Agenda 06/28/2012 �CITYO���
p
Vall�/ u
�
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
June 28, 2012 6:00 p.m.
L CALL TO ORDER
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IIL ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 7,2011, March 22, 2012, May 7, 2012
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 —Planning Commission Recommended Draft Shoreline Goal
and Policies strike-though version
2. Proposed amendments -Planning Commission Rules of Procedure
B. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Study Session - CTA-01-12 Proposed Amendments to Chapter 19.120
Permitted Use Matrix
2. Planning Commission Discussion Items
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XL ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR
JOHN G.CARROLL SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP
RusTiN HaLL
RoD HIGGINs
STEVEN NEILL
DEANNA GRIFFITH,SECRETARY
70E STOY-V ICE CHAIR W W W.SPOKANEV ALLEY.ORG
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: June 28, 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, May 24, 2012,June 14, 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. Mr. Kisielius highlighted draft goals and
policies that 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.
At the May 24t" meeting staff presented language revisions for review and discussion. The Commission
determined the revisions acceptable, and began a final review of the draft goals and policies element by
element. The review was completed at the June 14t" meeting. The SAG Draft Goals and Policies have
been modified to reflect the Planning Commission changes. This draft will now be identified as the
Planning Commission Draft Goals and Policies. The Commission should review the final draft and be
prepared to make a motion, recommend modifications to the policies, or provide staff with other
direction.
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. Since numerous changes have been made to the draft, the
Commission should vote against the motion. The Commission should make the following motion,
"Recommend that the City Council accept the Draft Goals and Policies for the Shoreline Master Program
as presented in the Planning Commission Draft Goals and Policies dated June 28, 2012. "
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner
1 of 2
ATTAC H M E NTS:
Previously provided 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 June 28, 2012 Meeting
Attachment 15: Planning Commission Draft Goals and Policies
2 of 2
� � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
General Goals and Policies
Goal SMP 1: Enhance the City's shorelines by establishing and implementing goals,policies,and
regulations which promote a mixture of reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses that improve the
City's character,foster its historic and cultural identity, and conserve environmental resources.
Policies
SMP 1.1 Coordinated Planning
Coordinate shoreline planning between the City of Spokane Valley, agencies with jurisdiction, adjoining
jurisdictions, the State of Washington, and the State of Idaho into which the river basin extends, and
consider the plans of non-government organizations (NGO's) and/or special interest groups.
SMP 1.2 Consistency with Other Plans and Programs
Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program is consistent with the Washington State
Shoreline Management Act and Growth Management Act, and to the extent practical the basic concepts,
goals, policies of the the followin� documents;_ �Land use plan of the City of Spokane Valley
Comprehensive Plan�development regulations, the City of Spokane Valley Critical Areas Ordinances,
and the Shoreline Master Programs of adjacent jurisdictions.
SMP 1.3 No Net Loss of Ecological Functions
� Ensure that all shoreline uses and development are regulated in a manner that g�ee� assures no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions
SMP 1.4 Public Interest and Property Rights
� �re�ee�Balance the interests ^�*'�° ����'�'��� in attaining the goals of the Shoreline Master Program, in a
manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private
property.
SMP 1.5 Shoreline Designated Environments
Designate shoreline environments for the City of Spokane Valley shorelines that are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan land uses, shoreline management practices, and shoreline inventory within each
designated area.
SMP 1.6 Use preferences for all Shorelines
Give preference to those shoreline activities which fulfill long range Comprehensive Plan goals and the
Shoreline Management Act policy priorities, as listed and discussed below:
It is the policy of the City to provide for the management of its shorelines by planning for and fostering
all reasonable and appropriate uses. Policies are designed to ensure the development of the City's
shorelines in a manner which will promote and enhance the public interest. These policies will protect
against adverse effects to the public health, the land, its vegetation and aquatic life and wildlife, and the
waters of the Spokane River, Shelly Lake and the Sullivan Road and Park Road Gravel Pits and their
aquatic life.
SMP 1.7 Use preferences for Shorelines of State-wide Significance
The State Legislature has declared that the interest and bene�t of all of the people shall be paramount in
the management of shorelines of state-wide significance, and therefore preference shall be given to uses
in the following order of preference which:.
1. Recognize and protect statewide interest over local interest
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � �PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline
3. Allow uses that result in long-term over short-term benefits
4. Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines
5. �e Increase public access to publicly owned areas of shorelines
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines.
SMP 1.8 Prioritv Uses and Shoreline Alterations
Uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of dama�e to the
natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon 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 i� ven
priority for sin�le-family residences and their a�urtenant structures, shoreline recreational uses and
other im�rovements facilitating�ublic access,industrial and commercial develo�ments which are
particularlv de�endent on their location on or use of the shorelines, and other develo�men�
Historical, Cultural, Scientific & Educational Element ►.
Goal SMP 2: Goal: Protect the historic, cultural, scientific or educational sites within the
shoreline that reflect our community's unique heritage and create or contribute to our collective
sense of place.
��.
Policies
SMP 2.1 Sites and Structures
Identify,preserve, and manage shoreline sites and structures having historical, cultural, scientific or
educational value, and develop regulations that avoid,minimiae, or mitigate any adverse impacts to
these resources.
SMP 2.2 Sites and Building Acquisition
Public acquisition through gifts,bequests, grants, or donations of buildings or sites having cultural,
scientific, educational, or historical value should be encouraged.
, ,
> > �
ISMP 2.43 Cooperation and Consultation
Ensure constant cooperation and consultation with affected agencies and tribes for projects that could
potentially impact cultural and historical resources.
� SMP 2.�4 Inventory of Sites
Work with tribal, state, federal and local governments as appropriate to maintain an inventory of all
known significant local historic, cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of applicable state and
federal laws protecting such information from public disclosure.
� SMP 2.g5 Site Inspection and Evaluation
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � [PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
Ensure early and continuous site inspection, consultation or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in
coordination with affected tribes for all permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological
resources.
Utilities Element
Goal SMP 3: Maintain and provide adequate utility services within the shoreline environment
while preserving and enhancing the natural environment and ecology of the shoreline.
Policies
SMP 3.1 Location
Locate new public facilities and utilities,including,but not limited to,utility production,processing,
distribution, and transmission facilities outside of the shoreline jurisdiction whenever feasible.
SMP 3.2 Place Underground
Require new utilities and facilities that must be located within the shoreline to be built underground, if
feasible, and utilize low impact,low profile design and construction methods to the maximum extent
� possible. Under�roundin� shall not be required if it results in a net loss of shoreline ecolo�ical functions.
SMP 3.3 Existing Rights-of-way
Require new utilities and facilities to be located in existing rights-of-way whenever possible.
SMP 3.4 Maintenance and Oneration Design
When existing utilities, facilities and ri�hts of wa� ���a�����'�s are located within shoreline
jurisdiction and require maintenance or other improvements, the maintenance/improvement should be
designed and implemented to minimize additional impacts on the shoreline environment and, ' ,
encoura�ed to correct past impacts caused by the utility. Vegetation Management Plans should be
recognized as maintenance activities.
SMP 3.5 Preference to Existing Facilities and Utilities
� Give preference to established utility corridors and rights-of-way for upgrades, maintenance and
reconstruction of e�sting utilities and facilities,unless a location with less potential to impact the
shoreline environment is available.
SMP 3.6 Stormwater Facilities
Stormwater utilities will be designed and located as to minimize environmental impacts within the
shoreline jurisdiction. If located within the shoreline jurisdiction they shall��use e�best
management practices (e.g. biofiltration measures) and landscaping with native
, , . All stormwater facilities must protect water
quality,manage runoff and address erosion control and sedimentation.
Circulation Element
Goal SMP 4: Provide a safe, convenient, and multimodal circulation system which will minimize
� �negative impacts to the shoreline environment
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
Policies
SMP 4.1 Transportation Access
Ensure that a system of arterials, scenic drives,pathways,public transit routes, and bikeways adj acent to
and within the shoreline areas provide appropriate access to the Spokane River in a way that meets the
needs and desires of the community as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan,while also��ese�i�
assurin�no net loss of ecological function of the shorelines.
SMP 4.2 Location of New Streets or Street Expansions
Locate new streets or street expansions outside of the shoreline jurisdiction,unless no other options are
available or feasible. In all cases, streets should be on the landward side of development.
SMP 4.3 Consolidation of Corridors
Encourage the consolidation of transportation and utility corridors crossing the shoreline environment in
order to minimize the number of crossings, and encourage the collocation of utilities on bridges or in
transportation rights of way whenever possible by considering the needs during the design of bridge and
corridor upgrades.
SMP 4.4 Transportation Facilities
Plan, locate, and design proposed transportation facilities where routes will have the least possible
adverse effect on shoreline ecological functions,will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions, or adversely impact e�sting or planned water dependent uses.
SMP 4.5 Stormwater Treatment All development within the shoreline jurisdiction area shall provide
stormwater treatment for all new and redeveloped pollution generating impervious surfaces.
SMP 4.6 Parking Facilities for Public Access
Parking facilities for public access to the shoreline and water should be kept as far from the shorelines as
feasible
SMP 4.7 Parking Facilities not a Primary Use.
Parking facilities should only be allowed as necessary to support permitted shoreline uses, and not as a
primary use, and must be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction area if other options are available
and feasible.
SMP 4.8 Impacts of Parking Facilities
Minimize the environmental and visual impacts of parking facilities where allowed.
SMP 4.9 Retain Unused Public Rights-of-way for Visual and Physical Access
Retain unused public rights-of-way within the shoreline area to provide visual and physical access to the
shoreline unless:
• The street vacation enables the City to acquire the property for beach or water access
purposes,boat moorage or launching sites, park,public view,recreation, or educational
purposes, or other public uses or the City declares that the street or alley is not presently
being used and is not suitable for the above purposes; or
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies �
: � [PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
• The street vacation enables the City to implement a plan, that provides comparable or
improved public access to the same shoreline area to which the streets or alleys sought to be
vacated,had the properties included in the plan not been vacated.
SMP 4.10 Improve Non-Motorized Access to Shoreline
Improve non-motorized access to the shoreline by developing,where appropriate,pathways, trails and
bikeways along and adjacent to the shoreline. Connectivity between non-motorized access points is
encouraged.
SMP 4.11 Recognifion of Centennial Trail
Recognize the importance and uniqueness of the Spokane River Centennial Trail to the City of Spokane
Valley, the region, and the state, Future trail development on private property including trail extensions,
new access points,whether public or private, shall be designed to have the least adverse impact. Future
trail development on public property shall meet the same objective,but should also incorporate
enhancement and restoration measures where a�ropriate.
SMP 4.12 New Rail Lines
Allow new rail lines and the expansion of e�sting rail corridors within the shoreline jurisdiction only for
the purpose of connecting to e�sting rail lines or rights-of-way. Construct new rail lines within an
existing rail corridor where possible.
SMP 4.13 Rail Lines affecting Public Access
Construct, where feasible, all new rail lines so that they do not compromise the public's ability to access
the shoreline safely.
Economic Development Element
Goal SMP 5: Encourage and support water dependent,water oriented, and water related economic
activities within the shorelands of the City of Spokane Valley that will be an asset to the economy of
the area and that will protect and maintain the ecological functions of the shoreline environment
Policies
SMP 51 Location of Economic Development
Give preference to economic development within the shoreline jurisdiction that is particularly dependent
on their location on or use of the shoreline. Encourage new development to locate in areas that have
intensive prior use and can be upgraded or redeveloped. Encourage new economic development to cluster
into areas of the shoreline whose current use is compatible.
SMP 5.2 Design of Economic Development
Development should be designed to minimize the impacts to the shoreline aesthetic through architectural,
landscape, and other design features. Give�reference to water-oriented economic develo�ment,while
limitin�location of�non-�ewater-oriented�elements of the development�
��outside of the shoreline jurisdiction unless the site is ina�ropriate for water-oriented uses or the
develo�ment demonstrably contributes to the objectives of the Shoreline Mana�ement Act�.
Encourage design that seeks to restore damaged or compromised shoreline through incentives.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � [PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
SMP 5.3 Provisions for Physical and Visual Availability to Water
� When public access is required under this SMP�historic areas, overlook points, structures, and points of
public access to the waterfront should be incorporated in economic development site-planning.
SMP 5.4 Encourage Regional Tourism
Strengthen regional tourism by expanding and developing neighborhood and regional linkages and
improvements that use the shoreline areas.
SMP 5.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations
Proposed economic development in the shoreline should be consistent with the City of Spokane Valley
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Upland uses on adjacent lands outside of immediate
SMA jurisdiction(in accordance with RCW 90.58.340) should protect the preferred shoreline uses from
being impacted by incompatible uses.
������-t�t-�e�--e� ,. r.,;,,
��
ISMP 5.�6 Provisions for Shoreline Protection
Require that development provide adequate provisions for the protection of water quality, erosion control,
landscaping, aesthetic characteristics, stormwater systems, fish and wildlife habitat,views,
archaeological sites, and normal public use of the water.
ISMP S.S7 Promote Recreational Uses
Promote recreational uses of the shorelines to contribute to the economic attractiveness of the city. Seek
opportunities to partner with public and private property owners to increase public recreational
opportunities in the shoreline.
� SMP 5.18 Water-Enjoyment Areas
Promote the identification and establishment of water-enj oyment areas, such as parks,view points,
beaches and pathways as attractions.
ISMP 5.�89 Business and Industry Operations
Encourage shoreline industries and businesses to maintain a well kept appearance and to operate in a
� manner that will not cause negative °�~T�����~~~�~+�' aesthetic impacts to the community.
I SMP 5.1�0 Redevelopment
Encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment of existing sites that includes points of public
� access, areas designed for public enjoyment, and improve fish and wildlife habitat, ��-�m"���� ° �'°'�
�sage.
I SMP 5.1�1 Building Orientation
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies .
: � �PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
New public "��shoreline uses and developments should be planned and designed to attract the
public to the waterfront; new�rivate shoreline uses and develo�ment should be�lanned and desi n� ed to
attract the public to the waterfront with exceptions as allowed bv wAC 173-26-221(4)(d).
I SMP 5.1�2 Design Feature Incentives
Incentives should be created to encourage developers to incorporate design features into the waterside of
the building.
ISMP 5.143
Support�~�the e�sting aggregate mining industry as a significant component of the area
economy.
Conservation
� ��.
Goal SMP 6: Preserve for the future those natural resources,including the unique,fragile and
scenic qualities of the shoreline,which cannot be replaced.Achieve no net loss of ecological
functions of the shoreline.
Policies: `� !
c"���4re���e�se�e�
, , , ,
f;��. .,�,a . ;i,ai;�v i..,�.;�.,� �i.,,,,ia �.o� oa
SMP 6.31 Protect Vegetative Buffers and Setbacks
Protect existing vegetation and shoreline ecological function by designating buffers and setbacks that are
� supported by the 2010 Shoreline Inventory and allow for the use of innovative technic�ues and strate�
while ensurin�no net loss of ecolo�ical functions. .
I SMP 6.�2 Acquisition of Unique Shoreline Areas
Acquire and maintain, through conservation futures, donations, grants, general funds, or other sources,
shoreline areas containing natural elements especially worthy of preservation or especially attractive to
the public, such as beaches, forest covers, trees,wildlife populations,vistas and other scenic features.
SMP 6.3
Utiliae 2010 shoreline inventory to establish baselines for the functions and values of shoreline. Property
owners ma�provide additional information to su�lement the inventor,y in�re�aration of a develo�ment
proposal
SMP 6.4 Preserve Ecological Connectivity
� ����*°�*��� "��°�°��� °Assure no net loss of ecological viability and connectivity through use of habitat
islands and corridors within the shoreline area.
ISMP 6.5 Incentives for Retention of D���..���� T °�a� Critical Areas and Onen Snace
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
� � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
Retain existing open space and environmentally sensitive areas on private property through the use of
incentives.
SMP 6.6 Mitigation of Negative Impacts
Development shall avoid and if avoidance is not possible, mitigate negative impacts to steep banks,
surface and ground water quality, ecological functions, fish and wildlife habitat,vegetative cover, and
erosion of the soil.
SMP 6.7 Cumulative Impacts
Regulations shall assure that the commonly occurring and foreseeable cumulative impacts of development
do not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline.
Restoration �
Goal SMP 7: Restore habitat and the natural systems to improve shoreline ecological functions.
SMP 7.1 Restoration Plan
Develop a Restoration Plan that will identify degraded areas and provide a framework for restoration
efforts to improve the existing ecological function and provide a mechanism for mitigation of unavoidable
and unforeseeable future development
SMP 7.2 City Stewardship
Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley assumes a primary stewardship role through restoration efforts on
city-owned and controlled land. Manage the City's programs, services, and operational infrastructure in a
manner that achieves no net loss of ecological or shoreline functions.
SMP 7.3 Incentives for Restoration and Enhancement Projects
Provide incentives for projects that include restoration and enhancement components by implementing
tools which may include but are not limited to: modifying the shoreline setback area that would apply to
the restored areas or allowing a greater range of uses or flexible development standards (e.g., setbacks) on
� properties providing restoration and or enhancement that mav result in a net�ain of ecolo�ical function.
SMP7.4 Gravel Pit Restoration Plans
Assist the Gravel Pits in the development and implementation of restoration plans for pits that are
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program and the Department of Natural Resources .
SMP 7.5 Cooperative Restoration Programs
Encourage cooperative restoration programs between local, state, and federal public agencies, tribes,non-
profit organizations, and landowners.
Critical Areas Element
IGoal SMP 8: Assure no net loss of ecological functions and
ecosystem-wide processes within wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas,fish and wildlife habitat
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
Iconservation areas, geologically hazardous areas and frequently flooded areas. £�-st�eAssure no
net loss of ecological function within these critical areas.
Policies
SMP 8.1 Consistency with Critical Areas Goals and Policies
� To the extent�racticable and consistent with RCW 36.70A.480€ensure the critical area goals and
policies for the Shoreline Master Plan are consistent with the critical areas goals and policies contained in
the Comprehensive Plan.
SMP 8.2 No net loss of ecological function
Ensure regulatory protection measures developed for the shoreline area assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by Washington State
Department of Ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060
SMP 8.3 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Wetlands through protective measures.
Rate wetlands based on the quality of the wetland and the ecological function they serve. Develop
protective measures tailored to the wetland quality and function and that consider the characteristics and
setting of the buffer and the impacts on adjacent land use.
SMP 8.4 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Wetlands through mitigation measures.
Base wetland mitigation on the wetland rating and require mitigation sequencing. Only allow
� compensatory mitigation after mitigation sequencing has been applied and'���'�°r��-��r�'���°��� ��
avoidance has been deemed infeasible.
SMP 8.5 Protect people and property from risk associated with critical areas defined as
Geologically Hazardous Areas.
Limit development that would cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or property.
Do not allow development that will require structural shoreline stabilization except in the limited cases
where it is necessary to protect an allowed use and no alternative location is available. Allow structural
� shoreline stabilization to protect e�sting�structures only when relocation or reconstruction is
infeasible. Do not allow structural shoreline stabilization that will result in a net loss of ecological
function.
SMP 8.6 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
areas
Develop measures that assure no net loss of ecological functions of river, lake and stream corridors
associated with�sh and wildlife habitat. Integrate the protection of fish and wildlife habitat with flood
hazard reduction and other fish and wildlife management provisions. Develop measures that authorize
and facilitate habitat restoration projects.
SMP 8.7 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas.
Protect the hydrologic connections between water bodies,water courses, and associated wetlands.
Integrate the protection of critical aquifer recharge areas with jurisdictional and non jurisdictional aquifer
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies •
: � �PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
protection measures such as Watershed Management Plans,Wellhead Protection Plans,Department of
Natural Resources Forest Practices, and others as appropriate.
SMP 8.8 Protect people and property from risk associated with critical areas defined as Frequently
Flooded Areas
Limit development that would cause foreseeable risk to people and property from frequent flooding.
Ensure frequently flooded areas are fully addressed in the goals and policies of the Flood Hazard
Reduction element of this plan.
Flood Hazard Reduction Element
Goal SMP 9: Prevent and reduce flood damage in shoreline areas to protect ecological functions,
shoreline habitat,lives, and public and private property.
Policies �,
SMP 9.1 Development within the Shoreline
Prohibit development within the shorelines that would intensify flood hazards or result in cumulative
significant adverse effects to other properties, as regulated by Chapter 2130,Floodplain Regulations, of
the Spokane Valley Municipal Code.
SMP 9.2 Coordination among agencies
Coordinate flood hazard reduction planning among the applicable agencies.
SMP 9.3 Structural Flood Hazard Reduction
Allow new structural flood hazard reduction measures only:
• Where scientific and engineering analysis has demonstrated it to be necessary, and when non-
structural methods are infeasible and mitigation is accomplished; and
• Landward of associated wetlands and buffer areas except where no alternative exists, as
documented in an engineering analysis; and
� • When consistent with current best management practices,using natural native materials
whenever feasible.
Note: An example of a structural flood hazard reduction measure is a structure placed by humans within
a stream or river waterward of the ordinary high mark such as,but not limited to a diversion or
modi�cation of water flow to control flooding.
SMP 9.4 Removal of Gravel
Allow removal of gravel for flood control only if biological and geomorphological study demonstrates
� that extraction has a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction, does not result�ein a net loss of
ecological functions, and is�art of a com�rehensive flood mana�ement solution. This does not apply to
the permitted gravel mining operations underway at the time of SMP adoption and approval.
SMP 9.5 Natural Vegetative Buffers
Maintain,protect, and restore natural vegetative buffers that are within the floodplain of the Spokane
River that function to reduce flood hazards.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies �
: � �PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
SMP 9.6 Alternate Flood Control Measures
When evaluating alternate flood control measures, consider the removal or relocation of structures in
floodplain areas.
