060
o shoreline area assure no net shoreline area assure no net policy both internally references the
N loss of shoreline ecological loss of shoreline ecological inconsistent,and adoption guidelines.
0 o functions necessary to functions necessary to inconsistent with the The policy as
��� sustain shoreline natural sustain shoreline natural requirements in WAC drafted is consistent
o� resources as defined by resources as defined by 173-26-186 and WAC with law.
z� Washington State Washington State 173-26-201
�`! s Department of Ecology Department of Ecology
ao guidelines adopted pursuant guidelines adopted pursuant
� ° to RCW 90.58.060 to RCW 90.58.060 to the
� °� maximum extent ossible
Rate wetlands based on the Rate wetlands based on the This language would No change.
quality of the wetland and the quality of the wetland and the undermine public Wetlands are
ecological function they ecological function they investments in shoreline considered as part
�a serve. Develop protective serve. Develop protective inventory and analysis of a larger system.
o � measures tailored to the measures tailored to the required by WAC 173-
a� ,� wetland quality and function wetland quality and function 26,the wetland
� and that consider the and that consider the miti ation re uirements
m� � 9 9
� � � characteristics and setting of characteristics and setting of at WAC 395-196-485,
�a °� the buffer and the impacts on the buffer and the impacts on the Best Available
� � adjacent land use. adjacent land use as to the Science WAC 395-196-
a a� specific wetland. 905,and the legislative
�? ,� a� intent to protect against
a ��� °the inherent harm in an
� �L uncoordinated and
3� o piecemeal development
a��� of the state's shorelines"
z ° RCW 90.58.020.
Page 43 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Base wetland mitigation on J Short—DOE: The change would
m the wetland rating and ° and avoidance has been be consistent with
� require mitigation deemed..." mitigation
� sequencing.Only allow sequencing.
a compensatory mitigation after K Anderson comment:
� mitigation sequencing has Mitigation measures can be Change: Base
m ,� been applied and higher extremely expensive and never wetland mitigation
� � priority means of mitigation ending since there are no on the wetland
:U � have been deemed quantifiable results by which to rating and require
� infeasible. measure and judge success. mitigation
� � sequencing.Only
0 o n�..�,.,,.+�..,.,�.,.;t;�;,,,.„�,�th,, allow compensatory
a.� ����n�+• �na• mitigation after
�� ...:+������n� ����,- mitigation
a�L ^^ sequencing has
� � �f+�•m��������n� ���� been applied and
N O ....�......�.. h�..hor ' 'fi�
� hoo..�....I�or�l�..rJ h�..ho...r�.�:h� �
.L..
a ..F...�4�....i�...,I....�..h...... ^�°^
�a �, �iaueavoidance has
a� been deemed
�� infeasible.
Page 44 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Limit development that would SMP 8.4a The original language in K Anderson comment: The SAG policy
cause foreseeable risk from this policy was Limit development that would mirrors the standard Q ThePC may
geological conditions to Limit development that would discussed at length in cause foreseeable risk from in WAC 173-26- tii�ish to
people or property. Do not cause foreseeable risk from the SAG. The reference geological conditions to people 221(2)(c)(ii) discuss
allow development that will geological conditions to to homes only is stated or property. Do not allow pertaining to whether to
require structural shoreline people or property. Do not in the law;the rest of the development that will require standards for limit
stabilization except in the allow development that will proposed language structural shoreline stabilization geologically structural
limited cases where it is require structural shoreline undermines the intent to except in the limited cases hazardous areas. shoreline
necessary to protect an stabilization except in the prevent new structural where it is necessary to protect The specific focus in stabilization
Iallowed use and no limited cases where it is shoreline stabilization. an allowed�e-aa�ae the third sentence to protect
alternative location is necessary to protect an Public access methods on homes,rather existing
available. Allow structural allowed use and no are appropriately Allow structural shoreline than structures or homes.
shoreline stabilization to alternative location is addressed elsewhere in stabilization to protect existing uses,more
protect existing homes only available. Allow structural the SMP Goals and homes^^'���^"^^•^'^^^«^^^� generally,is
when relocation or shoreline stabilization to Policies. ^;^'^^^�"'^. Do reflected in the No other changes
reconstruction is infeasible. protect existing�ie�esuses not allow structural shoreline statute and in the are recommended
Do not allow structural only when relocation or stabilization that will result in a regulations. See to the policy
shoreline stabilization that will reconstruction is infeasible. net loss of ecological function. RCW 90.58.100(6)
result in a net loss of Allow limited structural and PC Change 5/10/12:
ecological function. shoreline stabilization to 90.58.030(3)(e)(ii). Limit development
provide access to the As a result,the that would cause
shorelines. Se+�ei-aAllow SAG's policy is foreseeable risk
structural shoreline consistent with the from geological
stabilization that will result in Guidance. conditions to people
I a no net loss of ecological or property. Do not
function with appropriate Centennial's allow development
miticration. proposed change to that will require
� expand the broaden structural shoreline
the language to stabilization except
protect"uses"rather in the limited cases
than just"homes"is where it is
an expansion necessary to protect
beyond the direct an allowed use and
authority recognized no alternative
in the regulation. location is available.