Public Access Element
Goal SMP 10: Provide diverse, reasonable, and adequate public access to the shorelines of the state
consistent with the natural shoreline character,private property rights,public rights under the
Public Trust Doctrine, and public safety while maintaining no net loss of ecological function.
SMP 10.1 Public Interest and Private Property
Promote and enhance the public interest with regard to rights to access waters held in public trust by the
state,while protecting private property rights and public safety.
SMP 10.2 Shoreline Development by Public Entities
Require public entities,including local governments, state agencies and public utility districts, to include
public access as part of each development proj ect unless such access is incompatible due to reasons of
safety, security or impact to the shoreline environment.
SMP 10.3 Shoreline Development
Require the dedication and improvement of public access in developments for water-enjoyment,water-
related and non water-dependent uses and for the subdivision of land into more than four parcels,with
exceptions as allowed by WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii).
SMP 10.4 Public Access Maintenance and Improvements
When improving and maintaining e�sting public access points, minimize additional impacts on the
� shoreline environment and,�l�so lon� as it is consistent with constitutional�rotections, correct
past adverse environmental impacts caused by the public access.
SMP 10.5 Access Plan
Develop a formal Public Access Plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system that identifies
specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access that includes visual and physical access.
The plan should identify access opportunities and circulation for pedestrians (including disabled persons),
bicycles, and vehicles between shoreline access points.
SMP 10.6 Design of Access Measures
Require that public access measures have a design appropriate to the site, adjacent property, and general
nature of the proposed development,while protecting and providing views. Public access facilities
should be designed with provisions for persons with disabilities,where appropriate.
SMP 10.7 Motor Vehicle Access
Where access to the water's edge by motor vehicles is necessary,parking areas should be kept as far from
the shorelines as possible. Parking facilities shall implement a design appropriate for the shoreline
environment.
SMP 10.8 Access Design and Spacing
Access design and spacing of access points should be based on the biophysical capabilities of the
shoreline features and should protect fragile shoreline environment.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
SMP 109 Impacts on Views
Minimize the impacts to existing views where the view is taken from the water or shoreline,public
property or substantial numbers of residences. Water-dependent shoreline uses and physical public access
shall have priority over maintaining a view when a conflict between them is irreconcilable provided that
the water dependent use is consistent with hei�ht restrictions in RCW 90.58.320.
SMP 10.10 Permitted Uses
Regulate the design, construction, and operation of permitted uses in the shorelines of the state to
minimize,insofar as practical,interference with the public's use of the water.
SMP 10.11 Incentives
Incentives such as density or bulk and dimensional bonuses should be considered if development
proposals include additional public access beyond that required by this SMP.
SMP 10.12 Non-Motorized Access
Preference shall be given to the development, or improvement, of access for non-motorized recreational
activities.
Recreation Element � `.
Goal SMP 1L• Increase and preserve recreational opportunities on the shorelines of the City of
Spokane Valley
Policies
SMP 11.1 Preserve Shorelines for Public Recreational Use
Encourage appropriate public agencies to preserve shorelines for public use and to dedicate or transfer
appropriate shoreline land for recreational uses.
SMP 11.2 Encourage Passive and Active Recreation
Both passive and active recreation should be encouraged for appropriate shorelines.
SMP 11.3 Recreational Areas Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions
Recreational areas should be located, designed, developed, managed and maintained in a manner that
protects shoreline ecological functions and processes.
SMP 11A Linkages to Recreation Areas
Hiking paths,bicycle paths, easements and scenic drives should link shoreline parks, recreation areas and
public access points.
SMP 11.5 Public Access Priority
Public use and access to the water should be a prioriry in recreational development.
SMP 11.6 Recreational Opportunities for All
Ensure that recreational planning takes into account the differences in use groups,physical capabilities, and
interests among the public in order to provide opportunities for safe and convenient enjoyment of the
shorelines.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � [PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
SMP 11.7 Adequate Support Facilities
Create adequate support facilities of uses such as parking areas,maintenance buildings, and rest rooms to
meet shoreline recreational demands.
SMP 11.8 Non-Motorized Recreation
Preference shall be given to non-motorized recreational activities.
Shoreline Use Element
Goal SMP 12: Consider the use and development of shorelines and adjacent land areas for
housing,business,industry,transportation, recreation, education,public buildings and grounds,
utilities and other categories of public and private land uses in relation to the natural
environment and ensuring no net loss of ecological function.
Policies ��
General Use Policies
SMP 12.1 Shoreline Use Priorities
Give preference to water-dependent and single family residential uses that are consistent with
preservation of shoreline ecological functions and processes. Secondary preference should be given to
water-related and water-enjoyment uses.Non-water-oriented uses should be allowed only when
substantial public benefit is provided with respect to the goals of the SMA for public access and
ecological restoration.
SMP 12.2 Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions
Ensure no net loss of ecological functions through the use of speci�c standards for setbacks,buffers,
density, and shoreline stabilization.
.�.
SMP 12.3 Public Access in Development
Ensure that shoreline development includes visual and physical public access to the shorelines,while
avoiding,minimizing, or mitigating negative impacts to the shoreline including views.
SMP 12.4 Preserving Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Encourage new development to contribute to the creation or preservation of open space and/or fish and
wildlife habitat along the shorelines through the use of tools such as conservation futures, conservations
easements, transferable development rights, and planned unit developments.
SMP 12.5 Nonconforming Use and Development
Legally established uses and developments that were erected and maintained in lawful condition prior to
the effective date of this Master Program, shall be allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses
provided that future development or redevelopment does not increase the degree of nonconformity with
this program. Expansion, or replacement of pre-existin�residential structures and their a�urtenant
structures shall be allowed if it is consistent with the master pro�ram, includin�requirements for no net
loss of shoreline ecolo�ical functions.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � [PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
SMP 12.6 Mitigation Sequencing
Avoid and reduce significant ecological impacts from shoreline uses and modification activities through
mitigation sequencing.
Residential Use
SMP 12.7 Subdivided Lots
Require new subdivided lots to be designed, configured, and developed to:
• Prevent the net loss of ecological functions at full build-out
• Prevent the need for new shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures ; and
• Be consistent with the applicable environment designations and standards.
SMP 12.8 Over-Water Residences
Prohibit new over-water residences and floating homes
Commercial Use
SMP 12.9 Priorities for Commercial Use � ,
Give preference to commercial uses in the following order:
• First priority is given to water-dependent commercial uses,
• Second priority is given to water-related and water-enjoyment commercial uses.
SMP 12.10 Non-Water Oriented Commercial Uses
Prohibit new non-water oriented commercial uses unless they are part of a mixed-use proj ect or the use
provides a significant public bene�t, such as public access and ecological restoration.
SMP 12.11 Non-Water Dependent Commercial Uses
Prohibit non-water dependent commercial uses over the water
SMP 12.12 Mitigation of Shoreline Impacts
Public access and ecological restoration collectively should be considered as potential mitigation of
impacts to shoreline resources and values for all water-related or water-dependent commercial
development unless such improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or inappropriate.
Industrial Uses
SMP 12.13 Priorities for Industrial Use
Give priority to industrial uses in the following order:
• First priority is given to water-dependent industrial uses
• Second priority is given to water-related industrial uses
I y
SMP 12.14 Non-Water Oriented Industrial Uses
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies �
: � [PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
n.-��Allow new non-water oriented industrial uses only if the use includes a water dependent use or
navi a� bility is severely limited at the site, and�rovides for�ublic access and/or ecolo�ical restoration,
or the area is phvsically Separated from the shoreline by another public ri�ht of wa�
SMP 12.15 Industrial Use in Impaired Shoreline Areas
Encourage industrial uses and redevelopment to locate where environmental cleanup and restoration is
needed and can be accomplished.
SMP 12.16 Water Dependent and Water Related Industrial Uses
Water dependent and water related industrial uses within shoreline jurisdiction should be prohibited in
areas that are susceptible to erosion and flooding and where there are impacts to ecological functions.
SMP 12.17 Control Pollution and Damage
Designate and maintain appropriate areas for protecting and restoring shoreline ecological functions and
processes to control pollution and prevent damage to the shoreline environment and/or public health.
SMP 12.18 Uses Consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Ensure shoreline uses are consistent with the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and satisfy the
economic, social, and physical needs of the city..
Shoreline Modifications
SMP 12-19 Shoreline Modifications
Allow structural shoreline modifications only where they are:
• Demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally
existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage; and
• Necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for mitigation or enhancement purposes.
SMP 12-20 Modification Impacts and Limitations
Reduce the adverse effects of allowed shoreline modifications and, as much as possible,limit allowed
shoreline modifications in number and extent unless thev are necessa ,r� ty o su�ort or�rotect an allowed
primary structure or a le�ally existin� shoreline use that is in dan�er of loss or substantial dama�e or are
necessary for reconfi�uration of fhe shoreline for miti�ation or enhancement�ur�oses. ..
SMP 12-21 Appropriate Modifications
Allow only shoreline modifications that are appropriate to the shoreline environment designations and
environmental conditions for which they are proposed.
SMP 12-22 Modifications and No Net Loss of Ecological Functions
Assure that shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological
functions by:
• Giving preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have the least impact on
ecological function; and
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � �PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
• Requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications.
SMP 12-23 Shoreline Modifications Regulations
Base shoreline modification regulations on scientific and technical information of reach conditions for the
ISpokane River and;Shelley Lake;_r�~+~�, D~� ~~ ~a r,�~.� D:+
SMP 12-24 Restoration of Impaired Ecological Functions
Plan for the restoration of impaired ecological functions where feasible and appropriate,while
accommodating permitted uses.
SMP 12-25 Measures to Protect Ecological Functions
Incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide processes
as shoreline modifications occur.
Piers and Docks `
SMP 12-26 Dock Restrictions
Allow new docks only for public water-dependent uses, single-family residences, and public access on the
ISpokane River and Shelley Lake.
SMP 12-27 Dock Location
Docks shall be allowed only in locations where they will not pose a public safety hazard or adversely
impact shoreline ecological functions or process and limited as follows:
• Spokane River- only in reservoir areas,where flow conditions least resemble the natural free-
flowing river;
• Shelley Lake;
I • ��or
• Severely ecologically impacted shoreline areas with adequate public access
SMP 12-28 Dock Size
Restrict the size of new docks to the minimum necessary to serve a proposed water-dependent use.
SMP 12-29 Demonstrate Need
Permit new docks only when specific need is demonstrated, except for single-family residences.
SMP 12-30 Expansion and Multiple Use
Encourage multiple use and expansion of e�sting docks over the addition and/or proliferation of new
single dock facilities.
SMP 12-31 Joint Use and Community Docks
� ��Encoura�e residential development of more than two dwellings to provide community docks,
rather than individual docks.
SMP 12-32 Design and Construction
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies .
� � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
Design and construct all piers and docks to avoid,minimize, and mitigate impacts to ecological processes
and functions.
Shoreline Fill
SMP 12-33 Design and Location
Shoreline fills shall be designed, located, and constructed to protect shoreline ecological function and
ecosystem-wide processes,including channel migration,wildlife habitat,water quality, water currents,
surface water drainage, and flood hazard protection measures.
SMP 12-34 Limitations on Fill
Fill waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark shall require a conditional use permit and shall only be
allowed under limited circumstances.
SMP 12-35 Fill Proposal Plan
Require a plan that addresses species removal,replanting,irrigation, erosion, and sedimentation control
and other methods of riparian corridor protection with all fill proposals.
,�,
Streambank Protection
SMP 12-36 Streambank Protection Measures
The term"streambank" shall apply to all shoreline banks within Spokane Valley. Prohibit new
streambank protection measures, except when necessity is documented through a geotechnical analysis
of the site and shoreline characteristics. When necessity is demonstrated and conditions require, only
allow streambank protection for e�sting primary structures,water-dependent development, new
development, and ecological restoration or to�c clean-up remediation projects.
SMP 12-37 Design and Location of New Development
Design and locate new development and lots created through subdivision,particularly those located on
steep slopes and bluffs, to prevent the need for future streambank protection measures during the life of
the structure.
SMP 12-38 Public Access
Incorporate ecological restoration and public access as part of publicly funded streambank protection
proj ects.
� �.
SMP-12-39 Integrated Approach to Streambank Protection
Require an integrated approach to streambank protection. Select and design streambank protection
measures using an integrated approach requiring an analysis of the reason for the erosion; fish and
wildlife habitat characteristics,needs and potential; and the current and future risks associated with
erosion and bank protection to property,infrastructure, �sh and wildlife habitat and public safety.
SMP 12-40 Dredging
Site and design new development to avoid the need for new or maintenance dredging.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � fiPLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
SMP 12-41 Dredging Restrictions
Prohibit dredging except when necessary for projects that restore ecological functions and to maintain
existing structures. Dredging is allowed as part of the permitted aggregate mining operations in the
gravel pits.
SMP 12-42 Dredging Materials
Prohibit the use or disposal of dredging materials within the shoreline except for proj ects that benefit
shoreline resources and except for permitted aggregate mining operations in the gravel pits.
SMP 12-43 In-Stream Structures
Site in-stream structures to protect and preserve ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and
cultural resources,including but not limited to fish and fish passage,wildlife and water resources,
shoreline critical areas,hydro-geological processes, and natural scenic vistas.
SMP 12-44 In-Stream Structure Location
Consider the full range of public interests,watershed functions and processes, and environmental
concerns when planning and locating in-stream structures, with special emphasis on protecting and
restoring priority habitats and species.
SMP 12-45 Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Locate and design boat ramps and other boating facilities to meet health, safety, and welfare requirements
and to minimize adverse affects upon geo-hydraulic processes, fragile shoreline features,natural
wetlands, and aquatic and wildlife habitats.
SMP 12-46 Development of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Assure no net loss of ecological functions as a result of boat ramp or other boating facility development.
SMP 12-47 Aesthetic Impacts of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities
Avoid or mitigate impacts to shoreline aesthetics as a result boat ramp or other boating facility
development.
SMP-12-48 Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
Advocate and foster habitat and natural system enhancement projects which restore the natural character
and function of the shoreline provided they are consistent with the Restoration Plan.
Gravel Pits
SMP12-49 Gravel Pit Operations
^'�eE�sting gravel pit operations�emav continue to operate and expand consistent with operational
permits.
, >
, > > � �
, ,
� , > > >
�����.�Active r� avel�its are not re�ulated as shorelines of the state until reclamation is com�lete and
DNR terminates the Surface Mine Reclamation Permit.
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies
: � [PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
I �.,;��;�„ r,..,. oi n;� n�o,..,�;,,�� ., �;ao,.oa . .,�o..aoro�aor�,
City of Spokane Valley � Draft Goals and Policies •
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plannin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Enhance the City's shorelines Enhance and utilize ihe Citys "use"is always better ihan Futurewise Comments: No change. No change
by establishing and shorelines by establishing "utilize",and is more Shoreline enhancement is important
implementing goals,policies, and implementing goals, consistent with Ihe SMA. to economic development and
andregulationswhichpromote policies,andregulations However,thisgoalsstatement qualiryoflife.Thepolicyofthe
a mixWre of reasonable and which promote a mixWre of is about Ihe SMA's prime Shoreline Management Act,in
appropriate shoreline uses Ihat reasonable and appropriate directive to enhance and RCW 90.58.020 directs Ihe
improve the Citys charecter, shoreline uses Ihat improve protect ihe naWrel charecter, enhancement of Ihe public interest.
foster its historic and cWturel the Citys charecter,foster its resources and ecology of So it is appropriate Ihat Goal SMP 1
identiry and conserve historic and culWrel identity, shorelines of statewide calls on the ciry to"[e]nhance the
environmentalresources. andconserveenvironmental significance.Theverysame Ciry'sshorelines"
resources. sentence already includes ihe
phrese"which promote a K Anderson comments:
mixture of reasonable and Enhance the City's shorelines by
a appropriate shoreline use5', establishing and implementing
� making the addition of either goals,policies,and regulations
_ "use"or"utilize"redundant and which promote a mixture of
� syntactically obnoxious. reasonable and appropriale
shoreline uses
Coordinate shoreline planning Coordinate shoreline planning This sentence already K Anderson comments: RCW 90.58.130 sets out ihe No change—Ihe ciry has No change
between ihe Ciry of Spokane between ihe Ciry of Spokane contains the phrese,"adjoining Coordinate shoreline planning legal standard for participation made efforts to involve
Valley,agencies with Valley,agencies with jurisdictions". More between ihe Ciry of Spokane and ihe Ciry has some private property owners,and
jurisdiction,adjoining jurisdiction,adjoining redundancy.All Valley,private property owners, discretion in choosing how to will continue to do so.The
jurisdictions,the State of jurisdictions,the State of constiWencies,including agencies with jurisdiction,adjoining implement Ihe standard. public review process allows
Washington,and Ihe State of Washington,and Ihe State of property owners,are already jurisdictions,the State of According to Ihe staNte ihe Ciry numerous opportunities for
Idaho into which the river basin Idaho into which Ihe river included in the phrese"special Washington,and Ihe State of Idaho should"invite"and"actively involvement The intent of
extends,and consider ihe plans basin extends,and consider interest groups". into which Ihe river basin extends, encourege"Ihe participation of Ihis policy is to coordinate
of non-government the plans of adiacent and consider Ihe plans of nom the generel publiq private with other groups or agencies
organizations(NGO's)and/or iurisdiction.propertv owners, government organizatiore(NGO's) groups,and local and state Ihat may be engaged in
special interest groups. the Citv vision,non- and/or special interest groups. agencies. Moreover,the planning functions.
government organizations staWte direcis local
— (NGO's)and/or special governments and state
interest groups. agencies to take advantage of
a the opportunity and actively
participate.Thus to some
degree Ihe City can choose
— how it encoureges Ihe
participation of Ihese various
U groups."Coordinatlon"
suggests a broad version of
a participatioq but ihis is within
� the City's discretion to choose
�
this ath.
Page 1
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plannin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Ensure that the City of Spokane Ensure that the Ciry of The law and rules require that See Memo section B for It is recognized Ihat different Accept Staff
Valley Shoreline Master Spokane Valley Shoreline GMA and SMA/SMP discussion of consistencywith standards exist between the recommended language
Progrem is consistent with the Master Progrem is consistent provisions must be consistenl, GMA critical areas regulalions. SMA and ihe GMA. However
Washington State Shoreline with Ihe Washington State and ihat new and updated Ihe intent of ihe policy is to
ManagementActandGrowih ShorelineManagementAct SMPsmustbeconsistentwith Withrespecttoconsistency ensureconsistencyas
ManagementAct,the basic and Growth Management Act, Ihose of adjacent(adjoining) with the SMPs of neighboring directed by the rules.The
concepts,goals,policies,and the basic concepts,goals, jurisdictions.This phrese jurisdictions,ihe Ciry is required following change is
� land use plan of the City of policies,and land use plan of should be retained. to invite and encourage recommended for
Spokane Valley the Ciry of Spokane Valley participation including municipal darification:
Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan and and public corporetions,having
a development regulations,ihe development regulations-tt�e interests or responsibilities Change: Ensure Ihat Ihe Ciry
City of Spokane Valley Critical ^dCr-°°°-'�� relating to Ihe shorelines of the of Spokane Valley Shoreline
Areas Ordinances,and Ihe ��a��"°�..�;.e�? state Master Progrem is consistent
Shoreline Master Progrems of . with the Washington State
a adjacentjurisdictions. �� ShorelineManagementAct,
juusAistieas. Growth ManagementAct,and
0 to Ihe extent prectical the
basic concepts,goals,
3 policies of Ihe following
documenfs: Land use plan of
the City of Spokane Valley
Comprehensive Plan,
development regulations,ihe
U Ciry of Spokane Valley
Critical Areas Ordinances,
a and ihe Shoreline Master
g Progrems of adjacent
�
�urisdictions.
Ensure that all shoreline uses Ensure that all shoreline uses The SMP Guidelines and the Futurewise Comments: See discussion of critical areas Change recommended ihat Accept Staff
and development are regulated and development are SMA itself require Ihat SMPs Ensuring no net loss of ecological in section B of ihe memo. II will replicate Ihe language of recommended language
in a manner that guarentees no regulated in a manner that and iheir implementalion result function is ihe cornerstone of Ihe may be simpler and more dear Ihe WAC and eliminate
net loss of shoreline ecological ��protects no net in no net loss of shoreline updated shoreline master progrem to simply use Ihe language of confusion regarding policy
functions loss of the wrrent of ecological function(WAC 173- and is required by state guidelines. the stalutory standard for intent.
shoreline ecological functions 26-201(2)(a)). Use of Ihe word Policy SMP 1.3 calls for ensuring no protection of critical areas.
to the areatest extent 'protects"in ihis sentence net loss of ecological functions.The Ensure Ihat all shoreline uses
" o�. would make no gremmatical Ciry of Spokane Valley is wise to and development are
Z� sense.The standard in Ihe include it as regulated in a manner Ihat
z� law and rule also make no one of its basic policies. assures no net loss of
_ provision for"to the greatest shoreline ecological functions
a o extent possible".The standard
�o is"no net loss of shoreline
�w ecological function"
Protect the interests of the Protect the interests of Ihe Futurewise Comment: See section C of ihe memo. Balance the interesfs in
public in alfaining the goals of public in attaining the goals of Property rights are important.Policy No change. attaining ihe goals of the
the Shoreline Master Progrem, the Shoreline Master SMP 1.4 which recogn¢es Ihe Shoreline Master
in a manner consistentwith all Progrem, in a manner need to achieve Ihe goals of the Progrem,in a manner
relevant coretiWtional and other ^w;.:i:Ea�#that profects Shoreline Master Progrem in a consistent with all relevanl
� legal limitations on Ihe all relevant constitutional and manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other
regulation of privale property. other legal limitations on ihe constiWtional and other legal legal limitations on Ihe
regulation ofprivate property. limitations on the regulalion of regulation ofprivate
— private property. property
a'� K Anderson Comments:
?Y Protect private property rights in
a a promoting the interesis of Ihe public
g� in attaining ihe goals of the
�� Shoreline Master Pro rem,.