The guidelines for Allow structural
stabilization more shoreline
generally offer more stabilization to
flexibility for protect existing
� stabilization �ie�es structures
associated with only when relocation
structures,notjust or reconstruction is
homes. 173-26- infeasible. Do not
� 231(3)(a)(iii). If the allow structural
Q planning shoreline
N commission wants stabilization that will
ato explore this result in a net loss of
� concept further, ecological function.
m additional research
= may be required.
�
m
� Page 45 of 66 With respect to the
.�
� final sentence,the
� corv�.���a��
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Develop measures that Develop measures that This proposed language No change.
a assure no net loss of assure no net loss of adds no clarity or value.
� � ecological functions of river, ecological functions of river,
m
�r�° lake and stream corridors lake and stream corridors
�� z associated with fish and associated with fish and
a� N wildlife habitat. Integrate the wildlife habitat. Integrate the
�a o protection n of fish and protection n of fish and
a� �U wildlife habitat with flood wildlife habitat with flood
Z�m hazard reduction and other hazard reduction and other
�N� fish and wildlife management fish and wildlife management
a` �Q provisions. 'Develop provisions. 'Develop
�O. �= measures that authorize and measures that authorize and
�
a �= facilitate habitat and facilitate habitat and
�� restoration projects. restoration projects in these
� ° areas where a ro riate.
Page 46 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Allow new structural flood J Short-DOE: Change:
hazard reduction measures
only: "using natural,native Allow new structural
materials..." flood hazard
•Where scientific and reduction measures
engineering analysis has only:
Idemonstrated it to be
necessary,and when non- •Where scientific
structural methods are and engineering
infeasible and mitigation is analysis has
accomplished;and demonstrated it to
� •Landward of associated be necessary,and
wetlands and buffer areas when non-structural
except where no alternative methods are
exists,as documented in an infeasible and
� engineering analysis;and mitigation is
°— •When consistent with accomplished;and
� current best management •Landward of
� practices,using natural associated wetlands
a materials whenever feasible. and buffer areas
� I except where no
= Note:An example of a alternative exists,as
a
structural flood hazard documented in an
o reduction measure is a engineering
0
� structure placed by humans analysis;and
� � within a stream or river •When consistent
� waterward of the ordinary with current best
� high mark such as,but not management
in limited to a diversion or practices,using
°'? � modification of water flow to natural,native
acontrol flooding. materials whenever
� feasible.
�
Page 47 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Allow removal of gravel for Allow removal of gravel for The Central Premix Futurewise Comments: Change:
flood control only if biological flood control only if biological representative at the "Gravel extraction is widely
and geomorphological study and geomorphological study SAG meetings never perceived to yield flood control Allow removal of
demonstrates a long-term demonstrates a long-term brought this up,and in benefits,but there is little hard gravel for flood
benefit to flood hazard benefit to flood hazard general the SAG bent evidence that the perceived control only if
reduction and no net loss of reduction and no net loss of over backwards to benefits are real or more than biological and
ecological functions.This ecological functions.This recognize the unique ephemeral."5 However,the geomorphological
does not apply to the does not apply to the needs of the aggregate adverse effects of gravel study demonstrates
� permitted gravel mining permitted gravel mining mining industry in the removal for flood control on fish that extraction has a
operations underway at the operations underway at the City of Spokane Valley. habitat and other ecological long-term benefit to
time of SMP adoption and time of SMP adoption and What new gravel functions are real and flood hazard
approval. approval,or othe extraction opportunities significant.6 WAC 173-26- reduction.does not
subsequentiv approved would lie in SMA 221(3)(c)(v)sets the minimum result ara�-aein a
qravel mininq operations. . jurisdiction in the city? conditions applicable to gravel net loss of
This should be left to mining for flood control: ecological functions,
future SMP updates provides that"Require that the and is part of a
removal of gravel for flood comprehensive
management purposes be flood manaaement
consistent with an adopted solution.This does
flood not apply to the
� hazard reduction plan and with permitted gravel
this chapter and allowed only mining operations
after a biological and underway at the
geomorphological study shows time of SMP
that extraction has a long-term adoption and
� benefit to flood hazard approval�
reduction,does not result in a
net loss of ecological functions,
and is part of a comprehensive
flood management solution."
IProposed 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
o removal and its very real
m impacts,the addition
� Page 48 of 66 requirement that the removal
� be part of a comprehensive
� fi,,,,.�..,.,.,.,,.o..,o.,r�„i��t�,,..
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Require the dedication and Requiring public access Futurewise comments: The policy is an No Change.
improvement of public access �^�Allow for improvement and As our population increases, accurate
in developments for water- development of public access development as a we need more public access. characterization of
enjoyment,water-related and in developments for water- condition of approval for One of the policies of the guidelines
non water-dependent uses enjoyment,water-related and the stated uses in this Washington's Shoreline governing access.
and for the subdivision of non water-dependent uses section is a long settled Management Act is to increase Importantly,the
land into more than four and for the subdivision of practice statewide,and public access to publicly owned policy acknowledges
parcels,with exceptions as land into more than four lies among the core rivers,streams,and lakes.4 the important
allowed by WAC 173-26- parcels,with exceptions as principles of the SMA The development needed to exceptions from the
221(4)(d)(iii). allowed by WAC 173-26- (RCW 90.58.020,WAC accommodate growth can general requirement
I 221(4)(d)(iii). 173-26-221(4)). This interfere with the traditional when the City
proposed language is public accesses that locals provides more
not consistent with the have used for years to boat, effective public
law. swim,and fish.The Shoreline access through a
I Master Program Guidelines public access
implement the Shoreline planning process
Management Act policies by and/or there are
including more specific issues related to
requirements for public access safety,
in WAC 173-26-221(4)(d). incompatibility and
Policy SMP 10.3 captures this constitutional
policy and the requirements for principles of nexus
public access well. or rough
� proportionality. See
Memo section B.
Thus the policy's
reference to the
"exceptions"
captures the tools
� available to the City
°� to create a public
oaccess requirement
� in the development
� regulations that is
� sensitive to
5 constitutional
.�
o concerns and
r acknowledges the
�
M existing access
o already present
a within the City's
� shoreline trail
�
s stem.
Page 49 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
When improving and When improving and This is a perfectly See Memo Section Change.
maintaining existing public maintaining existing public legitimate policy under C.
N access points,minimize access points,minimize the SMA and SMP Q ThePCmay
� additional impacts on the additional impacts on the Guideline rules,and was ti��ish to
� shoreline environment and,if shoreline environment aad-i# thoroughly discussed in diseuss
o possible,correct past ^^'"'^ ^^ the SAG.The original whether to
� adverse environmental language should be inelude the
� impacts caused by the public ��^�'", '"^^��"'�^ retained. restoration
� access. . language
� I� When improving and
� maintaining existing
°� public access
�
�� points,minimize
� additional impacts
v`�i on the shoreline
� environment and,+#
Q �essi�Ie so lona as
U
— it is consistent with
� constitutional
a
� orotections,correct
o past adverse
a environmental
� impacts caused by
�
the ublic access.
Page 50 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Require that public access Require that public access Just as not every No change.
measures have a design measures have a design shoreline site is
appropriate to the site, appropriate to the site, appropriate for public
adjacent property,and adjacent property,and access,and not every
general nature of the general nature of the trail or mountain top is
proposed development,while proposed development,while accessible to all
protecting and providing protecting and providing individuals,this
,� views. Public access views. Public access language should be
� facilities should be designed facilities should be designed retained. The ADA
� with provisions for persons with provisions for persons recognizes this reality.If
� with disabilities,where with disabilities, creating access for all
� appropriate. persons with disabilities
� were required at all
Qpublic access locations,
adverse shoreline
� impacts would result
� which are not consistent
� with the prioritized,
� preferred uses in
o shorelines stated at
a RCW 90.58.020 and
� WAC 173-26-176 and
� WAC 173-26-181.
Page 51 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Minimize the impacts to K Anderson comment: This provision,as Change.
existing views where the view Could have a chilling affect on drafted,may be
is taken from the water or large,new economic slightly inconsistent Minimize the
shoreline,public property or developments. with the Shoreline impacts to existing
substantial numbers of view protection in views where the
residences.Water-dependent 90.58.320. RCW view is taken from
shoreline uses and physical 90.58.320 the water or
public access shall have addresses shoreline,public
priority over maintaining a structures over 35 property or
view when a conflict between feet in height that substantial numbers
them is irreconcilable. obstruct views from of residences.
a substantial Water-dependent
number of shoreline uses and
residences,unless physical public
the SMP allows the access shall have
height and when priority over
overriding maintaining a view
considerations of when a conflict
public interest shall between them is
be served. As irreconcilable
written,the last orovided that the
sentence in the water dependent
policy suggests that use is consistent
shoreline uses will with heiaht
�, be given priority restrictions in RCW
3 over view,even 90.58.320. .