Page 2
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plannin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jn2e 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Designate shoreline Designate shoreline This"Flexibiliry"language Policy 1.5 articulates one of ihe No change. No change
environments for Ihe City of environments for the Ciry of reAects a fundamental fundamental planning steps
Spokane Valley shorelines Ihat Spokane Valley shorelines misunderstanding of the SMA, involved in the SMP
areconsistentwiththe thatallowforflexibilitvand whichrequiresanalysisand developmentandrecogn¢es
Comprehensive Plan land uses, that are consistentwith Ihe planning up front in Ihe the importance of ihe inventory
shoreline managemenl Comprehensive Plan land development of the SMP,so to Ihe designation process. It is
prectices,and shoreline uses,shoreline management Ihat property owners and the part of Ihe required shoreline
inventorywithineach prectices,and shoreline restofihecommunity,locally process.
designated area inventorywithin each and statewide,knowwhatto
designated area.Allow for expect Some property II is not dear whal Centennial is
flexibilitv in the desianation of owners want to have their requesting in its revision calling
� shorellne environments cake and eat it too:"we want for"Flexiblliry"in Ihe
based unon snecific detailed BOTH Flexibilityand certainly- environments. More
.� shoreline inventorv within "just tell us what ihe rules are". explanation or inquiry may be
w each desiqnated area This suggested language is beneficial before weighing ihe
also redundant,since the benefit of this commenL For
SMP planning effort is already example,the regulations do
fundamentally based on the allow for Flexibiliry to some
— shorelineinventoryand degree.Theyallowfor'parellel
p analysis envlronments"ihat divlde
shorelands into different
= sections generelly running
parellel to the shoreline or
in along a physical feature such
as a bWff or reilroad right of
a way,which allows for more
g stratification of the shoreline.
� WAC 173-26-211 4 c
Give preference to Ihose K Anderson comments: Both Policies 1.6 and 1J reFlect Change:Add policy 1.8 to Accept staff
shoreline activities which fulfill Give preference to Ihose shoreline most but not all of the policy address priority uses and recommendation to add
long renge Comprehensive activities which fulfill long renge language from RCW 90.58.02Q shoreline alteretions. policy 1.8.
Plan goals and ihe Shoreline Comprehensive Plan goals and the and as such,the Policy is
ManagementActpolicy ShorelineManagementActpolicy consistentwiththestatute.
priorities,as listed and priorities,as listed and discussed Alihough all of ihe staWtory
discussed below: below: provisions apply regardless of
whether incorporeted into Ihe
It is the policy of Ihe City to It is the policy of Ihe City to provide Goals and Policies,if the Ciry is
provide for the management of for the management of its choosing to incorporete some
its shorelines by planning for shorelines by planning for and aspects of RCW 90.58.02Q it
= and fostering all reasonable fostering all reasonable and may help to indude some of Ihe
and appropriate uses.Policies appropriate uses.Policies are remaining key concepts from
in are designed to ensure the designed to ensure Ihe RCW 90.58.020 to
= developmentoflheCity's developmentoflheCity's acknowledgetheSMA's
shorelines in a mannerwhich shorelines in a mannerwhich will balanced approach. For
will promote and enhance the promote and enhance the public example,the Ciry might
public interesL These policies interesL These policies will protect consider induding in a new
will protect against adverse against adverse effects to the land, policy the language from
effects to Ihe public health,ihe its vegetation and aquatic life and 90.58.020 regarding priority
land,its vegetatlon and aquatic wildlife,and ihe waters of ihe uses(e.g.,single family
life and wildlife,and ihe waters Spokane River,Shelly Lake and the residences,ports,shoreline
� of Ihe Spokane River,Shelly Sullivan Road and Park Road recreational uses,water
Lake and ihe Sullivan Road and Grevel Pits and Iheir aquatic life. dependent industrial and
a Paric Road Grevel Pits and Iheir commercial developmenfs)and
g aquatic life. Ihe general recognition of
� shoreline alteretions.
Page 3
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plannin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
The State Legislature has Fu[urewise Comments: See comments accompanying Change: Accept Staff
declared ihat the interest and Establishing order of use Policy 1.6 above. 5. Increase public access to recommended language
benefit of all of Ihe people shall preferences provides clariry and publidy owned areas of
be paremount in the reserves our limited shoreline shorelines;
.3 management of shorelines of areas,only 200 feet from the
� state-wide signifcance,and ordinary high water mark,for those
therefore preference shall be uses Ihat make Ihe best use of
� given to uses in the following these limited areas.Policy SMP 17
order of preference which:. incorporetes the use preferences
1. Recogn¢e and protect for shorelines of stale-wide
= statewide interest over local significance into Ihe shoreline
interest master progrem
� 2. PreservethenaNrel policies.
charecter of the shoreline
3. Allow uses that result in J Short—DOE
long-term over short-term 5.Should say"increase"instead of
benefits "provide"per RCW 90.58.020
4. Protect the resources
and ecology of shorelines
5. Provide public access
�� to publicly owned areas of
shorelines
a� 6. Increase recreational
g.m opportunities for the public on
�� the shorelines.
Page 4
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connneni Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plannin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
This additional policy Accept Staff
addresses the legal counsel recommended language
comments regarding policy
1.6.
Change:
SMP1.8 PriorityUsesand
Shoreline Alteretions
Uses shall be preferred which
are consistentwith conhol of
polWtion and prevention of
damage to Ihe naturel
environment,or are unique to
ordependentupon use ofthe
state's shoreline.Alteretions
of Ihe naturel condition of ihe
shorelines of Ihe state,In
— those limited instances when
authorized,shall be given
¢ p riority for single-fam ily
residences and their
= appurtenant strucWres,
shoreline recreational uses
� and other improvemenfs
facilitating public access,
indushial and commercial
developmenis which are
j particularly dependent on
theirlocation on oruse ofthe
shorelines,and other
a` development that will provide
an opportunity for substantial
a numbers of the people to
� enjoy ihe shorelines of the
state
Ensure that the reaulatorv This an entirely unnecessary See memo section C. No change—Staff does not No Change.
burden of enhancinq the element The SMP Guidelines support adding Ihe language
shoreline environment rules(WAC 173-26- proposed.
� protectinq the ecoloqical 201(2)(c),(e),(f))specify in
a functions and usinq the detail ihat shoreline restoretion
shoreline is born not iust bv is a shared enterprise with Ihe
thepropertvownerssubiect bulkoftheresponsibilityborne
— to the Shoreline Requlations, by public entities.
a' but bv the communiN as a
whole with a series of
a a ofisettinq benefits and
g� Flexibilitv in administerinp the
tn m
ro ram.
Protect the historiq cullurel, K Anderson comments: No change. The language No Change.
scientific or educational sites darifies the sites intended to
awith'm Ihe shorellne that reFlect Protect the hlstoriq cullurel, be protected.
� ourcommunitysunique scientificoreducationalsiteswithin
_ heritage and create or the shoreline
contribute to our collective
� sense of lace
Page 5
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plannin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Identify,preserve,and manage K Anderson comments: No change.The principal is No Change.
shoreline sites and strucNres Identify,preserve,and manage intended to apply to ihe
having historical,culNrel, public held shoreline sites and shorelines to provide
1n� sclentiflc or educational value, structures having hlstorical,culNrel, protectlon to any site with
and develop regulations Ihat scientific or educational value,and archaeological and historic
ain avoid,minimize,ormitigate any develop regulations ihatavoid, resources.WAC 173-26-
g� adverseimpactstothese minimize,ormltigateanyadverse 221(1)(b).
�10 resources. im acts to ihese resources.
Public acquisition ihrough gifts, K Anderson comments: Couldn't No change. Unnecessary No Change.
bequests,grents,or donations find in RCW's. language since the policy
— of buildings or sites having Public acquisition of private infers Ihe acquisition of
cWW rel,scientifq educational, property may be accomplished private property.
in Q or historical value should be through giRs,bequesis,grents,or
encoureged. donations of buildings or sites
a a having culWrel,scientlfiq
g� educational,or historical value
�m should be encoure ed.
Discouragepublicorprivate Discouregepublicorprivate Anybuildingorotherelement JShort—DOE Change: DeletePolicy. It Acceptstaff
development and development and of the built environment can be Do you reallywant to discourege was not intended to recommendation to delete
redevelopment activi[ies on any redevelopment activities on removed followed by redevelopment of historic buildings? discourege development or policy.
site,area,or building identified any site,area,or building ecological rehabililation of the redevelopment,but to
� as having historical,wlWrel, identified as having historical, disNrbed site. However,the encourege Ihe preservation of
educationalorscientifcvalue cullurel,educationalor SMArequirestheinventoryof historicallysignificantsites.
—O scientific value unless there is such sites and buildings and This is accomplished in policy
w a positive impact on the requires generelly their 2.1.
�� shoreline's ecoloqical protection.The proposed
N� functions. phreses should not be added.
a—
Work with tribal,state,federel K Anderson comments: No change.The policy No Change.
and local governments as Should be a one time event except directs ongoing coordination
appropriate to maintain an in the case of discovery of unknown to maintain ihe inventory.
Z. inventory of all known sites The policy does not require
significantlocal historiq additional inventories.
� wlNrel,and archaeological
sites in observance of
applicable state and federal
a� laws protecting such
g.= information from public
�� disclosure
Page 6
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plannin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Ensure early and continuous - This Policy is consistentwith No change.This policy is No Change.
site inspection,consWtation or state law,but the extent to consistent with current permit
evaWation by a professional which it is required or is more processing actions. Notice is
archaeologist in coordination than what is required,depends provided to the Tribe upon
with affected Vibes for all on Ihe amount of documented receipt of a shoreline permit.
permits issued in areas archaeological sites in the On-site inspections occur for
documented to contain viciniry. Protection of Ihe majoriry of ihe permits,
archaeological resources. archaeological resources is and ihe Vibe is often involved
governed by staWte. II is in Ihose inspections.The
unlawfW to disWrb tribe may request additional
archeological resource or site inspections Ihrough Ihe
without a permit from DAHP. permit process to assure Ihat
RCW 27.53.060 The statute no historical sites are
primarily addressesdiscovered destroyedbyconshuction
archaeological resources. activities.
However,many local
— jurisdictions have chosen to
� include a pre-project site
winspection under SEPA
authoriry and/or because there
are known archaeological
resources in the area.
� Additionally,Ihe DAHP
publishes a list of bcations
where a permit is required in
advance. See RCW 27.53.130.
in Thus early site inspection is
only required where there is
aevidence or documentation of
g archaeological resources in Ihe
�
area.
Locate new public facilities and K Anderson comments: No change.The policy would No Change.
_ utilities,including,but not Locate new public facilities and not be effective if the location
lim ited tq utillry productioq utilitles,including,but not limited tq were determ Ined by ihe utliry.
processing,disVibution,and utility production,processing, Feasible is defined in the
hansmission facilities outside of distribution,and Vansmission WAC 173-26-020(15). Relief
athe shorelinejurisdiction facilities outside of the shoreline from Ihis policy is found in the
� whenever feasible. jurisdiction whenever feasible and definition.
acce table to ihe utili rovider.
Page 7
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plannin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Require new utilities and Require new utilities and This would simply be Ihe Avista chanqes requested: The Planning Commission No change.The SAG was Require new utilities and
facilitiesthatmustbelocated facilitiesthatmustbelocaled needlessexpansionofalready Requirenewutilitiesandfacilities questioned whether purposefulinaddingthelow facilitiesthatmustbe
within Ihe shoreline to be built within the shoreline to be built bad gremmar into execreble that must be located within the undergrounding of utilities was impact,low profile design located within Ihe
underground,if feasible,and underground,if feasible,and 'bureaucretese". shoreline to be built underground,if consistent with Ihe statutory language to minimize shoreline to be built
util¢e low impact,low profile prefer Ihe utilization of low feasible,and utilize ihe best mandate of ensuring no net impacts.The phrese"to the underground,if feasible,
design and coretmction impact,low profile design and The SMA,at RCW conshuction and design methods to loss of shoreline ecological maximum extenl possible" and utilize low impact,low
methods to Ihe maximum construction methods to 90.58.90(4),states'The the extent possible functions.The policy is written acknowledges Ihat Ihese profile design and
extent possible. department(Ecology)shall to require undergrounding"if inethods may not always be construction methods to
approve those segments of the K Anderson comments: feasible."As noted in Ihe achieved.Alsq see the maximum extent
master progrem relating to Require new utilities and facilities definition of"feasible,"ihis comments above. possible.Undergrounding
shorelines of statewide that must be located within the qualifying language provides shall not be required if it
significance only after shoreline to be built underground,if some Flexibiliry to pursue other resWts in a net loss of
determining ihe progrem feasible,and acceptable to Ihe options if Ihe action is unlikely shoreline ecological
provides ihe optimum utiliry provider,and utilize low to achieve Ihe intended resWts. functions.
implementation of Ihe policy of impact,low profile design and WAC 17326.020(15).Thus,
Ihis chapter to satisfy the conshuction methods to Ihe the qualifying language appears
statewideinteresL" RCW maximumextentpossible. toprovidesufficientFlexibilityto
90.58.900 states'This pursue other options if
chapter..shall be liberelly undergrounding is inconsistent
consVUed to give full effect to with low impact design and Ihe
the objectives and purposes staWtory requirement of"no net
forwhichitwasenacted."This loss,"moregenerelly.The
vphrese should,therefore,be planning commission could
retained. consider additional language to
a darify that undergrounding shall
not be required if it resWts in a
anet loss of shoreline ecological
g functions. WAC
�
17326.020 15.
Page 8
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plannin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
When existing utilities and/or When existing utilities located The concept of correcting Avista chanqes requested: See Memo Section C regarding Change:The intentwas to Maintenance and
utility corridors located within within shorelinejurisdiction (restoring,rehabilitating)past Maintenance and Operetion Design the language addressing address Ihe maintenance and Operetion Design
shorelinejurisdiction require require maintenance or other impacts is at ihe core of,and When existing utilities facilities and requirements to restore. operetion needs of Ihe Utiliry. When existing utilities
maintenance or other improvemenis,Ihe imbued Ihroughout the SMA rights of ways are located within The language clarifies ihe facilities and rights ofways
improvements,the maintenance/improvement and its implementing rules. shorelinejurisdiction and require intent. are located within
maintenance/improvement should be designed and READ WAC 173-26-201(2)(f). maintenance or other shorelinejurisdiction and
shouldbedesignedand Implementedtominim¢e improvements,the 0 ThePCshoulddi.scuss requlremalntenanceor
implementedtominim¢e additionalimpacisonihe maintenance/improvementshould whethermremove[he otherimprovements,ihe
additional impacts on ihe shoreline environmenlaad,�( be designed and implemented to restorarion language. maintenance/improvement
shoreline environment and,if �..::ti,:z�-aarseaFpasE minim¢e additional impacts on the The G[ilirypoGcies should be designed and
possible,to correct past ,...r,.;��-aaa�a�y�7. shoreline environment Vegetation appty ro public entineg implemented to minim¢e
impacts caused by Ihe utiliry. [Should also show Management Plans should be andper thenremo,Ure additional impacis on ihe
Vegetation Management Plans recogn¢ed as maintenance mkings issue doesnot shoreline environmenl
should be recogn¢ed as activities apyly. and,encoureged,to
maintenance activities. �Ues"as Maintenance and Operetion correct past impacts
deleted,but doesn't.] K Anderson comments: Design caused by the utiliry.
When existing utilities and/or utiliry When existing utilities Vegetation Management
corridors located within shoreline facilities and rights ofways Plans should be
jurisdiction require maintenance or are located within shoreline recogn¢ed as
other improvements,ihe jurisdiction and require maintenance activities
maintenance/improvement should maintenance or other
be designed and implemented to improvemenfs,the
o minim¢e additional impacts on the maintenance/improvement
shoreline environment,. Vegetation should be designed and
Management Plans should be implemented to minim¢e
recogn¢ed as maintenance additional impacis on ihe
- activities shoreline environment and,if
� possible,to correct past
impacts caused by Ihe utility.
aVegetation Management
g Plans should be recogn¢ed
�
as maintenance activities
Give preference to established Give preference to This phrese should be retained Avista chanqes requested: The City's language is within Change:The intent was to Accept Staff
utility corridors and rights-of- established utiliry corridors since the SMA and SMP Give preference to established the renge of discretion provided allow equal preference for an recommended language
way for upgredes and and rights-of-way for Guideline rules(WAC 173-26- utiliry corridors and rights-of-way for to Ihe Ciry for ensuring no net alternate location if ihe site
- reconsVUCtion of existing upgredes and reconstruction 201(e)require ihat the least upgredes,maintenance and loss.There is some confusion will result in less impact The
� utilities and facilities,unless a of existing utilities and harmful alternalive is used, recoreVUCtion of existing utilities over Ihe intent of Ihe language policy did not intend to
location with less potential to facilitie°.,-��;��:s;-°�a and ihat unavoidable impacts and facilities,unless a location with in Ihe SAGs dreR. If Ihe SAGs preclude maintenance.
impact Ihe shoreline are fully mitigated. less potential to impact ihe intent is to require use of a
environment is available. shoreline environment is available. location with less potential
= auaAayJe. impact to the shoreline over use Give preference to
KAndersoncomments: oftheexistingutilirycorridor, establishedutilitycorridors
Can we dictate utility corridor use? Ihen Ihe policy may be more and righls-of-way for
� restrictive than what is required, upgredes,maintenance and
- if Ihe utiliry can show continued reconstruction of existing
ouse of ihe existing corridor utilities and facilities,unless a
ensures no net loss. If the location with less potential to
SAGs intent was to allow equal impact the shoreline
preference to alternate environment is available
locations,then Centenniafs
a` proposed revision appears to
delete Aexibility by allowing
arelief from the preference given
g to existing corridors and rights-
�
of-wa.
Page 9
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Stormwater utilities will be Stormwater utilities will be This concept was discussed at See memo section Q Change: Accept change Accept Staff
designed and located as to designed and located as to length in ihe SAG meetings, Restoretion is an aspiretion,but proposed to darify Ihe intent recommended language
minim¢e environmental minim¢e environmental and ihe law requires as noted should not be a requirement to and eliminate constitutional
impacts within ihe shoreline impacis within ihe shoreline above ihat degreded shoreline avoid coretitutional implication. implications since storm
jurisdiction.If localed within Ihe jurisdiction.If located within areas shall be ecologically water utilities are likely to be
shorelinejurisdictiontheyshall theshorelinejurisdictionthey rehabilitatedtothemaximum consVUCtedbybothprivate
require ihe use of best shall;�use eEbest extent feasible. READ WAC and public property owners.
managementpractices(e.g. managementprectices(e.g. 173-26-221(a),(b),(c).
biofilVation measures)and biofiltretion measures)and Stormwater utilities will be
landscaping with native landscaping with nalive designed and located as to
vegetationtoprovidehabitat, vegetationt��-"�� minim¢eenvironmental
ecological restoretion,and �����"-�a impacts within ihe shoreline
aesiheticimprovements.All a�F".af;�;.r°�-�,p,e:m.«�.All jurisdiction.lflocatedwithin
stormwaterfacilitiesmust stormwaterfacilities must Iheshorelinejurisdictionthey
= protectwaterquality,manage protectwaterquality,manage shall;�usee�best
runoffandaddresserosion runoffandaddresserosion managementprectices(e.g.
control and sedimentation. control and sedimentation. biofiltretion measures)and
landscaping with native
3 vegetation�
E esele�sal-�esteraE+ea,-afl�
7'n a�F.�'aP;.m-.-,,�,�:�.�:.��.All
stormwaterfacilities must
aprotectwater quality,manage
g runoff and address erosion
� control and sedimentation.
Provide a safe,convenient,and Provide a safe,convenient, The change proposed by Change: Provide a safe, Accept Staff
mWtimodal circulation system and mWtimodal circulation Centennial replaces Ihe convenient,and mWtimodal recommended language
10 which will minimize disruption to system which will minim¢e undefined phrese(disruption) circulation system which will
�� theshorelineenvironment �iswyNeanepativeimpactsto withaphresethathasmore minim¢e�iscayNeanJecative
- the shoreline environment legal interpretalion and impacts to the shoreline
��� understanding. environment
U Wt�
Ensure that a system of Ensure Ihat a system of K Anderson comments: See memo section B. Change: Ensure that a Accept Staff
arterials,scenic drives, arterials,scenic drives, Ensure that a system of arterials, system of arterials,scenic recommended language
pathways,publlc trensit routes, pathways,public Vansit scenic drives,pathways,public drives,pathways,public
¢ and bikeways adjacent to and routes,and bikeways trensit routes,and bikeways hansit routes,and bikeways
within the shoreline areas adjacent to and wi[hin Ihe adjacent to and within Ihe shoreline adjacent to and within the
- provide appropriate access to shoreline areas provide areas correlated with Ihe shoreline shoreline areas provide
r the Spokane River in a way that appropriate access to the use as reFlected in Ihe appropriate access to the
meets ihe needs and desires of Spokane River in a way ihat Comprehensive Plan,while also Spokane River in a way ihat
the communiry as reFlected in meets ihe needs and desires preserving ecological function of the meets ihe needs and desires
FtheComprehensivePlan,while ofthecommuniryasreFlected shorelines. oflhecommunityasreFlected
also preserving ecological in Ihe Comprehensive Plan, in Ihe Comprehensive Plan,
afunction of the shorelines. while also�eseKVieg while also assuring no net
g protectinp ecological function loss of ecological function of
� of the shorelines. Ihe shorelines.