�
'> when prohibited by
o RCW 90.58.320.
�n This can be
� addressed by simply
Q
� adding,"...provided
� that the water
o dependent use is
a consistent with
� height restrictions in
� RCW 90.58.320."
Page 52 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Incentives such as density or J Short—DOE: No Change. The
bulk and dimensional This is an interesting concept. public access plan
bonuses should be I'm assuming the forthcoming and forthcoming
� considered if development regulations will explain how regulations will
>_ proposals include additional you determine what the strive to implement
Upublic access beyond that required level of public access this goal.
� required by this SMP. is so you can clearly identify a
project that goes above and
o beyond that threshold.
a
� K Anderson comment:
�
Incentives a ain?
Preference shall be given to K Anderson comment: No Change. An
non-motorized recreational Would you need an ordinance ordinance is not
a activities. banning motorized use? required. The policy
N will be implemented
�o through regulations.
� The County
Commissioners
zregulate boating
� o activity on the
�'� Spokane River.by
a � the Spokane County
�� Boating Safety
Ordinance.
Encourage new development K Anderson comment: No Change. The
N to contribute to the creation Encourage new development to policy encourages
� or preservation of open contribute to the sKea�ie+�-e� the creation of open
� space and/or fish and wildlife preservation of open space space Regulations
'�w habitat along the shorelines and/or fish and wildlife habitat will not require this
N� through the use of tools such along the shorelines through concept.
�= as conservation futures, the use of tools such as
a °� conservations easements, conservation futures,
c'�
�i--° transferable development conservations easements,
a� rights,and planned unit transferable development
�� developments. rights,and planned unit
� `4 develo ments.
Page 53 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Legally established uses and Legally established uses and The original language is The City has some Q ThePCmay
developments that were developments that were consistent with the law, discretion in the ti��ish to
erected and maintained in erected and maintained in the proposed language details of how it discuss
lawful condition prior to the lawful condition prior to the is not. READ WAC 173- regulates legally legallt�
effective date of ihis Master effective date of this Master 14-055. established estabZished
Program,shall be allowed to Program,shall be allowed to nonconforming noneonform
continue as legal continue as legal uses. Either ing uses.
Inonconforming uses provided nonconforming uses provided formulation of the
that future development or that future development or standard under Change
redevelopment does not redevelopmentdees+�e� which the City may recommended to
increase the degree of allow future accommodate the
nonconformity with this ^^^'^•^,�`„,.,�`"`"�^ development or recent statutory
program. �egFaFn provides a hiaher redevelopment of change is: Legally
decrree of benefit and nonconforming uses established uses
restoration to the ecoloaical and structures could and developments
function of the shorelines. potentially be that were erected
considered,though and maintained in
there are key lawful condition prior
differences. For to the effective date
example, of this Master
Centennial's Program,shall be
proposed allowed to continue
formulation could be as legal
arguably more nonconforming uses
restrictive in some provided that future
applications,such development or
as the redevelopment does
redevelopment of a not increase the
damaged degree of
nonconforming nonconformity with
structure,because it this program.
only allows Expansion,or
redevelopment upon reolacement of ore-
� a provision of benefit existina residential
°� and restoration, structures and their
� while the SAG's appurtenant
� formulation would structures.shall be
� allow for rebuild in allowed if it is
� the same footprint consistent with the
a without additional master oroaram.
m
� restoration. In either includinq
j case,the City will requirements for no
� want to revise this net loss of shoreline
'� provision to reflect ecoloaical functions.
`o more recent
ostatutory changes to
� nonconforming use
0
z provisions that
� consider pre-existing
�i residential uses to
a be"conforming."
� Page 54 of 66 RCW 90.58.620.
�
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Prohibit new non-water Prohibit new non-water This was discussed in No change.
� °� oriented commercial uses oriented commercial uses the SAG and should be
z�� unless they are part of a unless they are part of a retained.
� ��`—° mixed-use project or the use mixed-use project or the use
�i O � provides a significant public provides a�E public
a� � benefit,such as public benefit,such as public
�� o access and ecological access and ecological
restoration. restoration.