Page 10
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Locate new streets or sheet Locate new streets or street Terrible word for public policy No Change. Reasonable is No Change.
expansions outside of the expansions outside of the or regulation. ICs a great defined within the definition of
` shorelinejurisdiction,unlessno shorelinejurisdiction,unless conceptihatiswideopento feasible.
w'^ other options are available or no other options are arguable and politically
w 10 feasible.In all cases,streets reasonably available.In all expedient interpretation.The
�w should be on Ihe landward side cases,streets should be on reasonableness of Ihe SMP is
_ of development. the landward side of to be built in during Ihe
development. planning process.The phrese
°� "feasible"is a foundatlon of
reasonableness,and is well
a v defined. Feasibility is also a
g" higher standard ihan
��
'7easonable".
Plan,locate,and design Plan,locate,and design This phrese is not only clear The revision proposed by No change. No Change.
_ proposed Vansportation proposed Vansportation and reasonable,iPs required Centennial eliminates language
= facilities where routes will have facilities where routes will by the law and Ihe WAC. that mirrors the applicable
the least possible adverse have the least possible READ WAC 173-26-201. staWtory standard for protection
effect on shoreline ecological adverse effect on shoreline of critical areas.The standard
— functions,will not resWt in a net ecological functions,wil4aeF applies whether or not it
r loss of shoreline ecological F��,.t�'-,�°�n-�:.�;a»; appears in Ihe Goals and
functlons,or adversely impact '�aaK�_;::.z-�;a'3�aal Policies,but to Ihe extent Ihat
existing or planned water fNnsNea�or adversely impact Centennial's proposed revision
Fdependent uses. existing or planned water suggests Ihat it does not apply,
dependent uses. the revision is inconsistent with
a state law. For clariry ihe City
g can choose to indude Ihe
�
reference.
All development within the Futurewise Comments: No change. No Change.
shorelinejurisdiction area shall It is good policy to take every
provide stormwater Veatment opportuniry to prevent pollution and The city currently regulates
for all new and redeveloped protect water qualiry.Policy SMP stormwater by Chapter
polWtion genereting impervious 4.5 requires that all development 22.150 Stormwater
surfaces. within the shorelinejurisdiction area Management Regulations.
� shall provide stormwater Veatment The Spokane Regional
for all new and redeveloped Stromwater Manual is
FpolWtion genereting impervious adopted by reference within
surfaces.This is consistent with ihe this Chapter.
Shoreline Management Act policy of
3 giving preference to uses which
E
prevent pollution and Ihe Shoreline
in Master Progrem Guidelines.
aK Anderson comment:
g Does this match existing codes or
� will we have to creale new ones?
Parking facilities for public J Short—DOE No Change.The policy is No Change.
access to the shoreline and Parking should be kept outside of consistent with Ihe law and
water should be kept as far shorellne jurisdlction when feasible supported by the SAG.
— from Ihe shorelines as feasible per ll3-26-291(3)(k). Parking facilities are not a
Y a' preferred use and whenever
a`o K Anderson comments: possible,even if associated
�v Public Parking facilities for public wi[h public access,should be
a='" access to the shoreline and water located outside of shoreline
�LL° should be kept as far from the jurisdiction.
¢ shorelines as feasible.
Page 11
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Parking facilities should only be Parking facilities should only Locating parking,which is not Futurewise Comments: The language regarding No change No Change.
allowed as necessary to be allowed as necessary to a preferred or water- Parking does not benefit from or location of parking facilities
support permitted shoreline support permitted shoreline dependent shoreline use, enhance shorelines.SMP 4.6, outside Ihe shoreline is a policy A correction was previously
uses,and not as a primary use, uses,and not as a primary outside of shorelines directs Ihat parking should be as far choice the Ciry can make Ihat made to this policy.
and must be located oufside of use�;.R,;:a�-�a whenever possible is required from ihe shoreline as feasible,and reAects Ihe guidance in 173-26- However,upon further
the shorellnejurisd'mtion area if �tE:.i�e 'o-�e;iae at WAC 173-26-241(3)(k). It Is SMP 4.7,establlshes ihat parking 241(3)(k). II is based on Ihe review,Ihe language as
- other options are available and �;r::.�E'���-�'e.�-�...�. well within ihe authoriry of as a primarily use should not be assumption that runoff from written is correct.
- feasible. � local communities under the allowed within shoreline jurisdiction. parking facilities can impact
feasiFile. SMAtoprohibitnewparking Ourshorelineareasareverylimited shorelinefunctions. However,
within shorelines consistent and should be reserved for uses the Ciry might be able to
with this WAC,and many that require or benefit from a Wtimately choose a different
a� SMPs statewide do so. shoreline location,not uses Ihat can approach so long as Ihe
locate anywhere as primary parking approach is supported by
a� facilities can. science and can demonstrete
g� no net loss.
fn a`
Retain unused public rights-of- Retain unused public rights- Futurewise comments: Centennial's proposed revision No Change. No Change.
waywithin Ihe shoreline area to of-waywithin the shoreline Public access is a community value. appears to eliminate Flexibility
provide visual and physical area to provide visual and Policy SMP 4.9 calls for retaining by deleting one of the available
access to the shoreline unless: physical access to the unused public rights-of-way as options to overcome Ihe
The sVeet vacation shoreline unless: shoreline accesses.These public preference for retaining rights of
— enables the City to acquire the The street vacation owned corridors are excellent way in Ihe shoreline. By
property for beach or water enables the Ciry to acquire opportunities to allow ihe public to pursuing Ihe proposed revision,
? access purposes,boat the property for beach or see and access shorelines. the Ciry would be making ihe
moorege or launching sites, water access purposes,boat policy more rigid.
� park,publlc view,recreatloq or moorege or launching sites,
3
educational purposes,or other park,public vlew,recreatlon,
public uses or the City declares or educational purposes,or
that ihe street or alley is not other public uses ectl�e-6iFy
� presently being used and is not �a;ar��1;.aFi;.��-�:
suitable for the above a;:zy=iv;.a�ez:.riy��;;.s
— purposes;or ���a;.at��'-e.,:�,e.
a' The sVeet vacation t'�z�ve�r�-�e_;or F
enables ihe City to implement a The street vacation
plan,Ihat provides compareble enables ihe Ciry to implement
� or improved public access to a plan,Ihat provides
the same shoreline area to compareble or improved
which Ihe sheets or alleys public access to Ihe same
�¢ sought to be vacated,had ihe shoreline area to which Ihe
— properties included in the plan streets or alleys sought to be
aT not been vacate vacated,had the properties
g r included in the plan not been
�a vacated
Improve non-motorized access K Anderson comments: No change.The policy No Change.
to the shoreline by developing, Is this special emphasis beyond reAects a communiry
� ° where appropriate,pathways, public access requirement? preference and prionry for
c¢� hails and bikeways along and non-motorized access.
oz°a_
�o N o adjacent to the shoreline.
a� Connectivitybetweennon-
g �o motorized access points is
���� encoure ed.
Page 12
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jn2e 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Recogn¢e the importance and Recogn¢e the importance The SMA,at RCW 90.58.02Q K Anderson Comment: Outside The City's discussion and No Change:The intentwas Recogn¢e the importance
uniqueness of the Spokane and uniqueness of the clearly sets forth the scope of SMA? description of ihe public access to require thal hail and uniqueness of the
River Centennial Treil to Ihe Spokane River Centennial prioritized,preferred uses for provided by ihe Cenlennial hail development be done with Spokane River Centennial
City of Spokane Valley,Ihe Treil to the Ciry of Spokane shorelines of statewide is one of ihe generel areas Ihe least impact,not m inimal Treil to the Ciry of
region,and the state, FuNre Valley,Ihe region,and the significance,which renders where ihere is significant room impact The change from Spokane Valley,Ihe
hail development induding hail state, FuWre hail Ihese changes and added for policy choices ihatwill allow proposed language would be region,and Ihe state.
extensions,new access points, development induding treil language inappropriate. the Ciry to recognize the significant However,visual Future hail development
whether public or private,shall extensions,new access significant public access access could be encoureged on private property
be designed to have Ihe least points,whether public or already available to Ihe as part of ihe design. including Vail extensions
adverse impact. private,shall be designed to Spokane Riverwithin Ihe Ciry. and new access points,
— have'"-��m,inimal Much of the discussion and 0 ThePCshou7d fiscuss shall be designed to have
Fadverse impact while at the description may be better whether to encourage the least adverse impact.
— same time nrovide both visual addressed in Ihe forthcoming isuai access aspartoj Future Vail development
- and nhvsical access to the public access plan that is the desrgn on public property shall
shoreline. currently under development meet Ihe same objective,
rether than in ihese goals and but should also
U policies. incorporele enhancement
and restoretion measures
The purpose of Centennial's where appropriate.
- proposed edit is not clear. It
appears to be more reshictive
� in Ihat it suggests Ihat public
access must be designed to
indude both visual and physical
aaccess.When required,public
g access does not always result
� in h sical access to the water.
Page 13
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Allow new reil lines and the Allow new reil lines and Ihe K Anderson comment: Outside Both policies in SMP 4.12 and No Change. Issues regarding No Change
expansion of existing reil expansion of existing reil authoriry of SMA? 4.13 may be preempted by reil lines are outside Ihe
corridors within Ihe shoreline corridors within the shoreline federel law.The generel authoriry of SMA. However,
jurisdiction only for Ihe purpose jurisdiction eaVy for Ihe jurisdiction provision of ihe not all policies result in
of connecting to existing reil purpose of connecting to Interstate Commerce regulations as noted in Tadas
lines or rights-of-way.ConsVUCt existing reil lines or righfs-of- Commission Termination Act of Kiselius memo.The policy
new reil lines within an existing way so lonp as thev enhance 1995 QCCTA)provides that the does provide a fremework for
reil corridor where possible. the viabiliN of the shoreline jurisdiction of Ihe Surface discussion,if the ciry is faced
and its ecoloaical functions. Trensportation Board(STB) with this situation.
Constmct new reil lines within over reil Vansportation and ihe
an existing reil corridorwhere remedies provided under the
possible. ICCTA are exclusive"and
preempt the remedies provided
under Federel or State law"49
U.S.C.§10501(b).The courts
have interpreted this language
broadly,frequenHyholding that
Ihe ICCTA preempts the
application of local land use
laws. See,e.g.,CityofAu6urn
v.Unded States,154 F.3d 1025
(9ih Cir.1998),cert.denied,
527 U.S.1022(1999).The
ICCTA preempts any local
requirements that otherwise
would be applied to facilities
Ihat are an integrel part of the
reilroad's interstate operetions.
Applying Ihis test,the STB has
specifcally held Ihat"zoning
ordinances and local land use
permit requirements are
preempted where Ihe facilities
are an integrel part of the
relroad's interstate operetions."
� Thus the Ciry may choose to
3 preserve these policies to
Z reAect ihe City's policy choice
Ihat can be taken into
consideration with the
aunderstanding ihat their may be
� legal constreints in their
�
im lementation.
Construct,where feasible,all - K Anderson comment: Outside No change—see above. No Change
,� new reil lines so Ihat Ihey do authoriry of SMA?
a��._=v not compromise Ihe public s
g.m��° abiliry to access the shoreline
�� a¢ safel.
Page 14
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jn2e 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Encourege and supportwater Encourege and supportwater This is open-ended,undefined K Anderson comment: No change. No Change
dependent,water oriented,and dependent,water oriented, language not related to the Encourege and supportwater
water related economic and water related economic SMA. dependent,water oriented,and
activities within Ihe shorelands activities within the water related economic activities
of the City of Spokane Valley shorelands of Ihe City of within Ihe shorelands of ihe City of
that will be an asset to the Spokane Valley ihatwill be Spokane Valley that will protect
economy of Ihe area and that an asset to ihe economy of and maintain Ihe ecological
awill protect and maintain Ihe the area,enhance ihe viabiliry functions of the shoreline
� ecological functions of ihe of the Ciry and Ihat will environment
_ shorelineenvironment protectandmaintainihe
� ecological functions of ihe
shoreline environmenl
Page I S
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Give preference to economic Give preference to economic K Anderson comment: The language in policy 5.1 is No change.The language is No Change
developmentwithin the developmentwithin the How do you give preference to derived in part from Ihe not intended to address
shorelinejurisdiction Ihat is shorelinejurisdiction that is private property without rezoning? language in RCW 90.58.020 residential uses and Ihus the
particularly dependent on iheir water dependent,water which gives prioriry to a renge language is appropriate.
location on or use of the oriented or water related of uses,including"industrial
shoreline.Encourege new � and commercial developments
development to locate in areas 6".a��:x-�,-,.°'".� which are particularly
that have intensive prior use ��.Encourege new dependent on Iheir localion on
and can be upgreded or development to locate in or use of Ihe shorelines of the
redeveloped.Encourege new areas thal have intensive state."So long as"economic
economic development to prior use and can be developmenP'encompasses
duster into areas of ihe upgreded or redeveloped. only commercial and industrial
shoreline whose current use is Encourege new economic development and does not
compatible. development to cluster into include other listed uses(such
areas of the shoreline whose as development of single family
current use is compatible. homes),Ihen Ihe policy
language is consistent with ihe
staWte.
Centennial's proposed revisions
propose expanding the policy to
use three defined terms in the
guidelines. SeeWAC173-26-
020. See also WAC 173-26-
201(2)(d).These types of uses
are allowed within Ihe shoreline
and are induded in Ihe
preferred order of uses. See
173-26-201(2)(d).The
guidelines give water
dependent uses the highest
priority,but provide for other
water-oriented uses within Ihat
orderofprioriry. Moreover,the
guidelines give discretion to
add uses to Ihe order of prioriry:
� "Evaluation pursuant to the
above criteria,bcal economic
� and land use conditions,and
o policies and regulatiore that
assure protection of shoreline
�E resources,may resWt in
determination that other uses
ware considered as necessary or
appropriate and may be
accommodated provided that
_ Ihe preferred uses are
reasonably provided for in ihe
jurisdiction." Id.Thus ihe
concept proposed in
aCentennlaPs revisions,with
g some darification,may also
� consistentwiththe uidelines
Page I6
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Development should be - K Anderson comment: Who While the second sentence of Change:Clarify that the Development should be
designed to minimize the would determine ihe reason and the policy is consistentwith Ihe intent is for uses not designed to minimize the
impacts to Ihe shoreline level of restoretion? generel preference for water dependent upon a shoreline impacis to the shoreline
aesihetic Ihrough architeclurel, Development should be designed to dependent uses within Ihe location to locale outside of aesihetic through
landscape,andotherdesign minim¢etheimpactstothe shoreline,thissentencemaybe shorelinejurisdiction.This architecWrel,landscape,
features.All non-shoreline shoreline aesthetic Ihrough unintentionally resVictive. First, was discussed by the SAG. and other design feaNres.
dependent elements of Ihe architecturel,landscape,and other the phrese"inland"is not Give preference to water-
development should be placed design feaWres.All non-shoreline defined and may lead to 0 ThePCshould fiscuss oriented economic
inland.Encourege design Ihal dependent elements of Ihe confusion. Second,while there whether mresnictnoia- development,while limiting
seeks to restore damaged or development should be placed is a preference for water water orien[ed location of A!1 nonwater
� compromisedshorelinethrough inland.. dependentuses,the devetopmennvithin oriented elementsofthe
incentives. regulalionsallowforwaler shorelinejurisdiction. developmentsqeekLke
> related,water enjoyment and ylased outside of shoreline
o even non-water oriented uses Development should be jurisdiction unless the site
.� to be located within the designed to minimize the is inappropriate for water-
shorelinejurisdiction in certain impacts to the shoreline oriented uses or the
locations. See WAC 173-26- aesihetic through development
w 201(2)(d).Thusthepolicyls architecWrel,landscape,and demonsVablycontributes
within the renge of choices the other design feaWres fNF to the objectives of the
Ciry could make,but is more nonwater oriented elements Shoreline Management
— restrictive than what is required. of Ihe development sqeW�FAe AcL Encourege design
o ylaseA outside of shoreline Ihat seeks to restore
jurisdiction Encourage damagedorcompromised
adesign that seeks to restore shoreline through
g damagedorcompromised incentives
� shorelinethrou hincentives.
Historic areas,overlook points, Historic areas,ovedook This may uninlentionally Change: Accept Staff
structures,and points of public poinls,structures,and points suggest ihat public access is a recommended language
= access to the waterfront should of public access to the necessary component of all When public access is
be incorporeted in economic waterbodieskeaF should be shoreline development,which is required under this SMP,
�� developmentsite-planning. incorporeledineconomic inconsistentwithiheSMPand historicareas,overlook
< developmentsite-planning constiWtional protections.The points,structures,and points
SMPsVOnglyencoureges ofpublicaccesstothe
� provision of public access,but, waterfront should be
as recognized in Ihe guidelines, incorporeted in economic
publicaccessisnotalways developmentsite-planning.
— requlred"due to reasons of
— incompatlble uses,safety,
asecurity,or impact to Ihe
shoreline environment or due to
constiWtional or other legal
I im itations that may be
— applicable." WAC 173-26-
�0 221(4)(d).II may be prefereble
a` to acknowledge ihat public
access is not always required
a v byusinganintroductoryphrese
�� such as'When public access is
re uiredunderthisSMP..."
Strengthen regional tourism by K Anderson comment: SMA No Change. No Change
� �'—�^ neghbor�hooddandVelgiolnal thesho�relinesnotloarism?elativeto
a$ rn
g ' linkagesandimprovementsthat
�w°'�� use the shoreline areas.
Page 17
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;�di ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Require that the short-term °�yair-'���"�-�",-.a...�°- This evalualion is required at K Anderson comment: To some degree,this Policy
economicgainorconvenience eseaeaNSryaiweF RCW90.58.020.Thispolicy Requirethattheshort-term gainor proposedbytheSAGappears 0 ThePCshouldfiscuss
of development be evaluated should be retained. convenience of development be to parephrese Ihe use whether to include Uris
agalnst Ihe long-term and ai�a��E1#� evaluated aga'mst Ihe long-tertn and preference In RCW 90.58.020 poGcy,detete i[,or
potentially costly Impalrments to �� potentially costly Impalrments to Ihe that Identifies a preference for mofijy itas described
the naWrel environments and aa:N}i'�.�'�t'ae naturel environments and state- uses that"resWt in long term in tegal counsel
state-wideinterestthatmay aak�,a;t�-°�.:�-aa� wideinterestihatmayresWt. overshorttermbenefit," comments.
resWt �taEe��-'�,;.:�:��FbhaF,:ay '7ecogn¢e and protect the
resak- statewide interest overlocal
interesl",and'preserve the
naturel charecter of Ihe
- shoreline" SeealsoPolicyl7.
� The policy does not reference
�� the countervailing emphasis in
RCW 90.58.020 on fostering all
reasonable and appropriate
w uses and recognition of
alterelion of ihe naNrel
shoreline.The state policy
goals are applicable,regardless
�'�u of their indusion here.As such,
w it is within Ihe renge of
discretion to indude Ihis policy,
� delete It,or modify it to
g emphasize other concepts in
�
RCW 90.58.020.
Promote recreational uses of 5.@7 Promote recreational Public access is a foundation K Anderson comment: The changes proposed by No change. No change
the shorelines to conhibute to uses throuph ihe use of of Ihe SMA,but is only one of Increase recreational uses of the Centennial would limit the
the economic attrectiveness of public access of the many elements of public shorelines to conhibute to the preference for recreational uses
the ciry. Seek opportunities to shorelines to contribute to the recrealional opportunities. economic athactiveness of the ciry. solely to public access
'�� partner with public and private economic atVactiveness of Seek opportunities to parinerwith opportunities.The Ciry may
o_ property owners to increase the city. Seek opportunities public and private property owners choose to promote recreational
a o public recreational opportunities to partner with public and to increase public recreational uses more generelly,rether
- in the shoreline. private property owners to opportunities in Ihe shoreline. than just public access.
a� increase public recreational
�� opportunities on nublic
access in the shoreline.
Promote ihe identification and K Anderson comment: No change.The Spokane No change
establishmentofwaterv Establish and identifywater- Riverand its recreational
o?L�N enjoyment areas,such as enjoyment areas,such as parks, opportunities are an
a Q!o parks,view points,beaches view points,beaches and pathways economic asseL Promotion is
�.N�,v and pathways as attrections as attrections a means to capital¢e on
fnSw`¢`
Ihose assets.
Encourege shoreline industries No recommendation Encourege shoreline
and businesses to maintain a provided. industries and businesses
well kept appearence and to to maintain a well kept
operete in a manner that will appearance and to
�� not cause negative operete in a manner Ihat
a��@ environmental impacts to the will not cause negative
�m'�O communiry. aesihetic impacts to the
communi .
Page 18
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Encourege and provide J Short—DOE: Incentives are a common tool Accept Staff
incentives for redevelopment of Where in the City of Spokane Valley util¢ed to encourege recommended language
existing sites Ihat indudes would redevelopment improve fsh development to provide
points of public access,areas passage? specifc features above the
designed for public enjoyment, minimum requirements of a
improve fish and wildlife habitat, K Anderson comment: How do code. Incentives are usually
or improve fish passage. you legally provide incentives for in Ihe form of densiry
property owners? bonuses,height increases,
� Encourage the redevelopment of setback variances,etc.
o existing sites Ihat indudes points of
v public access,areas designed for Change: Encourege and
public enjoyment,improve fish and provide incentives for
� wildlife habitat,or improve fsh redevelopment of existing
passage.l sites that indudes points of
public access,areas
a designed for public
� enjoyment,and improve fish
�
and wildlife habitat.
Newpublicandprivate KAndersoncomment: Thispolicymaybemore Newpublicshorelineuses
shoreline uses and New public shoreline uses and restrictive Ihan what Ihe staNte 0 ThePCshould fiscuss and developments should
developmenfs should be developmenfs should be planned requires.There are times when whether to include this be planned and designed
planned and designed to attrect and designed to attrect ihe public to providing public access or podcy,detete i[,or to atVact the public to the
the public to the waterfront. the waterfront. attrecting ihe public to ihe water mofi'jp itos described waterfront;new private
front is not appropriate or in tegal counsel shoreline uses and
required.Theguidelines cwnments developmentshouldbe
recogn¢e,for example,Ihat planned and designed to
public access is not always attrect the public to Ihe
appropriate or requlred"due to waterfront with exceptions
reasons of incompatible uses, as allowed by WAC 173-
safety,security,or impact to Ihe 26-221(4)(d).
p shoreline environment or due to
constiWtional or other legal
— I im itations that may be
m applicable." WAC 173-26-
221(4)(d). In particular,
imposing public access
arequirements on privale
� shoreline uses may not always
have the re uired nexus.
K Anderson comment: How do No Change. Incentives are a No Change
Incentives should be created to you legally provide incentives for common tool util�zed to
encourege developers to property owners? encourege development to
m> incorporete design feaWres into enmurage developers to provide specific features
� the waterside of Ihe building. inmrporate design features into the above ihe minimum
o$
waterside of the building. requirements of a code.
Incentives are usually in the
a? form of densiry bonuses,
g v heighl increases,setback
�LL
variances,etc..
Support and maintain the 7 Short—DOE: Change:Support the existing Accept Staff
existing aggregate mining Delete"maintain". It is not the aggregate mining industry as recommended language
aindustry as a significant City's responsibllity to maintain a a significant component of the
g component of the area private industrial operation area economy.
� econom .
Page 19
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin CwmnissionMeetin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Encouraqe Economic This proposed Policy may fall No change
Development of the shorellne within the dlscretion of the Clty, Q The PCshou7d fiscuss
aarea lhat wlll enhance the especially In light of lhe other whether ro include this
g viabilitv of the CiN as a policies in Ihis section Ihat policp.
� whole. reAect other ke SMA conce Is.
Areas that provide open Areas that provide open Unnecessary,misleading Futurewise Comments: This policy covers severel key 0 ThePCshouid di.scuss .".czaTF".�
spaces,scenic vistas, spaces,scenic vistas, phrese. Regulation is also Proposed Policy SMP 6.1 directs shoreline topics induding public whether to modify[his eyea-syases
conVibute to shoreline conhibute to shoreline required to preserve Ihe listed "[a]reas Ihat provide open spaces, access(view access),shoreline poGcy[o r�eta
�a:.iav+�a:
aesihetics,naWrel vegeta[ion aesihetics,naWrel vegetatlon shorellne atVibutes. scenic vistas,conVibute to vegetatlon conservation,and �midatory shall �e
and,fish and wildllfe habitat and,fish and wildlife habltat shoreline aesthetics,naturel critical areas. While shoreline sta[ementas well¢s
should be preserved should be preserved throuah vegetation and,fish and wildlife regulations often seek to CentenniaiProperries � „�.at.::a:
theuseofcommuniN habitatshouldbepreserved[.]"The protectihesecharecteristicsto sta[emen¢regordi.ng ra�'��.��
incentives. Shoreline Master Progrem varying degrees,the SMA does �ncennves. �i�.:a;a=::"�',R.A:a
Guidelines in WAC 173-26- not require complete :�it���J:e�
186(8)(b)require that"[I]ocal master preservation of existing views, Two approaches are p�eseweA
progrems shall indude policies and shoreline aesthetics,naWral suggested for discussion:
regulations designed to achieve no vegetation,or wildlife habitat.
net loss of those ecological The legal standard allows more Areas that provideeyea
functions."The use of"should"in Flexibility,even with respect to syases scenic vistas�,o-
this policy indicates Ihal protection critical areas. See WAC 173- contribute to shoreline
of these areas is not always 26-201(2)(c)(the concept of aesihetics should be
required.To be consistentwith the "net"in ihe no net loss standard preserved consistent
requirements of WAC 173-26- anticipates some impact).Thus constiWtional or other lepal
186(8)(b)ihe"should"must be the proposed Policy is more limitations Ihat mav be
� changed to"shall" resVictive Ihan what is required. appllcable.,Ensure no net
loss of shoreline ecological
K Anderson comment: However,Ihe revision proposed functions including naturel
a SMP 6.1. Public Areas to be by Centennial completely vegetation and,fish and
Preserved(Title change) eliminales regulatory tools to wildlife habifat°�-•��
address these concems and ��or-
represenls the opposite
¢ extreme. F.r�-a�'"���R
`"�"��
^w:.:r',�P^�^�;,..�
aas6h�^:ie^�F�taie:.
� ,a-..
�
Page 20
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Protect exlsting vegetation and Protect the existing Buffer avereging does not The policy is conslstentwith the 0 The PCshou7d fiscuss Accept Staff
shoreline ecological function by vegetalion and shoreline work in Ihe SMA context generel approach to ensuring whether m include the recommended language
designating buffers and ecological function by because a net loss of no net loss of existing shoreline additionailanguage
setbacks that are supported by designating buffers and ecological function always functions. Centenniafs describedin legal
the 2010 Shoreline Inventory. setbacks that are supported occurs when it is used. proposed edit is difficult to treck counsel comments
by Ihe 2010 Shoreline but appears to suggest using
Inventory or their incentives tools in addition to standard
that buffer averapinq naiural buffers. Manyjurisd'mtions Change: Protect existing
veaetation and are snecific to have used a variety of tools to vegetation and shoreline
the area. provide some Aexibility from ihe ecological function by
� standard buffer concept,while designating buffers and
ensuring protection of no net setbacks Ihat are supported
loss.Accordingly,while by the 2010 Shoreline
� Centennial's wording is not Inventory,and allow for the
m sufficienHy clear and may use of innovative techniques
include more detailed concepts and stretegies while ensuring
? than is appropriate at ihis no net loss of ecological
stage,ihe City can consider functions.
including language that would
> encourege consideretion of
other innovative techniques and
strategies for providing more
a Flexibilirywhile ensuring
�! protection of no net loss,
ainduding concepts like buffer
g avereging,or common lot line
�
setbacks.
Acquire and maintain,through K Anderson comment: The No change.These tools are Accept Staff
conservation futures,donalions, suggestion of using taxpayer funds commonly used for public recommended language
— grenfs,generel funds,or other is outside the scope of SMA. acquisition purposes.
w`� sources,shorellne areas
� containing naWrel elements Acquire and maintain private
o w
especiallyworthyof property,donations,grents„or
= preservationorespecially othersources,shorelineareas
attrective to ihe publiq such as containing naWrel elements
¢¢ beaches,forestcovers,trees, especiallyworihyofpreservationor
wildlife populations,vistas and especially attrective to ihe publiq
ao other scenic feaNres. such as beaches,forest covers,
�� trees,wildlife populations,vistas
and other scenic feaNres.
Page 21
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin CwmnissionMeetin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Utilize 2010 shoreline Restoring degreded shorelines The concept proposed by No Change recommended. Accept staff reworded
inventorv to establish is a principal goal of the SMA Centennial of using the language
baselines for the functions and SMP Guidelines rule,so shoreline inventory as a 0 ThePGnay wish to
and values of shoreline.To Ihe Spokane Valley shoreline baseline for measuring no net nsider there�vorded
the extent that a propertv inventory Is,appropriately,a loss Is consistentwith Ihe SMA proposoG
owner wants to prepare its description of existing and Ecology guidance on this
own inventorv,relv upon the conditions,and NOT a subject The Ciry may also Utilize 2010 shoreline
individualizedassessment. baselinefordesiredfuWre considertheadditionalconcept inventorvtoestablish
conditions. Because the SMA suggested by Centennial baselines for the functions
protects Ihe public's though ihe exact wording and and values of shoreline.
inalienable rights in Ihe mechanics may need to be PronerN owners mav nrovide
shorelines which include further refined.While a additional information to
statewide interests,Ihe shoreline owner may not sunnlement the inventorv in
planning process is largely necessarilyprepare its'bwn prenaration ofa develonment
funded by the public Ihrough inventory"it may be possible to proposal.
Ihe legislature's grents to allow an owner to present
update SMPs. Ownervfunded sNdies and information specific
inventories of individual to Iheir property in preparetion
vparcels are almost never of a development proposal.
based on watershed level This concept is used regularly
analysis as required in the in GMA critical areas
SMA and SMP Guidelines. regulalions of many
� Furthermore,they represent jurisdictions where property
"piecemeal,uncoordinated owners prepare and submit
developmenP',specifcally critical areas reports Ihat
= recogn¢ed in RCW 90.58 020 provide more detailed
as"inherently harm(ful)".This informatlon about the specific
in proposed language is property charecteristics than
therefore not consistentwith are included in the Ciry's more
athe law,SMP Guideline rules, generel mapping.
g or the deliberetions of the
� S okane Valle SAG.
Protect and preserve ecological 6.45 Protect and preserve This language is impossibly See memo Section B,regarding Change: Accept Staff
viabiliry and connectivity ecological viabiliry and vague,undermining the the legal standard. recommended language
vthrough use of habitat islands connectiviry Ihrough use of planning process and ignoring Assure no net loss of
and corridors within Ihe habitat islands and covidors modern scientific standing of More generelly,the City may be ecological viability and
a��5 shoreline area. within Ihe shoreline area that shoreline ecology,and furiher, required to ensure no net loss connectivity Ihrough use of
_- are reasonable and that take is obviated by the planning provided that Ihe science habitat islands and covidors
ao� into consideration existinq process required by ihe law demonstretes that habitat within the shoreline area.
�w U and future uses and and WAC. connectiviry or corridors are
develo mentofthearea. shorelineecolo icalfunctions.
Retain existing open space and 6.56&etaa Incentivize the Execreble syntax which would This Policy appropriately Change title: Accept Staff
environmentally sensitive areas retention of existing open lose the intent of the policy. identifies incentives as a recommended language
on private property Ihrough the space and environmentally possible tool for helping SMP 6.5 Incentives for
e use of incentives. sensitive areas on private achieve SMA goals.There may Retention of Critical Areas
� property�g;-F��x�: be some confusion,however, and Open Space
>o . from Ihe title of ihe policywhich
U� refers to"resource lands"
(whlch typlcally refers to
- agricWWre,forestry,and
minerel resourcelands-see
a v e.g.,RCW 3670A.060)and Ihe
�� subject matter,which refers to
o en s ace and critical areas.
Page 22
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Development shall avoid and if 6.67 Development shall avei� This language must be Futurewise comments: See Memo section B.The No Change. No Change
avoidance is not possible, retained. READ WAC 173-26- Avoidance of impacts is ihe best Policy appears to try to
�„a^�..-'.a^.e^��-aaE
mitigate negative impacts to yessiyV�mitlgate negative 201(2)(e),whlch states Ihat defense.We shongly support ihe inhoduce ihe concept of
steep banks,surface and impacts to steep banks, SMPs SHALL apply mitigation avoidance polices;Policy SMP 6.6 mitigation sequencing. See
groundwaterquality,ecological surfaceandgroundwater sequencing. provldesihat"[d]evelopmentshall WAC173-26-201(2)(e).The
functions,fish and wildlife quality,ecological functions, avoid and if avoidance is not details of mitigation sequencing
� habitat,vegetative cover,and fish and wildlife habitat, possible,mitigate negative impacts are oRen handled at Ihe
� erosion of the soil. vegetalive cover,and erosion .."Other policies also address implemenling regulation phase
of the soil. avoiding impacts.Making Mitigation rether than in policies.
Work:The Report ofthe Mitigation Avoidance,is the highest
Z that Works Forum emphasized Ihe prioriry and Ihe first step in the
need to avoid impacts on weHands mitigation sequence. By
and other aquatic resources to proposing removal of the
effectively protect these resources.3 sentence,the change proposed
� Becausemitigationisexpensive, byCentenniafsmaybe
avoidance can help developers too. vulnereble to Ihe challenge ihat
it is inconsistent with SMA
arequirements
�
�
Regulations shall assure thal K Anderson comment: How This is consistenl with WAC No Change. Regulations will No Change
the commonly occuving and would a regulation define and prove 173-26-186(8)(d),which anticipate impacis from
foreseeable cumulalive impacts cumulative impacts? indicates that"(d)Local master common uses and create
of development do not cause a progrems shall evaluate and standards to address Ihe
net loss of ecological functions consider cumulative impacts of impact.
of the shoreline reasonably foreseeable fuNre
development on shoreline
ecological functions and other
shoreline functions fostered by
� the policy goals of ihe act.To
ensure no net loss of ecological
� functions and protection of
— other shoreline functions and/or
? uses,master programs shall
— contaln pollcies,progrems,and
� regulaliore that address
U adverse cumulative impacts
and fairly albcate the burden of
aaddressing cumulative impacfs
� among development
�
0 ortunilies."
Page 23
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Develop a Restoretion Plan Develop a Restoretion Plan This issue was discussed in K Anderson comment: The restoretion plan is an No Change. No Change.
thatwillidentifydegrededareas thatwillidentifydegreded depth,andsettledbytheSAG importantelementoftheSMP
and provide a fremework for areas and provide a as a group.The proposed SMP 7.1 Restoretion Plan on update. II will provide Ihe basis 0 ThePGnay wish to
restoretion efforts to improve fremework for restoretion language and deletions skews Public Land(Title only for restoretion efforts as a resWt fiscuss the proposaG
the existing ecological function efforts to improve the existing Ihe SAG intent,and is not ofjoint public and private
and provide a mechanism for ecological function and consistent with WAC 173-26- efforts.The restoretion plan
mitigationofunavoidableand provideamechanismforloint 201(2)(f). presentsanopportuniryto
unforeseeable fuNre public and privafe mitigation balance against ihe regulatory
development of�d 'burden"of ihe no net loss
aa:a;�x-�.��,l��fuNre standard.Therestoretionplan
development while nrovidina should identify opportunities for
incentives for fuWre and progress toward restoretion
develonment for mitiaation. that creates a"net gain"to
balance against potential loss
ofshoreline ecological function
in other parts of Ihe shoreline.
In Ihat regard ihe SAGs dreft
policy appropriately
charecter¢es ihe approach.
The restoretion plan should
identify existing restoretion
projects and programs in Ihe
ciry.
As noted in Ihe mitigation
sequence,when mitigation is
required because a project
creates a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions and the
projectproponentcannot
accommodate mitigation on-
site,a comprehensive
restoretion plan mayprovide
opportunities for off-site
mitigation to ensure no net loss
occurs in Ihe shoreline,
generelly,as a resWt of the
project The Policy,as drefted,
is consistentwith Ihe
regulations and the statute.
The revisions proposed by
Centennial appear to have
a some typogrephical errors,but
Ihe general concepts may be
- within Ihe renge of discretion
afforded to Ihe Ciry.The
guidelines recognize ihe fact
� Ihat restoretion efforts are a
resWt of public and private
ainitiatives and through non-
g regulatorymeans.WAC173-
�
26-186 8 c
Page 24
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Provide incenlives for projects Provide incentives for This Iwo-word proposed J Short DOE: Change: Provide incentives Accept Staff
that include restoretion and projects that include addition reads like an attempt Uses would be Ilmited to tfiose for projecfs that include recommended language
enhancement components by restoretion and enhancement to undermine Ihe public allowed through the regs/use table; restoration and enhancement
implementing tools which may components by implementing invesVnent in shoreline and components by implementing
include but are not limited to: tools which may include but inventory,shoreline ecological tools which may indude but
� modifying the shoreline setback are not limited to:modifying functions,and clear, I suggest you allow this Flexibility, are not limited to:modifying
area that would apply to Ihe the shoreline setback and predictable standards. with appropriate sideboards,when Ihe shoreline setback area
� restored areas or allowing a buffer areas that would apply Ihe projectwill result in a net gain of Ihat would apply to the
°TNi greater renge of uses or Flexible to the restored areas or ecological function.Restoretion or restored areas or allowing a
v o development standards(e.g., allowing a greater renge of enhancement may be required greater range of uses or
�.a setbacks)on properties uses or Flexible development elements of a permitted activity Flexible development
provlding restoretlon and or standards(e.g.,setbacks)on simply to achleve ihe no net loss standards(e.g.,setbacks)on
5� enhancement. propertiesproviding standard. propertiesproviding
�? restoretion and or restoretion and or
aLenhancement KAndersoncomment: ? enhancemenithatmayresWt
� Incentives Again in a net gain of ecological
fn w`
function.
Preserve and protect existing Preserve and protect existing These proposed changes both Futurewise comments: See memo section B. Change:Assure no net loss Assure no net loss of
a ecological functions and ecological functions and lower ihe stated intent below Ensuring consistency with other Centennial's proposal to require of ecological functions and ecological functions and
� ecosystem-wide processes ecosystem-wide processes required standards set forth in environmental policies is a prectice no net loss only to ihe extent ecosystem-wide processes ecosystem-wide
— within wetlands,critical aquifer within wetlands,critical WAC 173-26-201 and Ihe of good government The Critical feasible is not consistent with within wetlands,critical processes within weHands,
� recharge areas,fsh and wildlife aquifer recharge areas,fish SMA itself,and attempt to Areas Element on pages 8 and 9 is the stalute. Instead,ihe aquifer recharge areas,fish critical aquifer recharge
habitat conservation areas, and wildlife habitat introduce ihe option to consistent with the Shoreline concept of feasibility may be and wildlife habitat areas,fsh and wildlife
geologicallyhazardousareas conservationareas, eliminateanyshoreline ManagementActpolicyof takenintoconsideretioninihe conservationareas, habitatconservation
E and frequently Flooded areas. geologically hazardous areas ecological atVibute without protecting Ihe naturel environment mitigation sequence,when geologically hazardous areas areas,geologically
w Ensure no net loss of ecological and frequenlly Flooded areas. recogn¢ing mitigation and ihe Shoreline Master Progrem determining how an individual and frequenHy Flooded areas. hazardous areas and
function within Ihese critical To the extent feasible sequencing set forth in WAC Guidelines which require no net project satisfies the statutory Ensure no net loss of frequently Flooded areas.
areas €ensure no net loss of 173-26-201(2)(e). loss of shoreline ecological standard. ecological function within Assure no net loss of
¢ ecological function within Functions. Ihese critical areas ecological function within
these critical areas throuqh these critical areas
— the use of appropriate
U� mltl aCion.
Ensure the critical area goals €a��.'ha°�'"°�a��;� J Short.DOE: See memo section B. Change:To Ihe extent Accept Staff
— and policies for the Shoreline This language should be Add"to the extent practicable". precticable and consistent recommended language
.3� Master Plan are consistentwith ",.".a:.t�c°1�°`�e:.�i:Ea°.rt retained since iPs required by SMA and the Guidelines provide the with RCW 3670A.480 ensure
the critical areas goals and ;+;F;��°�"'°��Tsw;� WAC 173-26-191 and WAC threshold requirements for the the critical area goals and
�v v policies contained in Ihe a;R.�,e:ie;����--''�� 173-26-221(2). protection of crRical areas wRhin policies for the Shoreline
���_° Comprehensive Plan. �°1� shorelinejurisdlction Master Plan are consistent
a���a° with the critical areas goals
�U U`m and policies contained in the
Com rehensive Plan.
Ensure regulatory protection Ensure regulatory protection This proposed language would K Anderson comment: Wrong No change. RCW 90.58.060 No change
measures developed for the measures developed for the make the stated policy both RCW? references the adoption
shoreline area assure no net shoreline area assure no net internally inconsistent,and guidelines.The policy as
loss of shoreline ecological loss of shoreline ecological inconsistent with ihe dreked is consistent with law.
functions necessary to sustain functions necessary to requirements in WAC 173-26-
— shoreline nalurel resources as sustain shoreline naWrel 186 and WAC 173-26-201
defined by Washington State resources as defined by
z� Department of Ecology Washington Slate
�`!_ guidelines adopted pursuant to Department of Ecology
a o RCW 90.58.060 guidelines adopted pursuant
g$ to RCW 90.58.060 to the
�°' maximum extent ossible
Page 25
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Rate wetlands based on Ihe Rate wetlands based on the This language would No change.WeHands are No change
qualiryofthewetlandandthe qualiryofthewetlandandthe underminepublicinvestmenls consideredaspartofalarger
ecological function Ihey serve. ecological function they in shoreline inventory and system.
�'�o_ Develop protective measures serve. Develop protective analysis required by WAC
tailored to Ihe wetland qualiry measures tailored to ihe 173-26,the wetland mitigation
v°� and function and that consider wetland qualiry and function requirements al WAC 395-
�r the charecteristics and setting and ihat consider Ihe 196-485,Ihe BestAvailable
a``m of the buffer and the impacts on charecteristics and setting of Science WAC 395-196-905,
— adjacent land use. the buffer and Ihe impacfs on and ihe legislative intent to
a�r adjacent land use as to Ihe protect against"the inherent
��� specific wetland. harm in an uncoordinated and
�o_� piecemeal development of the
z��� state'sshorelines"(RCW
90.58.020.
Base wetland mitigation on ihe J Short—DOE: The change would be Accept Staff
v wetland reting and require " and avoidance has been consistent with mitigation recommended language
mitigation sequencing.Only deemed..." sequencing.
m allowcompensatorymitigation
�N�� aRer mitigation sequencing has K Anderson comment: Mitigation Change: Base weHand
been applied and higher prioriry measures can be exVemely mitigation on the wetland
v,`—� means of mitigation have been expensive and never ending since reling and require mitigation
deemed infeasible. there are no quantifiable results by sequencing.Only allow
a m whichtomeasureandjudge compensatorymitigationafter
success. mitigation sequencing has
a�— been applied and avoidance
�:��� has been deemed infeasible.