Give priority to industrial uses Give priority to industrial uses This language is Future wise Comments: In the case of gravel Based on Ecology's
in the following order: in the following order: impossibly vague and We are concerned that pits,the guidelines clarification the
• First priotiry is give • First priotiry is give could address proposed Policies SMP 12.13 recognize that "It is gravel pits will be
to water—dependent to water—dependent ownerships and uses and SMP 12.50 that define the appropriate, retained in the
industrial uses industrial uses having nothing to do with existing gravel mines as water however,to inventory,but will
� • Second priority is • Second priority is the aggregate mining dependent uses misinterpret determine whether not be addressed,
given to water- given to water- industry. the concept of water there will be no net until such a time that
related industrial related industrial dependency.WAC 173-26- loss of ecological the pit enters it's
uses uses 020(39)defines a"[w]ater- function based on reclamation phase.
� • The existing legally • The existing legally dependent use"as"a use or evaluation of final The pits will no
permitted gravel pits permitted gravel portion of a use which cannot reclamation required longer be classified
are considered pits.and their exist in a location that is not for the site." 173- as water dependent
water dependent surroundinq uses in adjacent to the water and which 26-241(3)(f). uses.
uses. the shoreline areas, is dependent on the water by Moreover,Ecology
are considered reason of the intrinsic nature of has provided further Change:
water dependent its operations."The gravel guidance that lakes
uses. mines to not meet this created by mining Give priority to
definition.They are in their activities need not industrial uses in the
location because of gravel be regulated as following order:
� resources,not because they shorelines of the • First
cannot exist in a location that is state until priority is
not adjacent to the water.So reclamation is give to
they cannot be defined as complete. There water—
� water dependent uses.We do may be no need to dependent
m
not disagree with policies that make the mining industrial
allow these uses to continue uses"water uses
� I with necessary measures to dependent uses" • Second
� ensure no net losses of and the language priority is
o shoreline resources,but they can be deleted. given to
,� � do not meet the definition of water-
°� water dependent and so cannot related
�`o_ be given that classification. industrial
a` uses
� T�P
N
����!.�
a
� �
�
��ses
Page 55 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Prohibit new non-water - K Anderson comment: While water
oriented industrial uses Can be low priority per 12.13 dependent industrial Q ThePCmay
but can't be prohibited without uses are preferred, wish to
zone change. and the City may diseuss
choose to whether to
discourage new restriet non-
non-water oriented water
industrial uses,the oriented
outright prohibition industrial
of non-water uses in
oriented industrial shoreline
uses in all instances jurisdiction.
and in all
environments may PCChange 5/10/12
be more restrictive (expand
than what is exceytions):
required. See,e.g.,
173-26-241(3)(f) ?�ek�iF Allow new
non-water oriented
WAC 173-26- industrial uses only
241(3)(f)Paragraph if the use includes a
3: New nonwater- water deoendent
oriented industrial use or naviqabilitv
development should is severelv limited at
be prohibited on the site, and
shorelines except provides for public
when: access and/or
ecoloqical
(i)The use is part restoration,or the
of a mixed-use area is phvsicallv
project that includes seoarated from the
water-dependent shoreline bv another
uses and provides a oublic riaht of wav. .
significant public
benefit with respect
to the Shoreline
Management AcYs
objectives such as
providing public
access and
ecological
restoration;or
(ii)Navigability is
severely limited at
the proposed site;
and the industrial
use provides a
significant public
N benefit with respect
a� to the Shoreline
� Page 56 of 66 Management Act's
m objectives such as
w. ...,.,,;,�,.,,...,,ti�,,.
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Reduce the adverse effects - This follows one
of allowed shoreline element of Ecology's Q ThePCmay
modifications and,as much guidance for wish to
as possible,limii allowed shoreline diseuss the
shoreline modifications in "modifications"in degree to
number and extent WAC 173-26-231. whieh
The guidelines shoreline
identify modifeatio
"modifications"as nshouldbe
related to limited
construction of a
physical element PC change 5/10/12:
such as a dike,
breakwater,dredged Reduce the adverse
basin,or fill,but they effects of allowed
can include other shoreline
actions such as modifications and,
clearing,grading, as much as
application of possible,limit
chemicals,or allowed shoreline
significant modifications in
vegetation removal." number and extent
unless thev are
To the extent that necessarv to
"modifications"are support or protect
part of a class of an allowed primarv
"alterations"more structure or a leqallv
generally,the policy existinq shoreline
of limiting allowed use that is in dancrer
shoreline of loss or substantial
modifications in damaae or are
number and extent necessarv for
as much as possible reconfiauration of
may be more the shoreline for
restrictive than is mitiaation or
required under the enhancement
� statute,which purposes. .
expressly fosters all
reasonable and
N appropriate uses
� and recognizes
0
'� alterations of the
�� shoreline.
J
� The Planning
� Commission could
� accept the policy as
`4 written or add
Q
� language
o acknowledging the
'� more general
,°—� Page 57 of 66 recognition of
a shoreline alterations.