Page 26
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;�di ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jn2e 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Limit development thatwould SMP 8_45 The original language in this K Anderson comment: The SAG policy mivors the Limit development that
cause foreseeable risk from policywas discussed at length Limit development that would cause standard in WAC 173-26- 0 ThePGnay wtsh to would cause foreseeable
geological conditions to people Limit development thatwould in Ihe SAG.The reference to foreseeable risk from geological 221(2)(c)(ii)pertaining to discuss whether to 4mk risk from geologlcal
or property. Do not allow cause foreseeable risk from homes only is stated in ihe conditiore to people or property. standards for geologically snucturoisNoreline conditions to people or
developmentthatwillrequire geologicalconditionsto law;therestoftheproposed Donotallowdevelopmentthatwill hazardousareas.Thespecific stabil:'zoaontopro[ec[ property. Donotallow
structurel shoreline stabilization people or property. Do not language undermines the require sVUCNreI shoreline focus in ihe third sentence on exisnnghomes. development Ihat will
exceptinthelimitedcases allowdevelopmentthatwill intenttopreventnewstructurel stabilizationexceptinihelimited homes,retherthanstructures requireshuclurelshoreline
where it is necessary to protect require shuclurel shoreline shoreline stabilization. Public cases where it is necessary to or uses,more generelly,is No other changes are stabilization except in Ihe
an allowed use and no stabilization except in Ihe access methods are protect an allowed.Allow strucNrel reAected in the staNte and in recommended to Ihe policy limited cases where it is
alternativelocationisavailable. limitedcaseswhereitis appropriatelyaddressed shorelinestabilizaliontoprotect theregulations. SeeRCW necessarytoprotectan
Allow structurel shoreline necessary to protect an elsewhere in ihe SMP Goals existing homes. Do not allow 90.58.100(6)and allowed use and no
¢ stabllization to protect existing allowed use and no and Pollcies. structurel shoreline stablllzation that 90.58.030(3)(e)(ii).As a resWt, alternative location is
homes onlywhen relocation or alternative location is will result in a net loss of ecological the SAGs policy is consistent available.Allow shucturel
recoreVUCtion is infeasible. Do available.Allow structurel function. with the Guidance. shoreline stabilization to
notallowstructurelshoreline shorelinestabilizationto protectexisting strucNres
stabilizationihatwillresultina protectexistingkeNaesuses Centennial'sproposedchange onlywhenrelocationor
= net loss of ecological function. onlywhen relocation or to expand Ihe broaden Ihe reconstruction is
= reconstruction is infeasible. language to protect"uses" infeasible. Do not allow
_ Allow Ilmlted strucfural rether than just"homes"Is an structurel shoreline
shoreline stabilization to expansion beyond Ihe direct stabil¢ation ihat will result
provlde access to the authoriry recognized in the in a net loss of ecological
� shorelines.8e-aeFaAllow regulation.Theguidelinesfor function.
strucNrel shoreline stabil¢ation more generelly
stabil¢ation ihat will result in offer more Flexibility for
— a no net loss of ecological stabilization associated with
function wifh appropriate slrucWres,notjust homes.
mlCicaCion. 173-26-231(3)(a)(lii). If the
planning commission wants to
— explore this concept further,
_ additional research maybe
required.
3 With respect to Ihe final
sentence,Ihe SAGs dreft is
_ consistent with Ihe statutory
standard.Centenniafs
proposed revision adds the
concept of mitigation,which is
— also consistent with the
o guidelines.WAC 173-2Cr
201(c)('The concept of"nef'as
r used herein,recognizes Ihat
any development has potential
or actual,short-term or long-
term impacts and ihat Ihrough
application of appropriate
— development sfandards and
employm ent of m itigation
measures in accordance with
v Ihe mitigation sequence,ihose
impacfs will be addressed in a
a manner necessary to assure
Ihat ihe end result will not
ad im in ish the shorel ine
g resources and values as they
�
currentl exisC.
Page 27
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Develop measures ihat assure Develop measures ihat This proposed language adds No change. No change
a¢ no net loss of ecological assure no net loss of no dariry or value.
functions of river,lake and ecological functions of river,
— stream corridors associated lake and stream corridors
LL�° with fish and wildlife habitat. associaled with fish and
Integrete the protection n of fsh wildlife habitat Integrete Ihe
° and wildlife habitalwith Flood protection n of fish and
��U hazard reduction and other fish wildlife habitat with Flood
vw m and wildlife management hazard reduction and other
'^ a provisions. 'Develop measures fish and wildlife management
a`10¢ that author¢e and facilitate provisions. 'Develop
`m v habitat and restorelion projecis. measures that authorize and
a�- facilitate habitat and
��� restoretion projects in these
areaswherea ro riate.
Allow new slrucNrel Flood J Short-DOE: Change: Accept Staff
hazard reduction measures recommended language
only: "using natural,nabve materials..." Allow new structurel Flood
hazard reduction measures
•Where scientific and only:
engineering analysis has
demonstreted it to be •Where scientific and
necessary,and when non- engineering analysis has
structurel methods are demonshated it to be
infeasible and mitigalion is necessary,and when non-
accomplished;and slrucWrel methods are
•Landward ofassociated infeasible and mitigation is
weHands and buffer areas accomplished;and
.�,°— exceptwhere no alternative •Landward ofassociated
exists,as documented in an wetlands and buffer areas
° engineering analysis;and exceptwhere no alternative
� •When consistent with current exists,as documented in an
best management prectices, engineering analysis;and
using naturel materials •When consistent with
= whenever feasible. current best management
prectices,using naWrel,
— Note:An example of a native materials whenever
— structurel Aood hazard feasible.
� reduction measure is a
structure placed by humans
ti'i within a sVeam or river
waterward of Ihe ordinary high
amark such as,but not limited to
� a diversion or modification of
� water Flow to conhol Floodin .
Page 28
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Allow removal of grevel for Allow removal of grevel for The Centrel Premix Fu[urewise Comments: Change: Accept Staff
Flood conhol only if biological Flood control only if biological representative at the SAG "Grevel exhaction is widely recommended language
and geomorphological sNdy and geomorphological sWdy meetings never brought ihis perceived to yield Flood control Allow removal of grevel for
demonstretes a long-term demonshates a long-term up,and in general ihe SAG benefits,but there is little hard Flood conhol only if biological
benefit to Aood hazard benefit to Aood hazard bent over backwards to evidence Ihat ihe perceived benefits and geomorphological study
reduction and no net loss of reduction and no net loss of recogn¢e Ihe unique needs of are real or more Ihan ephemerel."5 demonstretes that exVaction
ecological functions.This does ecological functions.This Ihe aggregate mining industry However,the adverse effects of has a long-term benefit to
not apply to Ihe permitted does not apply to Ihe in the Ciry of Spokane Valley. grevel removal for Aood conhol on Flood hazard reduction,does
grevel mining operetions permitted grevel mining Whalnewgrevel extrection fish habitat and otherecological not result in a netloss of
underway at the time of SMP operetions underway at Ihe opportunities would lie in SMA functions are real and significant6 ecological functions,and is
adoplion and approval. time of SMP adoption and jurisdiction in Ihe city.�This WAC 173-26-221(3)(c)(v)sets Ihe part of a comprehensive Flood
approval,or othe should be left to fuNre SMP minimum conditions applicable to management solution.This
subsequently approved updates grevel mining for Flood conhol: does not apply to the
grevel mining operelions. . provides ihat"Require ihat the permitted grevel mining
removal of grevel for Flood operetions underway al the
management purposes be time of SM P adoption and
consistent with an adopted Flood approval,
hazard reduction plan and with this
chapter and allowed only after a
biological and geomorphological
study shows that exhaction has a
long-term benefit to Flood hazard
reduction,does not result in a net
loss of ecological functions,and is
part of a comprehensive Flood
management solution."
Proposed Pol icy SM P 9.4 allows
'7emoval of grevel for Aood conhol
only if biological and
geomorphological sludy
demonstretes a long-term benefit to
Flood hazard reduction and no net
loss of ecological functions.This
does not apply to Ihe permitted
gravel mining operations underway
at Ihe time of SM P adoption and
approval."Whilewe agree ihatthe
— I im itations of ih is pol icy and WAC
� 173-26-221(3)(c)(v)should not
�`9 apply to Ihe existing permitted
gravel operetions,given the lack of
m Flood control benefts of grevel
� removal and its very real impacts,
the addition requirement that Ihe
� removal be part of a comprehensive
Flood management solution should
a be added to proposed Policy SMP
g 9.4 so ihat Ihe Flood control benefts
� are carefull evaluated.
Page 29
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;�di ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Require the dedication and °a:�a'�-�'--"�:; Requiring public access Futurewise comments: The policy is an accurete No Change. No Change
improvement of public access �-;Ilow for improvement and development As our population increases,we charecter¢ation of the
in developments forwaler- development of public access as a condition of approval for need more public access.One of guidelines governing access.
enjoyment,watervrelated and in developmenls forwaterv Ihe stated uses in this section the policies of Washington's Importantly,ihe policy
non water-dependent uses and enjoyment,watervrelated and is a long setHed prectice Shoreline Management Act is to acknowledges the important
for the subdivision of land into non waterdependent uses statewide,and lies among ihe increase public access to publicly exceptions from Ihe generel
more Ihan four parcels,with and for the subdivision of land core principles of the SMA owned rivers,sheams,and lakes.4 requirement when the City
exceptions as allowed by WAC into more ihan four parcels, (RCW 90.58.02Q WAC 173- The development needed to provides more effective public
173-26-221(4)(d)(iii). with exceptions as allowed by 26-221(4)).This proposed accommodate growth can interfere access ihrough a public access
WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii). language is not consistentwith with Ihe Vaditional public accesses planning process and/or there
Ihe law. that locals have used for years to are issues related to safety,
boat,swim,and fish.The Shoreline incompatibility and
� Master Progrem Guidelines constiWtional principles of
implement the Shoreline nexus or rough proportionality.
—O ManagementAct policies by See Memo section B.Thus Ihe
w including more specific policys reference to Ihe
� requirements for public access in "exceptlons"captures the tools
WAC 173-26-221(4)(d).Policy SMP available to Ihe City to create a
10.3 capWres Ihis policy and the public access requirement in
° requirementsforpublicaccesswell. thedevelopmentregulalions
MIhat is sensitive to constilutional
concerns and acknowledges
a the existing access already
g presentwithin Ihe City's
� shoreline trail s stem.
When improving and When improving and This is a perfecHy legitimate See Memo Section C. Change. Accept Staff
maintaining existing public maintaining existing public policy under Ihe SMA and recommended language
access po'mts,minimize access points,minimlze SMP Guideline rules,and was Q ThePCmap wish[o
additional impacts on ihe additional impacis on ihe Ihoroughly discussed in Ihe di.scuss ivheUrer to
shoreline environment and,if shoreline environmenlaad,�( SAG.The original language include Ure restorarimi
- possible,correct past adverse ��::ti,:a�:€�;a���:x should be retained. lmiguage.
� environmentalimpactscaused =�F�
by the public access. w:r:a�"-��"°��». When improving and
maintaining existing public
¢� access points,m'mlmize
- additional impacis on ihe
�v shoreline environment and,
a'o
so long as it is consistent with
o� constiWtional protectlons,
a— correct past adverse
�� environmental impacts
�10 caused b ihe ublic access.
Page 30
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jn2e 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Require that public access Require that public access Just as not every shoreline site No change. No change.
measures have a design measures have a design is appropriate for public
appropriate to the site,adjacent appropriate to Ihe site, access,and not every trel or
property,and generel naNre of adjacent property,and mountain top is accessible to
� the proposed development, generel nature of Ihe all individuals,Ihis language
while protecting and providing proposed development,while should be retained.The ADA
views. Public access facilities protecting and providing recogn¢es Ihis realiry.If
should be designed with views. Public access facilities creating access for all persons
¢ provisions for persons with should be designed with with disabilities were required
disabilities,whereappropriate. provisionsforpersonswith atallpublicaccesslocalions,
_ disabilities, adverseshorelineimpacts
would resWt which are not
� consistent with Ihe prioritized,
preferzed uses in shorelines
a stated at RCW 90.58.020 and
� WAC 173-26-176 and WAC
� 173-26-181.
Minim¢e the impacts to existing K Anderson comment: This provision,as drefted,may Change. Accept Staff
views where the view is taken Could have a chilling affect on be slightly inconsistentwith Ihe recommended language
fromihewaterorshoreline, large,neweconomicdevelopmenfs. Shorelineviewprotectionin Minim�zetheimpactsto
public property or substantial 90.58.320. RCW 90.58.320 existing views where the view
numbers of residences.Waler- addresses sVUCtures over 35 is taken from the water or
dependent shoreline uses and feet in height Ihal obstruct shoreline,public property or
physical public access shall views from a substantial substantial numbers of
havepriorityovermaintaininga numberofresidences,unless residences.Water-dependent
view when a conFlict behveen the SMP allows Ihe height and shoreline uses and physical
them is iveconcilable. when overriding consideretions public access shall have
v ofpublicinterestshallbe priorityovermaintaininga
� served.As written,Ihe last view when a conFlict between
sentence in the policy suggests Ihem is irreconcilable
thatshorelineuseswillbegiven providedthalthewater
prioriryoverview,evenwhen dependentuseisconsistent
� prohibited by RCW 90.58.320. with height reshictions in
— This can be addressed by RCW 90.58.320..
simplyadding,"...provided that
a the water dependent use is
� consistent with height
restrictions in RCW 90.58.320."
Incentives such as densiry or J Short—DOE: No Change.The public No Change
bulk and dimensional bonuses Thls Is an interesting mncept. I'm access plan and forthcoming
should be considered if assuming the forthcoming regulations will sVive to
> development proposals indude regulations will explain how you implement Ihis goal.
additional public access beyond determine what the required level
that required by this SM P. of public a¢ess is so you ran
clearly identify a project thaT goes
above and beyond that Threshold.
a
� K Anderson comment:
� Incentives again?
Page 31
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Preference shall be given to K Anderson comment: No Change.An ordinance is No Change
non-motorized recreational Would you need an ordinance not required.The policywill
activities. banning motorized use? be implemented Ihrough
Zregulations.The County
Commissioners regulate
— boaling activiry on ihe
a`o SpokaneRiver.bythe
��� Spokane County Boating
Safet Ordinance.
Encourege new development to K Anderson comment: No Change.The policy No Change
conVibute to the creation or Encourege new development to encoureges the creation of
— preservation of open space conVibute to the preservation of open space Regulations will
��= and/or fish and wildlife habitat open space and/or fish and wildlife not require this concept.
along the shorelines through habitat along the shorelines ihrough
the use of tools such as the use of tools such as
�$ conservation fuWres, conservation fuWres,conservations
conservations easements, easements,Vansfereble
a'�° trensferable development development rights,and planned
g m rights,and planned unit unit developments.
�LL developmenis.
Legally established uses and Legally established uses and The original language is The Ciry has some discretion in 0 ThePCma�•wtrh to Accept Staff
developments Ihatwere developmenis thatwere consistent with the law,ihe the details of how it regula[es �[iscuss legaity recommended language
erected and maintained in erected and maintained in proposed language is noL legally established estabtisNed
lawful condition prior to Ihe lawful condition prior to the READ WAC 173-14-055. nonconforming uses. Either nonconjonxing uses.
effective date of this Master effective date of this Master formulation of the standard
Progrem,shall be allowed to Progrem,shall be allowed to under which the Ciry may allow Change recommended to
continue as legal continue as legal fuWre development or accommodate ihe recent
nonconformingusesprovided nonconformingusesprovided redevelopmentof staWtorychangeis: Legally
that future development or that fuWre development or nonconforming uses and established uses and
redevelopmentdoesnot redevelopment-'--�.� shucWrescouldpotentiallybe developments thatwere
increase ihe degree of �,:.ac�x'"���: considered,though Ihere are erected and maintained in
nonconformirywiththis � keydifferences. Forexample, lawfulconditionpriortothe
progrem. }>rec}vam provides a hipher CentenniaPs proposed effective date of this Master
dearee of benefit and formulation could be arguably Progrem,shall be allowed to
� restoration to the ecoloaical more resVictive in some continue as legal
function of Ihe shorelines. applications,such as Ihe nonconforming uses provided
— redevelopment of a damaged Ihat fuWre development or
w nonconforming sVUCWre, redevelopment does not
� because it only allows increase ihe degree of
redevelopmentupona nonconformirywiththis
provisionofbenefitand progrem. Expansion,or
j restoration,whiletheSAG's replacementofpre-existing
formulation would allow for residential strucWres and
�� rebuild in the same fwtprint their appurtenant
without additional restoration. shucWresshall be allowed if
In either case,ihe Clrywill want It is consistent with the
to revise ihis provision to reAect master progrem,including
Z more recentstalutorychanges requirementsfornonetloss
tononconforminguse ofshorelineecological
provisiore that consider pre- functions..
a existing residential uses to be
g 'bonforming"RCW90.58.620.
�
Page 32
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Comments Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Prohibit new non-water oriented Prohibit new non-water This was discussed in Ihe No change. No Change
commercial uses unless they oriented commercial uses SAG and should be retained.
— are part of a mixed-use project unless Ihey are part of a
o" U or the use provides a significant mixed-use project or ihe use
a���,� public benefit,such as public provides a public benefit,
�z O U� access and ecological such as public access and
restoretion. ecolo ical restoretion.
Give prioriry to industrial uses in Give prioriry to indusVial uses This language is impossibly Future wise Comments: In Ihe case of grevel pits,Ihe Based on Ecologys Accept Staff
the following order: in the following order: vague and could address We are concerned that proposed guidelines recognize ihat'9t is clarification the grevel pits will recommended language
• First priotiry is give to • First priotiry is give to ownerships and uses having Policies SMP 12.13 and SMP 12.50 appropriate,however,to be retained in Ihe inventory,
water�lependent water�lependent nothingtodowiththe thatdefinetheexistinggrevelmines determinewhethertherewillbe butwillnotbeaddressed,
industrial uses indushial uses aggregate mining industry. as water dependent uses no net loss of ecological until such a time that the pit
• Second priority is given • Second prioriry is misinterpret ihe concept ofwa[er function based on evaluation of enters iCs reclamation phase.
to watervrelated given to watervrelated dependency.WAC 173-26-020(39) final reclamation required for The pits will no longer be
indushial uses indushial uses defines a"[w]ater-dependent use" Ihe site." 173-26-241(3)(f). classified as water dependent
• The existing legally • The existing legally as"a use or portion of a use which Moreover,Ecology has uses.
permitted grevel pits permitted grevel pits, cannot exist in a location that is not provided further guidance that
are considered water and iheir surrounding adjacent to Ihe water and which is lakes created by mining Change:
dependent uses. uses in Ihe shoreline dependent on Ihe water by reason activities need not be regulated
areas,are of the intrinsic nature of its as shorelines of ihe state until Give prioriry to industrial
� considered water operetions."The grevel mines to not redama[ion is complete.There uses in Ihe following order:
� meet this defnition.The are in ma be no need to make the . First riorit is ive to
dependentuses. Y Y p Y 9
� theirlocationbecauseofgrevel mininguses'Waterdependent water�lependent
resources,not because they cannot uses"and the language can be industrial uses
exist in a location ihat is not deleted. . Second prioriry is
adjacent to ihe water.So they given to watervrelated
cannot be defined as water industrial uses
— dependent uses.We do not
disagree with policies ihat allow
a` these uses to continue with
necessary measures to ensure no
net losses of shoreline resources,
a but Ihey do not meet ihe defnition
g ofwater dependent and so cannot
� be ivenihatclassification.
Page 33
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Prohibitnewnon-wateroriented - KAndersoncomment: Whilewaterdependent Allownewnon-water
industrial uses Can be low prioriry per 12.13 but industrial uses are preferred, 0 The PCmay wish to oriented industrial uses
can't be prohibited without zone and ihe Ciry may choose to di.scuss ivheUrer to only if Ihe use indudes a
change. discourege new non-water resnictnoia-water water dependent use or
oriented indusVial uses,the iented indusnialuses navigabiliry is severely
ouVightprohibitionofnon-water nshoreline limltedatthesite, and
oriented indusVial uses in all jurisdiction. provides for public access
iretances and in all and/or ecological
environments may be more restoretion,or Ihe area is
reshictive Ihan what is required. physically separeted from
See,e.g.,173-26-241(3)(f) the shorel ine by another
public right of way. .
WAC 173-26-241(3)(�Paregreph
3'.New nonwater-oriented
industrial development should be
prohibited on shorelines except
when.
(i)The use is part of a mixed-
se project that includes water-
dependent uses and provides a
significant public benefit with
j respect to the Shoreline
— Management Act's objectives such
� as providing public access and
ecological restoretion'..or
(ii)Navigability is severely
limited at the proposed site',and
the industrial use provides a
0 significant public benefit with
respect to the Shoreline
Management Act's objectives such
� as providing public access and
ecological restoretion.
Z
In areas designated for
industrial use,nonwater-oriented
industrial uses may be allowed if
a the site is physically separeted
� hom the shoreline by another
o ert o ublic ri ht of wa.