0
S T..o.....o.�o..roo IL.�o
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Assure that shoreline Assure that shoreline This language should be This Policy appears
modifications individually and modifications individually and retained since it to address the policy Q ThePCmay
cumulatively do not result in a cumulatively do not result in a supports and is preferences in RCW tii�ish to
net loss of ecological net loss of ecological supported by,numerous 90.58.020 which diseuss the
functions by: functions by: sections of both the gives preference to relationship
� Giving preference to • r,,'^^^�^'^•^^^^ ^`"^^^ SMA and its uses that preserve between
those types of shoreline �}�s�r�e implementing rules. A the natural character prioriry
modifications that have ^,^�'�'�^^'�^^^`"^'"^„^ quick read of RCW of the shoreline. It is uses,
the least impact on '"^'^^^�m; 90.58A20,RCW also consistent with reusonable
ecological function;and 90.58.100,WAC 173-26- language in and
� Requiring mitigation of • �requiring mitigation of 181,-186(8),-201 will Ecology's guidelines appropriate
identified impacts identified impacts resulting help for starters. at WAC 173-26- uses,and
oresulting from shoreline from shoreline 231(2)(d). However alterations.
'� I modifications modifications RCW 90.58.020 also
� fosters°all Staff comment -No
� reasonable and change
� appropriate uses" recommended for
�o and acknowledges the following reason:
o alterations. To the The policy is specific
w extent that the policy to shoreline
`o deemphasizes the modifications and
N priority alterations their impacts;
� � identified in RCW WAC 173-26-221
z 90.58.020 and the (1)"...Shoreline
o recognition of modifications are
z shoreline alterations, generally related to
� generally,then the construction of a
�4 policy may be more physical element
w
o restrictive than what such as a dike,
'� is required by breakwater,dredged
° statute.However, basin,or fill,but they
o that concept may can include other
� already be actions such as
N adequately clearing,grading,
N addressed in Policy application of
a 12-19 chemicals,or
� significant
�
ve etation removal"
Page 58 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Base shoreline modification Base shoreline modification The two gravel pits The Pits will not be
regulations on scientific and regulations on scientific and provide a unique regulated by the
technical information of reach technical information of reach situation where the SMP until they
conditions for the Spokane conditions for the Spokane existing conditions reach the
River,Shelley Lake,Central River,Shelley Lake,''^��'�^' may not provide the reclamation phase.
I Pre-mix and Flora Pit o•^^�;�^^�°1^�^°;' best measure for
determining no net C�I ThePC
loss. As recognized should
in the guidelines,"It diseuss
is appropriate, gravel pits
however,to andDOE's
determine whether latest
there will be no net guidanee.
I loss of ecological
function based on Change: Base
� evaluation of final shoreline
°- reclamation required modification
.�
� for the site." 173- regulations on
� 26-241(3)(f). As scientific and
� further noted in technical information
� recent of reach conditions
0
'� correspondence for the Spokane
� from Ecology,the River;and Shelley
o City does not need Lake„-r,,,.�.�c�o.,,
� to regulate the pits ^^�'.,-�-��-,-.�'^•^°�'
� as shorelines until
'� they enter
Lreclamation phase.
cn Thus the City may
M want to consider
N
N changes to the
a policy to address
� these two unique
�
shoreline areas.
Plan for the restoration of K Anderson comment: No change. The
N o ` impaired ecological functions Public or private property? regulations and
�i%��. where feasible and Who would define and restoration plan
a� � appropriate,while determine the impaired should address this
��w accommodating permitted function? issue in conjunction
uses. with modifications.
Page 59 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Allow new docks only for Change to reflect
public water-dependent uses, removing the
single-family residences,and Gravel Pit from
public access on the regulatory
Spokane River and Shelley discussion:
Lake. The existing gravel pit
operations are allowed docks
if it is necessary for Allow new docks
operations and as permitted only for public
operating permits. water-dependent
� uses,single-family
0
residences,and
U
public access on the
� Spokane River and
� Shelley Lake. �e
Y
U �
� �
(O ..II..�.,...J.�I....L��F�f
N
N Li96966e�—�9F
a ��
� ���
�
Page 60 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Docks shall be allowed only Docks shall be allowed only This proposed language Futurewise comments: Generally,the Q ThePCmay
in locations where they will in locations where they will is entirely inconsistent Docks have significant impacts regulations allow ti��ish to
not pose a public safety not pose a public safety with the WAC to ecological functions.Public new docks for water discuss this
hazard or adversely impact hazard or adversely impact Guidelines. Docks can and shared docks should be dependent and issue.
� shoreline ecological functions shoreline ecological functions be an appurtenant use the standard practice wherever residential uses. The SAG felt
or process and limited as or process and limited as to a single family home possible where there is a See WAC 173-26- strongly that the
follows: follows: on an upland parcel with demand for docks.However we 231(3)(b). conditions of the
� Spokane River-only in • Spokane River-only in shoreline,but docks are support the Shoreline Advisory Moreover,the Spokane River,with
reservoir areas,where reservoir areas,where not a property right Group's provisions in SMP 12- regulations allow the exception of
flow conditions least flow conditions least attached to all such 26 and SMP 12-27 as a docks so long as certain areas,were
resemble the natural free- resemble the natural free- parcels. reasonable compromise to they avoid or,if that not conducive to
flowing river; flowing river unless balance the interests of the is not possible,to docks.
Shelley Lake; necessarv to support a Docks should only be community and the conclusions minimize and
Gravel pits;or permitted use; allowed where their of the city's shoreline inventory mitigate the impacts Change to reflect
Severely ecologically • Shelley Lake; location does not and research into the feasibility to ecological removing the
impacted shoreline areas • Gravel pits;or adversely impact of docks conducted by URS. functions. Gravel Pit from
with adequate public • Severely ecologically shoreline ecological Accordingly,the regulatory
access impacted shoreline areas function,public language may be discussion:
I with adequate public navigational access and more restrictive than
access other normal public use. what is required by Docks shall be
For many technical and the regulations. allowed only in
policy reasons docks are However,if there is locations where they
not appropriate on free- a public health, will not pose a
flowing rivers because safety concern,the public safety hazard
they aren't consistent City may have a or adversely impact
with the SMA. strong policy reason shoreline ecological
for restricting docks functions or process
in certain areas. and limited as
fol lows:
� Spokane River-
only in reservoir
areas,where
� flow conditions
0
'� least resemble
� the natural free-
0
� flowing river;
o I Shelley Lake;
� ^-��^��^'^ ��,or
N •Severely
N ecologically
a impacted shoreline
� areas with adequate
�
ublic access
Page 61 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
� Restrict the size of new K Anderson comment: No Change.
N N docks to the minimum I do not see size within the
�� necessary to serve a RCW's.
�o proposed water-dependent
cn� use.
Require residential Re�iFe-resideatial This language should be K Anderson comment: Encouragement or Q ThePCmay
development of more than �'^��^'^^^,^^`^'^,^•^`"^^ retained since iPs Can you require this without a requirement of joint- wish to
two dwellings to provide supported at WAC 173- zone change? use docks is a way diseuss this
community docks,rather than �^�`���'^^',^,•^'"^•`"^^ 26-241(3)(b),and to minimize impacts issue.
I individual docks. �eslFS required under WAC on ecological
173-26-191(2). functions. Policies The SAG felt
Y encouraging or strongly that it was
o requiring joint use important to limit the
� docks are common impacts of docks,
� especially in pristine and this was a
.�
� areas. The policy reasonable and
� presented is within common alternative.
� the discretion of the
U
-o City,but may be PC change 5/10/12:
�
� more than is
N required by statute �e Encouraqae
� because docks are residential
� not a prohibited use development of
� and dock sharing is more than two
M not required by dwellings to provide
N statute. community docks,
a rather than
� individual docks.
�
Design and locate new Design and locate new This language should be No change. This
3 development and lots created development and lots created retained since it's concept represents
through subdivision, through subdivision, supported by numerous proactive efforts to
'�z particularly those located on �'^����'^^^'�-�.�'^^ references throughout minimize the need
� �� steep slopes and bluffs,to ,to the SMA and WAC, for stabilization.
M�O � prevent the need for future prevent the need for future including requirements
�i o o streambank protection streambank protection for consistency with
a� � measures during the life o the measures during the life o the other law:READ WAC
�� a'� structure. structure. 173-26-191(1)(e),and
� `4 WACA 173-26-221 2 .
Page 62 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Site in-stream structures to Futurewise Comments: No Change.
protect and preserve Proposed Policies 12.43 and
ecosystem-wide processes, 12.44 allow instream Based on a
ecological functions,and structures.Instream structures conversation with
cultural resources,including can have very significance the URS consultant
but not limited to fish and fish adverse impacts on the placement of in-
passage,wildlife and water shoreline environment and in water structures
N resources,shoreline critical water recreation. We should be based on
� areas,hydro-geological recommend these policies be localized stream
� processes,and natural modified to prohibit instream flow characteristics,
� scenic vistas. structures in Natural and not the shoreline
in � Conservancy Environments environment. The
� and theirequivalent Commission may
� environments wish to consider
in different in water
�
structures in
� preferential
N locations..lf so,staff
a will come back with
� an additional
�
recommendation.