Page 34
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Reduce ihe adverse effecfs of - This follows one element of Reduce ihe adverse
allowed shoreline modifications Ecologys guidance for 0 The PCmay wish to effects of allowed
and,asmuchaspossible,limit shoreline"modifications"in di.scussthedegreeto shorelinemodifications
allowed shoreline modifications WAC 173-26-231.The wlrich shoreline and,as much as possble,
innumberandextent guidelinesidentify mofifcanonshouldbe limitallowedshoreline
"modifications"as related to timited modifications in number
conshuction of a physical and extent unless they
element such as a dike, are necessary to support
breakwater,dredged basin,or or protect an allowed
fill,but they can include other primary shucture or a
actions such as clearing, legally existing shoreline
greding,application of use that is in danger of
chemicals,or significant loss or substantial damage
vegetation removaL" or are necessary for
reconfiguretion of the
To Ihe extent Ihat shorel ine for m itigation or
"modifications"are part of a enhancement purposes.
dass of"alteretions"more
generelly,Ihe policy of limiting
allowed shoreline modifications
— in number and extent as much
�� as possible may be more
— restrictive than is required
under Ihe stalute,which
expressly fosters all reasonable
� and appropriate uses and
recogn¢es alteretions of ihe
E shoreline.
— The Planning Commission
could accept ihe policy as
written or add language
� acknowledging ihe more
generel recognition ofshoreline
alteretions.To some degree
a Ihis is already caplured in
� Policy 12-19,but could be
further clarified.
Page 35
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jn2e 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Assure ihat shoreline Assure ihat shoreline This language should be This Policy appears to address No Change
modificalionsindividuallyand modificationsindividuallyand retainedsinceitsupportsand thepolicypreferencesinRCW 0 ThePCma}•wishto
cumulatively do not resWt in a cumulatively do not resWt in a is supported by,numerous 90.58.020 which gives di.scuss the relarionship
net loss of ecological functions net loss of ecological sections of both ihe SMA and preference to uses that between prioriry uses,
- by: functions by: its implementing rules.A preserve Ihe naturel charecter onable and
— Giving preference to those • Bi:M�:;z�-°°.�,.-'��'hax quick read of RCW 90.58.02Q of Ihe shoreline. It is also apyropriate uses,and
w types of shoreline �;.� RCW 90.58.10Q WAC 173-26- consistent with language in aHeratioias.
modificaliore that have ihe ��a�'"���'"�+.�� 181,-186(8),-201 will help for Ecologys guidelines at WAC
least impact on ecological ��F;.:.°�� starters. 173-26-231(2)(d). However Staff comment-No change
function;and �ea=aaA RCW 90.58.020 also fosters"all recommended for the
Requiring mitigation of • �requiring mitigation of reasonable and appropriate following reason:The policy
Z identified impacts resulting identified impacts resulting uses"and acknowledges is specific to shoreline
z from shoreline modifications from shoreline alteretions.To Ihe extent Ihat modifications and Iheir
modifications thepolicydeemphasizesthe impacts;
prioriryalteretlons identified In WAC 173-26-221(1)
RCW 90.58.020 and ihe '...Shoreline modifications
- recognition of shoreline are generally related to
- alteretions,generelly,then the conshuction of a physical
policy may be more restrictive element such as a dike,
� than what is required by staNte. breakwater,dredged basin,or
However,Ihat concept may fill,but Ihey can indude other
already be adequately actions such as dearing,
a� addressed in Policy 12-19 greding,application of
g� chemicals,orsignificant
�LL
ve etation removal"
Base shoreline modification Base shoreline modification The two grevel pits provide a The Pits will not be regulated Accept Staff
regulations on scientifc and regulations on scientific and unique situation where Ihe by the SMP until they reach recommended language
technical informalion of reach technical information of reach existing conditions may not Ihe reclamation phase.
- conditions for ihe Spokane conditions for ihe Spokane provide the best measure for
— Rlver,Shelley Lake,Centrel River,Shelley Lake�eak�a determining no net loss.As Q ThePCshou7d fiscuss
Pre-mlx and Flore Pit °cz�,.i:�°�'°�;E. recogn'¢ed in Ihe guldelines,"It grm�elpits andDOE's
� is appropriate,however,to latestgu'rdoncz
determine whether there will be
- no net loss of ecological Change: Base shoreline
function based on evaluation of modification regulations on
- final reclamation required for scientific and technical
� the site." 173-26-241(3)(f).As 'mformatlon of reach
further noted in recent conditions for ihe Spokane
= correspondence from Ecology, River and Shelley Lake.
the Ciry does not need to
in regulale Ihe pits as shorelines
until they enter reclamation
phase.ThuslheCitymaywant
a to consider changes to the
g policy to address these two
�
uni ue shoreline areas.
Plan for ihe restoretion of K Anderson comment: No change.The regulations No Change
v impaired ecological functions Public or private property?Who and restoretion plan should
�`-� where feasible and appropriate, would define and determine ihe address Ihis issue in
gN r"`o while accommodating permitted impaired function? conjunction with
���°� uses. modifications.
Page 36
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Allow new docks only for public Change to reFlect removing Accept Staff
water-dependent uses,single- Ihe Grevel Pit from recommended language
fam ily residences,and public regulatory d iscussion:
o° access on ihe Spokane River
and Shelley Lake.The existing Allow new docks only for
rv� grevelpitoperetionsare publicwater-dependentuses,
a�— allowed docks if it is necessary single-family residences,and
�� for operetions and as permitted public access on Ihe Spokane
o eratin ermits. RiverandShelle Lake.
Docks shall be allowed only in Docks shall be allowed only This proposed language is Futurewise comments: Generelly,the regulations allow 0 ThePCma��wtrh to Accept Staff
locations where they will not in locations where iheywill entirely inconsistent with the Docks have significant impacts to new docks forwater dependent discuss[his issue. recommended language
pose a public safery hazard or not pose a public safery WAC Guidelines. Docks can ecological functions.Public and and residential uses. See WAC The SAG felt strongly ihat the
adversely impact shoreline hazard or adversely impact be an appurtenant use to a shared docks should be the 173-26-231(3)(b). Moreover, conditions of the Spokane
ecological functions or process shoreline ecological functions single family home on an standard prectice wherever possible the regulations allow docks so River,with the exception of
and limited as follows: or process and limited as upland parcel with shoreline, where ihere is a demand for docks. long as they avoid or,if that is certain areas,were not
Spokane River-only in follows: but docks are not a property However we support ihe Shoreline not possible,to minimize and conducive to docks.
reservoir areas,where Flow • Spokane River-only in right attached to all such Advisory Group's provisions in SMP mitigate the impacts to
conditions least resemble reservoir areas,where Flow parcels. 12-26 and SMP 12-27 as a ecological functions. Change to reFlect removing
the naWral free-Flowing river; conditions least resemble reasonable compromise to balance Accordingly,the language may Ihe Grevel Pit from
Shelley Lake; the naturel free-Flowing Docks should only be allowed the interests of the communiry and be more resVictive than what is regulatory diswssion:
Grevel pits;or river unless necessarv to where iheir localion does not the conclusions of the city's required by the regulations.
Severely ecologically support a permiBed use; adversely impact shoreline shoreline inventory and research However,if Ihere is a public Docks shall be allowed only
impacted shoreline areas • Shelley Lake; ecological function,public into the feasibility of docks health,safety concern,Ihe Ciry in locations where iheywill
with adequate public access • Grevel pits;or navigational access and other conducted by URS. may have a shong policy not pose a public safery
• Severely ecologically normal public use. For many reason for restricting docks in hazard or adversely impact
impacted shoreline areas technical and policy reasons certain areas. shoreline ecological functions
with adequate public docks are not appropriate on or process and limited as
access free-Flowing rivers because follows:
— Ihey aren't consistent with ihe Spokane River-only in
SMA. reservoir areas,where
Flow conditions least
resemble the naturel free-
o Flowing river;
Shelley Lake;
or
a •Severely ecologically
� impacted shoreline areas with
ade uate ublicaccess
Reshict ihe s¢e of new docks K Anderson comment: No Change. No Change
� to Ihe minimum necessary to I do not see size within ihe RCW's.
a N Y serve a proposed water-
�N o dependentuse.
Require residential �'a: This language should be K Anderson comment: Encouregement or requiremenl 0 ThePCmap wish to Encourege residential
development of more ihan Iwo retained since iPs supported at Can you require Ihis without a zone ofjoint-use docks is a way to fiscuss this issue. development of more ihan
dwellings to provide community �a�e WAC 173-26-241(3)(b),and change? minim¢e impacts on ecological Iwo dwellings to provide
docks,rether than individual ���t"-�a required under WAC 173-26- functions. Policies encoureging The SAG felt shongly that it communiry docks,relher
docks. � 191(2). orrequiringjointusedocksare wasimportanttolimitthe thanindividualdocks.
�m common especially in pristine impacts of docks,and Ihis
_ areas.The policy presented is was a reasonable and
�o within the dlscretion of the Clty, common alternative.
but may be more than is
required by statute because
a� docks are not a prohibited use
�o and dock sharing is not
�U re uired b statute.
Page 37
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jn2e 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Design and locate new Design and locate new This language should be No change.This concept No change.
3 development and bts created development and bts created retained since iPs supported represents proactive efforts to
Z� through subdivision,particularly through subdivision,to by numerous references minim¢e Ihe need for
o� those located on steep slopes prevent Ihe need for fuNre Ihroughout the SMA and WAC, stabil¢ation.
and bluffs,to prevent the need streambank protection including requirements for
a m U v for fuNre streambank protection measures during the life o the consistencywith other law:
�o 0 o measures during Ihe Ilfe o Ihe strucWre. READ WAC 173-26-191(1)(e),
structure. and WACA 173-26-221 2.
Site in-sheam stmclures to Futurewise Comments: No Change. Based on a No change.
protect and preserve Proposed Policies 12.43 and 12.44 conversation with ihe URS
ecosystem-wide processes, allow instream shucWres.Instream consWtant placement of in-
ecological functions,and strucWres can have very water sVUCWres should be
E cWWrel resources,including but significance adverse impacts on the based on localized stream
not limited to fish and fish shoreline environment and in water Flow charecteristics,not Ihe
in passage,wildlife and water recreation.We recommend Ihese shoreline environment The
resources,shoreline critical policies be modified to prohibit Commission maywish to
areas,hydro-geological ireheam structures in NaWrel and consider different in water
processes,and naturel scenic Conservancy Environments and shucWres in preferential
a� vistas. theirequivalentenvironments Iocations.Jfsqstaffwillcome
g y' back with an additional
��
recommendation.
� Consider Ihe full renge of public No change to this policy. No change.
interests,watershed functions The point is adequately
°'` and processes,and addressed in policy 12.43.
�m environmentalconcemswhen
- planning and locating in-stream
strucWres,with special
�� emphasis on protecting and
a o restoringprioriryhabifatsand
�" s ecies.
Advocate and foster habitat and K Anderson comment: No Change No change.
�V naWrel system enhancement Advocate and foster habitat and
� projectswhich restore the naturel public system enhancement
��� naWrelcharecterandfunction projectswhichrestorethenaWrel
rv �� of Ihe shoreline provided they charecter and function of the
a��m w areconsistentwiththe shorelineprovidedtheyare
g m l Restoretion Plan. consistent with the Restoration
fnszwa`
Plan.
Allow existing grevel pit N Smith for Central Pre-mix 0 The PGnay wkh to Accept Staff
operetions to continue to comment:CPM believes Ihat these fiscuss this issue mid recommended language
operete and expand consistent are inconsistent with the SMP nsider the chmige
with operetional permits. Handbook and suggesfs ihe proposed beloiv.
Operational uses include both following:
abovewaterandbelowwater Change: Existinggrevelpit
grevel extrection,processing, The existing grevel pits within the operetions may continue to
- and crushing.Accessory uses Ciry of Spokane Valley continue to operete and expand
include,but are not limited Iq be fully operetionaL"Since mining consistent with operational
O concrete batch plants,hot mix operetions will not cease in ihe next permits. .Active grevel pits
a asphalt plants,aggregate few years,these grevel pits are are not regula[ed as
- processing and recycling exduded from ihejurisdiction of the shorelines of Ihe state until
� plants,wstomer service(huck Citys shoreline plan until redamation is complete and
�`9 dispatching)offices, completion of ihe active mining DNR termina[es the Surface
maintenance facilities,truck& operetions and reclamation as Mine Reclamation Pernit.
equipmentparking,stockpiles, required byan applicable
a scale houses,relail product reclamation plan approved by Ihe
g stores,and quality control Department of Naturel Resources.
� facilities.
Page 38
Drqfi Goals and Policies-Connnent Table Attaclnneni'�14
Pre red rn the:f�10,2012 Plrnmin Cwmnission�etin;Modi ied rn the17�24,2012 and Jnie 28,2012 PC�eiin s
Goal/Policy SAG Draft Centennial Commenis Doug Pineo's Comments Additional Public Comments Legal Counsel Review Staff Planning Commission
Received Comments Recommendation FinalAction
Existing Grevel Pit Operetions Fu[urewise Comments: See comments to Policy 12.13 0 The PCmay wish to Accept Staff
are considered water We are concerned that proposed and 1223. discuss this issue and recommended language
dependent uses Policies SMP 12.13 and SMP 12.50 de[ennine ivhether ro
that define the existing grevel mines further address
as water dependent uses nonconjorn�ing uses.
misinterpret ihe concept of waler
dependency.WAC 173-26-020(39) Policy SMP 12.5 addresses
defines a"[w]ater-dependent use" nomconforming uses.
as"a use or portion of a use which
cannot exist in a location Ihat is not Change proposed to
adjacent to the water and which is eliminate grevel pits as a
dependent on Ihe water by reason waler dependent use:
of the intrinsic nature of its
operetions."The grevel mines to not
meet this defnition.They are in
their location because of grevel
resources,not because they cannot
exist in a location ihat is not
adjacent to ihe water.So Ihey
cannot be defined as water
dependent uses.We do not
disagree with policies ihat allow
these uses to continue with
necessary measures to ensure no
net losses of shoreline resources,
but they do not meet ihe definition
ofwater dependent and so cannot
be given ihat classification
N Smith for Central Pre-mix
comment:CPM believes that the
policy is inconsistentwith the SMP
Handbook and suggests ihe
following:
SMP 12.50 Subsequent Uses
Operetional and accessory uses
related to grevel mining operetions
are permitted and allowed to
expand after ihe completion of
� reclamation.Operetional uses
indude both above water and below
water grevel exhaction,processing
and crushing.Accessory uses
o indude,but are not limited tq
concrete batch plants,hotmix
asphalt plants,aggregate
� processing and recycling plants,
customer service(truck dispatching)
offices,maintenance facllities,Vuck
a and equipment parking,stockples,
g scale houses,retail product stores
� and uali conhol facilities.
Page 39
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: June 28, 2012 Department Director Approval ❑
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑old business ❑new business ❑public hearing
� information ❑ admin.Report ❑ pending legislarion
FILE NUMBER CTA 01-12
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study Session — Amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Chapter 19.120 (Permitted & Accessory Uses) proposed
changes to the Permitted & Accessory Use matrix affecting numerous uses in commercial,
industrial, and mixed use zones.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 1930.040
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: The Spokane Valley Zoning Regulations became effective October 28, 200 7. In
early 2012, the Spokane Valley City Council requested a review of permitted and accessory uses in the
Corridor Mixed Use and Garden Office zones. D uring the review, staff identified a number of areas
throughout the matrix where additional updates were appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. T he Planning
Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed amendments on July 12, 2012
STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen-Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Chapter 19.120-Permitted&Accessory Use Matrix
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
�
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
AppendlX 19-A � � � $ R >,R R � � � Conditions
w O : 'c : : Q- — �
`o c s° � O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � G � � �E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R N C O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
711 Adult entertainment establishment S S Chapter 19.80 SVMC
453 Adult retail use establishment S S Chapter 19.80 SVMC
311 Agricultural processing plant,warehouse P P
I �� n�.,..�fr.,, ..��r�,.r,�r�..,. �
481219 Airstrip,private P P
� 62191 Ambulance service P P g P P P P P
54194 Animal clinic/veterinary P S P P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(1)
311613 Animal processing facility P
S S S S S S 112 Animal raising and/or keeping S S Excluding NAICS 1122,
Swine.SVMC 19.40.150.
81291 Animal shelter P P
31161 Animal slaughtering and processing P
� 45392 Antique store P P R P P P
� 448 Apparel/tailor shop P P g P P P P P
� 443111 Appliance sales/service P P R P P A A Only if manufactured/
assembled on premises.
I � n.,.,i��.,,.o�.., .,��r�,.r��r�.,,. R R
� 45392 Art gallery/studio P P R P P P P P
I �� n�.,h�ir.,i�..ri.,, ..��t�,.r,�.�..,, g
333 Assembly—heavy P
334 Assembly—light P P P P P P
P P P 623312 Assisted living facility P P P P
� 4533 Auction house P P P P
4533 Auction yard(excluding livestock) P P
1152 Auction yard,livestock P
3361 Automobile assembly plant P
922 Automobile impound yard P P
441 Automobile/light truck sales and service P P P P
19-1 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
w
Conditions
Appendix 19-A x " °o R y R R � -� �
H � ° � : 'c : : a � >
7 `p � s a � a � a O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � Q 'a t7 OI E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R '� y � O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
� 4853 Automobile/taxi rental P P g P P P P P
� 811121 Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle painting, S S P P P Enclosed structure only.
repair,body and fender works SVMC 19.60.050(B)(3).
4413 Automotive parts,accessories and tires P P P P P P
I �� o�i,,..,,..,.,���,.�,. ��a.,,.���.�,,,. R R
� 445291 Bakery,retail P P g S S P P P A A Floor area limited to 10%
of Gross Leasable Floor
Area(GLFA)not to
exceed 1,000 sf.
� 52211 Bank,savings/loan and other financial P P R P P P P P P P
institutions
� 8121 Barber/beauty shop P P g PA P P P P P
I � o��z���.,,.,.h���i,��„�� ��a�,.���.�„� R R
P P P P P P 721191 Bed and breakfast P P P
11291 Beekeeping,commercial P
S S S 11291 Beekeeping,hobby SVMC 19.40.150(C)
� 4511 Bicycle sales/service P P g P P P P P P P
336611 Boat building,repair and maintenance P P
� 441222 Boat sales/service P P P P
� 4512 Book/stationery store P P R P P P P P
3121 Bottling plant P P
� 71395 Bowling alley P P g P P
� 722 Brewery,micro P P g P P P P P P P
� 3121 Brewery,winery and/or distillery P P R P P P P
I �38gg4 0.,.,....... „��r,,.���.�,,,. R R
� 4441 Building supply and home improvement P P P P
� 445292 Candy and confectionery P P g P P P P P P P
� 71399 Carnival,circus T T � T T T T
3219 Carpentershop P P P P
561740 Carpet and rug cleaning plants P P
19-2 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
w
Conditions
Appendix 19-A x " °o R y R R � -� �
H � ° � : 'c : : a � >
7 `p � s a � a � a O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � Q 'a t7 OI E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R '� y � O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
811192 Carwash P P S P P P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)
� 7132 Casino P P g P P
454113 Catalog and mail order houses P P P P P
� P P 72232 Catering services P P R P P P P
� P P P P 8122 Cemetery and^�^me.�:;� P
� 451112 Ceramics shop P P R P P P P
I � rho..,�,.�i.., .,��r�,.r,�.�.,,, g
� P P P P P P 813 Church,temple,mosque,synagogue and P P g P P P P P
parsonage
� 4481 Clothes,retail sales P P g P P P
49312 Cold storage/food locker P P
� 6113 College or university P P R P P P P
� 517 Communication service/sales P P R P P P P P
� �3¢� r,...,..,��..�,.�r�,...�o o.,r.., ..��r�,.r��.�.,,. R R R R
� S S S S S S 921—922 Community facilities S S � S S S S S S S S See zoning districts for
conditions.