� Consider the full range of No change to this
m public interests,watershed policy. The point is
` o functions and processes,and adequately
�m environmental concerns addressed in policy
�J when planning and locating 12.43.
? � in-stream structures,with
� � special emphasis on
� ` protecting and restoring
�� riorit habitats and s ecies.
Advocate and foster habitat K Anderson comment: No Change
and natural system Advocate and foster habitat
enhancement projects which and natural uo blic system
�� >. restore the natural character enhancement projects which
�i;_°� and function of the shoreline restore the natural character
� `4 `� rovided the are consistent and function of the shoreline
a�� P Y
� m m with the Restoration Plan. provided they are consistent
�= with the Restoration Plan.
Page 63 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Allow existing gravel pit N Smith for Central Pre-mix Q ThePC may
operations to continue to comment:CPM believes that wish to
operate and expand these are inconsisient with the diseuss this
consistent with operational SMP Handbook and suggests issue and
permits.Operational uses the following: eonsider the
include both above water and ehange
below water gravel The existinq qravel pits within proposed
extraction,processing,and the Citv of Spokane Vallev below.
crushing.Accessory uses continue to be fullv ooerational.
include,but are not limited to, "Since mininq operations will Change: ��..,;�,.^,.,
concrete batch plants,hot not cease in the next few vears, eExisting gravel pit
mix asphalt plants,aggregate these aravel oits are excluded operations mav
processing and recycling from the iurisdiction of the continue to operate
plants,customer service Citv's shoreline plan until and expand
(truck dispatching)offices, comoletion of the active minina consistent with
maintenance facilities,truck operations and reclamation as operational permits.
&equipment parking, required bv an applicable 9qeratieaa��ases
stockpiles,scale houses, reclamation olan aooroved bv task�e�iielka-abeve
retail product stores,and the Deoartment of Natural �-ke�
quality control facilities. Resources. �e�aue4
����
�
..I��.d.. h��+
..4 1�...�4...�1 f
�
nl�..ic L...h m
��
�
�
��
��
�V�
it.��,.i,,a��....�..H�,.,.�
�'S7
nFF�....� ..4............
�$�-�f�r�e
�
N �e
O ��
N �6S-c'#Ff�
N �6gp�Kg-�
O �as+tilies.Active
a aravel pits are not
� reaulated as
� shorelines of the
(9 state until
rn
� reclamation is
�i comolete and DNR
a terminates the
� Surface Mine
�
Reclamation Pernit.
Page 64 of 66
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Pre ared or the Ma 10,2012 Plannin Commission Meekn ;Modi aed or the Ma 24,2012PC Meekn
Goal/ SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Language
olic Comments Received Review Comments Recommendation
Existing Gravel Pit Futurewise Comments: See comments to Q ThePCmay
Operations are considered We are concerned that Policy 12.13 and wish to
water dependent uses proposed Policies SMP 12.13 12.23. diseuss this
and SMP 12.50 that define the issuesand
existing gravel mines as water whether to
dependent uses misinterpret further
the concept of water address
dependency.WAC 173-26- noneonform
020(39)defines a"[w]ater- ing uses.
I dependent use"as"a use or
portion of a use which cannot Policy SMP 12.5
exist in a location that is not addresses non-
adjacent to the water and which conforming uses.
I is dependent on the water by
reason of the intrinsic nature of Change proposed to
its operations."The gravel eliminate gravel pits
mines to not meet this as a water
definition.They are in their dependent use:
location because of gravel c��^'�^^�^-�^��^'�°��
resources,not because they 9peraEieas-are
cannot exist in a location that is ^^��'^���',^,^'^�
not adjacent to the water.So �e�eac�e�ases
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
I be given that classification
N Smith for Central Pre-mix
comment:CPM believes that
the policy is inconsistent with
the SMP Handbook and
suggests the following:
SMP 12.50 Subsepuent Uses
Operational and accessorv
uses related to qravel mininq
ooerations are oermitted and
allowed to exoand after the
completion of reclamation.
N Ooerational uses include both
N above water and below water
� qravel extraction,processinq
� and crushinq. Accessorv uses
� include,but are not limited to,
Q concrete batch plants,hot mix
� Page 65 of 66 asphalt plants,aqqreqate
processinq and recvclinq
..�. ..I�..+o ��io+.....oroo..ii�o/+r�i�L
Draft Goals and Po&cies-Comment Table Attachment#14
Prepared for the May 10,2012 Planning Commission Meekng;Modified for the May 24,2012PC Meekng
Page 66 of 66