� P P P 8134 Community hall,club,or lodge P P g P P P P P
P P P 6232 Community residential facility(6 or less
residents)
P P P 6232 Community residential facility(greater than 6
residents,no more than 25)
56173 Composting storage/processing,commercial P
� 54151 Computer services P P R P P P P P P P
2373—238 Contractor's yard P P
P P P 623 Convalescent home,nursing home P
44512 Convenience store P P A A P P P P P
I �g r,.�..,or;,.�„,�.., oii� ..��r�,.r,�r�.,,. R R
� Crematories P P P P
� P P P P P P 6233 Day care,adult P P g A P P P A A
19-3 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
w
Conditions
Appendix 19-A x " °o R y R R � -� �
H � ° � : 'c : : a � >
7 `p � s a � a � a O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � Q 'a t7 OI E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R '� y � O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
C C C C P P 624410 Day care,child(13 children or more) P P A A P A A
� P P P P P P 624410 Day care,child(12 children or fewer) P P g A A P P P A A
� 4521 DepartmenWariety store P P g P P
� 44Fr�� �^'r'�'.^�-^e'.^e'r^� R R R /�4 R R R R R
� 8123 Dry cleaners P P R A P P P P
812332 Dry cleaning,laundry,linen supply plant, P P
commercial
3211114 Dry kiln P
S S S 814 Dwelling,accessory apartments SVMC 19.40.100
814 Dwelling,caretaker's residence S S S SVMC 19.60.060(B)(1)
� P P 7213 Dwelling,congregate P P R P
P P P P 814 Dwelling,duplex P P
� P P P 814 Dwelling,multifamily P P R S S SVMC 19.60.020(B)
P P P P P P 814 Dwelling,single-family P P S S SVMC 19.60.020(B)
� P P P 814 Dwelling,townhouse P P g �
334—335 Electrical/electronic/computer component and P P P P P P P
system manufacturing/assembly
I � Cmorinln}h�nflc nfln niif�n}�irinn � �
� 713 EntertainmenUrecreation facilities,indoor P P R P P P P C
� 7139 EntertainmenUrecreation facilities,outdoor P P € P P P P
5323 Equipment rental shop P P P P P
8113 Equipment sales,repair,and maintenance P P P P P
� 7222 Espresso/latte retail service P P R P P P P P P P
� R R R R R R 92 Essential public facilities R R R R R R R Chapter 19.90 SVMC
� A A 71394 Exercise facility/gym/athletic club P P R A P,4 P P P A A
� �g� ��.,i,.��.,o.., ..��r�,.r��.�..,, g
493190 Explosive storage P P
P P P P P P 814 Family home,adult P P P P
P P P P P P 814 Family home,child P P P P
19-4 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
w
Conditions
Appendix 19-A x " °o R y R R � -� �
H � ° � : 'c : : a � >
7 `p � s a � a � a O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � Q 'a t7 OI E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R '� y � O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
441222 Farm machinery sales and repair P P P
112112 Feed lot P
311211 Feed/cereal/flour mill P P
I � �,..��i��,..,,, ��a,,.���.�,,,, g
� 81292 Film developing P P R A A P P P
� 44313 Film/camera sales/service P P R A A P P P
� 4531 Florist shop P P g A A P P P P
� �11 �
� 44521 Food sales,specialty/butcher shop/meat P P g S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(3)
markeUspecialty foods
484 Freight forwarding P P
447 Fueling station P P P A P P P P
81221 Funeral home P P P
I � r��...�r��.o.,, .,��r�,.r��.�.,,. R R
I �r r_�r..,o.,r.., ..��r�,.r,�.�.,,. R R
� 453 Gift shop P P R A A P P P A
S S S S S S 71391 Golf course P S P P Chapter 22.60 SVMC
C C C C C C 71391 Golf driving range/training center P C S P P Chapter 22.60 SVMC
49313 Grain elevator P P
44422 Greenhouse,nursery,garden center,retail P P P P P P
1114 Greenhouse,nursery,commercial S S P P SVMC 19.60.050(B)(3)
� 4451 Grocery store P P R S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(3)
� 44413 Hardware store P P R S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(3)
562211 Hazardous waste treatment and storage S S SVMC 21.40.060
4812 Heliport P P
4812 Helistop C C C C P
� 45112 Hobby shop P P g P PA P P P
� 442 Home furnishings,retail sale P P P P P
19-5 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
w
Conditions
Appendix 19-A x " °o R y R R � -� �
H � ° � : 'c : : a � >
7 `p � s a � a � a O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � Q 'a t7 OI E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R '� y � O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
6221 Hospital P P P P P
R R R R R R 622210 Hospital,psychiatric and substance abuse R R R R R R R R
� 622310 Hospital,specialty P P g P P P A A
� 7211 Hotel/motel P P R P P P P
312113 Ice plant P P
32591 Ink manufacturing P
� 45322 Jewelry,clock,musical instrument assembly, P P g A P P P P P
sales/service
81291 Kennel,indoor kennel,doggie day care facility S S S S P P See zoning districts for
conditions.
54138 Laboratories(Bio Safety Level 2) P P P
54138 Laboratories(Bio Safety Level 3) P P P
54138 Laboratories(Bio Safety Level 4) P P
� 62151 Laboratories,medical and diagnostic P P R P P P
� 44419 Landscape materials sales P P P P P
A A A 812310 Laundromat P P A P P P P
� 4453 Liquor store P P g A A P P
� 561622 Locksmith P P g A A P P P
3211 Lumbermill,sawmill,shingle mill,plywood mill P
33271 Machine shop P P P
I �� nn.,,.�,�,,,.i,,,.,,.h�„�,,, ���+,�:�e.m-�,,.,,.���.�„� � �
236115 Manufactured home fabrication P P
S S S S S 814 Manufactured home park SVMC 19.40.130
45393 Manufactured home sales P P P
� Manufacturinp
� 336411 Aircraft manufacturinp P
� 33522 Appliances manufacturinp P P
� 32412 Asphalt planUmanufacturinp P
� 31181 Bakerv products manufacturinp P P
19-6 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
w
Conditions
Appendix 19-A x " °o R y R R � -� �
H � ° � : 'c : : a � >
7 `p � s a � a � a O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � Q 'a t7 OI E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R '� y � O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
� 33591 Batterv rebuildinp/manufacturinp P P
� 339994 Broom manufacturinp P P
� 325 Chemical manufacturinp P
� 3342 Communications epuipment manufacturina P P P P
� 339 Cosmetic and miscellaneous manufacturinp P P
� 322226 Emerv cloth and sandpaper manufacturinp P P
� 32592 Explosive manufacturinp P
� 3253 Fertilizer manufacturinp P
� 311 Food product manufacturinp/storape P
� 337 Furniture manufacturinp P P
� 315 Garment manufacturinp P P
� 333 Machine/machinerv manufacturinp P P
� 327 Manufacturinp,nonmetallic metal products P P
� Mineral product manufacturinp.nonmetallic P
� 32411 Petroleum and coal products manufacturinp P
� 32511 Plastic and rubber products manufacturinp P
� 314991 Rope manufacturinp P P
� 325212 Rubber reclamation.manufacturinp/fabrication P
� 33995 Siqn manufacturinq/repair P P
� 31411 Textile manufacturinp P P
� 321 Wood product manufacturinp P P
I �� nn.,,,��r.,,.���.�,,,. .,ii�,.,,, .,i..,.,��� � �
� 453998 Market,outdoor P� P� �P P� P� �P P�
� 621498 Massage therapy P P g P P P P P
3116— Meatffish canning,cutting,curing and smoking P P
3117
3391 Medical and laboratory instrumenVapparatus P P P
manufacturing
19-7 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
w
Conditions
Appendix 19-A x " °o R y R R � -� �
H � ° � : 'c : : a � >
7 `p � s a � a � a O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � Q 'a t7 OI E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R '� y � O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
42345 Medical,dental,and hospital equipment P P P P
supply/sales
� 6214 Medical/dental clinic P P R P P P P P
� 621 Medical/dental office P P g P P P P P
332 Metal fabrication P P
332 Metal plating P
332 Metal processes,hot P
Inn�.,o.�i.,.,.,���,.r.,, .,��r�,.r,�.�.,,, or�ii�,. �
212 Mining P
� 722330 Mobile food vendors S S S S S S S S S S S SVMC 19.60.010(H)
T T T T T T 236115 Model home units
� 71211 Museum P P R P P P P
� 45114 Music store P P R A A P P P
� A A 561 Office P P g P P P P P P P
� 45321 Office and computer supplies P P g A p P P P P
999 Off-road recreational vehicle use P P
1113 Orchard,tree farming,commercial P P
32211 Paper/pulp mills P
� 4859 Park-and-ride facility P P g P P P P P
522298 Pawnshop P P P P
� 812 Personal service P P g P P P P P
� 45391 Petshop P P R A P P P
� 44611 Pharmacv P P A P P P P P
I �� o,.�.,.i,.��,,,.,,,,�,. .,i,.,.,���,.�,.,,, ��r.,,.���.�,,,. ¢
� 54192 Photographic studio P P g PA AP P P P
� �2�11 R
326199 Plastic injection molding,thermoset P
326199 Plastic injection molding,thermoplastic P P P P P P
19-8 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
w
Conditions
Appendix 19-A x " °o R y R R � -� �
H � ° � : 'c : : a � >
7 `p � s a � a � a O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � Q 'a t7 OI E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R '� y � O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
326199 Plastic injection solvent molding P
� 491 Post office,postal center P P g P P P P P P P
221 Power plant(excluding public utility facilities) P
� 56143 Printshop P P R A P P P P P P
323 Printing,reprographics,bookbinding services, P P
commercial
� 48849 Public pay parking garage/lot P P R P P P
� S S S S S S 221 Public utility distribution facility S S g P P P P P P P P See zoning districts for
conditions.
� S S S S S S 237 Public utility transmission facility S S S S S S S S S S S See zoning districts for
conditions.
71399 Racecourse P P P P
711212 Racetrack P P
� 5151 RadiolTV broadcasting studio P P P P P P
4821 Railroad yard,repair shop and roundhouse P
7212 Recreational vehicle park/campground C S SVMC 19.60.060
� 44121 Recreational vehicle sales and service P P P
56292 Recycling facility S S S P P
P P P P P P 51511 Repeater facility P P P P P P
7222 Restaurant,drive-in P P P P P P
7222 Restaurant,drive-through P P A C P P P P
� 722 Restaurant,full service P P R A P P P P P P
� 452—453 Retail sales P P g A P P P A A Limited to items
manufactured on the
premises.
71399 Riding stable C P P
33122 Rolling mill P
� �1-4�.41 � R R
I �'� Diihhorronl�m�}��n niif�n}�irinnlf�hrin�}��n g
� P P P P P P 6111 Schools,public and private,K through 12 P P R P P P
19-9 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
w
Conditions
Appendix 19-A x " °o R y R R � -� �
H � ° � : 'c : : a � >
7 `p � s a � a � a O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � Q 'a t7 OI E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R '� y � O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
� P 6114 Schools,professional,vocational and trade P P g P P P P P P
schools
Showroom P P P P P P
� 4533 Secondhand store,consignment sales P P € P P P S SVMC 19.70.010(B)(9)
I �398� vi;�:., ��r�,,,^�4��;{ R R
33995 Sign painting shop P P P P P
32561 Soap and cleaning compound manufacturing P
56292 Solid waste recycling/transfer site S S S SVMC 19.60.060(B)
� 6116 Specialized training/learning schools or P P R P P S P P Adaptive reuse of
studios existing structures only.
No expansion allowed.
P P 49319 Storage,self-service facility P P P P P P
493 Storage,general—outdoors S S S S P See zoning districts for
conditions.
� Tank storage,LPG above ground S S S S S S S S SVMC 21.40.060
213112 Tank storage,critical material above ground S S SVMC 21.40.060
213112 Tank storage,critical material below ground S S S S SVMC 21.40.060
3161 Tanning,curing of hides and skins P
� 7224 Tavern P P g P P P
� Taxidermy P P P
� S S S S S S 5172 Telecommunication wireless antenna array S S S C S S S S S Chapter 22.120 SVMC
� C C C C C C 5172 Telecommunication wireless support tower S S S C S S S S S Chapter 22.120 SVMC
I �� To�r�io.., ..��r�,.r��r�..,. � R
� 711 Theater,indoor P P R P P P
711 Theater,outdoor P P P P
56292 Tire,recap and retread manufacturing P
� S S S S S S 5179 Tower,ham operator S S S C S S S S SVMC 19.40.110(A)
221119 Tower,wind turbine support C S S S S S SVMC 19.40.110(B)
� 4851 Transit center P P R P P P P P
19-10 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
Schedule of Permitted Uses -� -� Reference
w
Conditions
Appendix 19-A x " °o R y R R � -� �
H � ° � : 'c : : a � >
7 `p � s a � a � a O t R
� v u � w w t E E E o E y a rn y
N U N L � Q 'a t7 OI E E E OI E � R J 2
� N M � �y �y Q x 4 O G . R '� y � O C N C R L � N
� � � � � � � z � U= C9 O z U � a u _
C 7213 Transitional housing
441222 Truck sales,rental,repair and maintenance P P
445—447 Truck stop P P
81142 Upholstery shop P P P P P
49311 Warehousing A S P A P P Adaptive reuse of
existing structures.No
expansion allowed.
� � R R
56292 Wrecking,recycling,junk and salvage yards C S SVMC 19.60.060(B)
P Permitted Use A Accessory Only
R Regional Siting T Temporary Permit
S Conditions Apply C Conditional Use Permit
19-11 <revdate>(Revised 3/12)
�����. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Plannin Commission
g
Administrative Re ort
p
June 28th, 2012
�'T`A-Q 1�12
P'rop►osed �m�ndment to th�
Spokane Valley Municipal Code
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Cha ter 19 . 12 0
p
Permitted & Accessory Uses
• Corridor Mixed Use & Garden Office zones
�����. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Zonin Ma
�r�
����- . _ . �»�
_ _ __ _.d.-
:-�,..l,— r ' �
' + ` �.a s�J��,4 � — s�
. ;�` _- ���_ �
___t .�p� W_� � __ _ �..
�r� � :
r ,.. . , �
r , -- —
� _
'.-• � ��'�-— ��".. '� � ,. f.
_ ` I _ - j �� " " �'��'�~��"• _T,� .__
� � a � � y '�� �
�.�. .,� •� �, .__ ' �j;�a �'�r t� ' ���� �`:
,� - : ---
�� � '_ i'� ��� � _ -__
.� _ •-- — °. -
„ � ,�t
_�_ fi� � '--��- `"�
., q�q � R, �r '
'.�'�`'�i "" � _. -
� y�r�» �� �N � 1-� I �. .. � ` I- ._.. _ L��
_ �r _; __ . � _ --
f ' . __ ,. __�;� '� , . __ �_�;
� � �� � �
` � i , .
�
� _ , � .. 4 µ
T?fh" � a' ' =1 � 'a a
T14�' �
�` .�� i
� � E
i
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Corridor Mixed Use
k ,, I" �, �
��9 �� �'ll�.l _
� '�� "' �I' �' { �.
�: �. � � ri / I
� �� �
_ S� ��c �,,�',� � � _ t
_ � �� � � r ��� `'
:�. ,
_ � � �.
.� � ...
�� �
'
� ce� �.f,i�a 1k' . �,i i '�L?;_s..lr�'•+'�&
� �, � � li� ,��� ��i VI YS]�.�'� �fi.�.
Yet: ��{�l �
��-''�'p��l1 —=�`
� —�
i ��,
�v ls
+ ' � ��-`.�'T
'I'
- :�,.,�-� ; i —�---T_
-
��.,,�� ' ��!�'—
,_ .:;,.:.
� a . .����'i��-"� i
. -�
� .
� - _ �� r �'Ne�lly ' ��Reilly �
� ..
. .. .
� :,, - _ �.. ,.
� . _ - - _
o:.
s�
¢ . �� �I��
� � �. ����
= ' ' S :� ,_ � i� �
�� p�, '`9r�� � � ''� � �
� � . I
. �
� ..0 �p __l�u, -w �.. . . �� ... ' . . - . _— ��'
.��it�"iw. —
�����. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Zonin Ma
�r�
����- . . : �»�
:�,.. - r ;`�_ � -__ _ _.d--
' + ` !t �.a s�J��,4 1 _ _p�w���.�— s�
. ;�� _- ��� �
___t .�p� W_� � __ _ �..
�r� � :
r ,.. � , �
r , "s°-- —
� _
,.''� � � 'j�-- ��._... ,�_ `� .Y fe
_ ! , _ . '�'�- _. , r ����� _ _ � .
�; � � �V i ' ��vO _ �' ,.; �_ r.� .__ . ..
a.ui� .,i � � ■ � +� �� ��_ .,,,i
, .
:� � � �
y. .
V
.
u .
�� �� _ �r � �� ,���,� . �_.
' fi� � •-- ` _
_
■= ,� � w.. ��.�._.._ r� �9��°;«< .
, r+. �
� }y��� ��; �„��'� _ - _ �, :i+ .� _. � .
�rf°� ; : ' _ � ` �
� _ , ��' ��; � �__� i . *'�. � ` - I Y �J '�
�.r � � .
; ' __ , _ .� '� , . __ �_�;
� �r �� ��`�
� � ; - �
�
�, _ , `� . 4 µ
T?fh" � a' ' =1 � 'a a
T14�' �
�` .�� i
� � E
i
������.. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Garden Office
�=� � ���.
_ ���- �-- �.�
_ . . .
-f- ; � F IT1 ..
- _ � . .a. — . � ' ,.� -
-- _..�` �v .�V ' -
i£1
� _ _ , _._—
-- �. :� � • -
�'� ���r . �'" �' ,_� l�i � '
-- --�., _.�. ,, -- _—_ �i
�
_
-,. c,�y �_.�_. .
.� � ;:�' � y :: �
.� ��:;y.:� � �....:.r..-.�
�._ . . , -. _�...
�`fya:�,r, . " . --
�.
..- } `,.` � ���t����f - - -
� � ,1':3�i'�' -
, --^ .__ �� . — ,� �,
MERCHANi
►'; - _ ' . �� [ ���^�-i � � 't'`'��� ; �w'--
r n '- °� � ; � _ f ''� 1., �,�� -I's��"'u,�'��r'�'
_ __ � ` � �' �;' �� � I � � � �� � �� �� ��
� � _
,� F�� .�, ` +;y; ' �� -A
___ _ ur, . °� �w J`:; � �'-�--'
; - s� �'�� � _ — _
_ _�� - - _ � _�
�����. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Cha ter 19 . 12 0
p
Permitted & Accessory Uses
• Corridor Mixed Use & Garden Office zones
• Housekeeping items
• Miscellaneous updates
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
Ex lanation of Codes
p
• P Permitted Use
• R Regional Siting
• S Conditions Apply
• A Accessory Only
• T Temporary Permit
• C Conditional Use
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
x � � � � � _ -� �
Schedule of Permitted Us�es � � � o � �' � � � a = � ��rence condnians
cn Appendix 99y4 � � � � � � � � � o � � d �
� a� m
r N C�'7 � L.L L.L d x G7 O Vi . �L � GS 8 8 O GY 8 4q a r N
�2 �2 'L � V C.7 � C7 � Z C.1 C.1 C.7 CC C.1 a VS _
711 Adutt erRertainmerit establishmerit S S Chapter 19.84 SVMC
453 AduR retail use establishmer�t S 5 Chapter 19.80 SVMC
311 Agricuttural processing plarrt, warehouse P P
�� n�v...ari.,,a.,��sa.�+��.�.,�, R
481219 Airstrip,private P P
62191 Ambulance ser�ice P P R P P P P P
54194 Animal clinicJveterinary P S P P P SVMC 19.60.040[B)(1)
311613 Animal processing facility P
S S S S S S 112 Animal raising andlor keeping S S Excluding NAICS 1122,
Swine.SVMC 19.40.150.
81291 Animal sheRer P P
31161 Animal slaughtering and processing P
45392 ArRique store P P R P P P
448 Apparel�tailor shop P P R P P P P P
443111 Appliance saleslservice P P R P P A A Only if manufactured!
assembled on premises.
� R R
45392 Art gallerylstudio P P R P P P P P
-� n�..,r.ew.,ie.-hr.,.e.,��fe..���. R
333 Assembly—hea�y P
334 Assembly—light P P P P P P
P P P 623312 Assisted living facility P P P P I
4533 Auction house P P P P
4533 Auction yard(excluding li�estock] P P
1152 Auction yard,livestock P
3361 Automobile assembly plarR P
922 Automobile impound yard P P
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
x � � � � � _ -� �
Schedule of Permitted Us�es � � � o � �' � � � a = � ��rence condnians
cn Appendix 99,A � � � a+ m � � � � o � � a+ m m
� r.i r� � � r� � x � �� m � '-' � E E E 'm E � m T x
CC CC CC CC �2 �2 'L � V C.7 � C7 � 'L C.1 C.1 C.7 CC C.1 a i17 _ N
441 �AutomobileAight truck sales and service P P P P
4853 Automobilehaxi rerrtal P P R P P P P P
811121 AutomobilehruckJRVlmotorcycle pairrting, 5 5 P P P Enclosed structure only.
repair,body and fender works SVMC 19.60.050(B](3).
4493 Automotive parts,accessories and tires P P P P P P
�n� R R
445291 Bakery,retail P P R S S P P P A A Floor area limded to 10% I
of Gross Leasable Floor
Rrea(GLFA]not to
exceed 1,000 sf.
52219 Bank,savingsAoan and other financial P P R P P P P P P P
instdutions
8121 Barberaheauty shop P P R P# P P P P P
o ae„e..,�e�„ e e R R
P P P P P P 721191 Bed and breakfast P P P
11291 Baekeaping, commarcial P
5 5 5 11291 Beekeeping, hobby SVMC 19.40.150(C]
4511 Bicycle salesJservice P P R P P P P P P P
336611 Boat building, repair and mairrtenance P P
441 222 Boat saleslser�+ice P P P P
459 2 Booklstationery store P P R P P P P P
3121 Battling plarrt P P
71395 Bowling alley P P R P P
722 Bravwary,micro P P R P P P P P P P
31 21 Brewery,winery andlor distillery P P R P P P P
�5894 ° ° R R
4441 Building supply and homa impro�amant P P P P
445292 Candy and confectionery P P R P P P P P P P
71399 Carni�al, circus T T � T T T T
3219 Carperrter shop P P P P
561740 Carpet and rug cleaning plarits P P
811192 Carvwash P P S P P P P SVMC 19.60.040(B]
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
x � o � � � � � �
Schedule of Permitted Us�es � � � � '� �''� '� °i __
�' `o �, 3 � �a �, � Reference Canditions
cn Append'Ix '19,A � � ,-°a_ m m L � � � o � � � m m
r r� r, � r r� cy x � � ar � t' a� � � � 'a� � � � T x
LL L.L � GS O V� . �L 6S O O d 6S O 1Q Q {y
�C �C �C �C � � x � � c> > ca � x � � � �C � a cn s s
79 32 Casino P P R P P
454113 Catalog and mail order houses P P P P P
P P 72232 Catering services P P R P P P P
P P P P 89 22 Cemetery and s�a�eKies P
451112 Ceramics shop P P R P P P P
-� ca r�.e..,:..ei e e R
P P P P P P 81 3 Church,temple, mosque, synagogue and P P R P P P P P
parsonage
4481 Clothes, retail sales P P R P P P
49392 Cold storagelfood locker P P
6113 College or universdy P P R P P P P
517 Communication servicelsales P P R P P P P P
�34� ° ° ° ° R R R R
5 S S S 5 5 921—922 Commundy facildies 5 5 � 5 S 5 5 S S S S See aoning districts for
conditions.
P P P 8134 Commundy hall, club, or lodge P P R P P P P P
P P P 6232 Commundy resideritial facildy(6 or less
residerrts)
P P P 6232 Community resideritial facility(greatar than 6
residerrts,no more than 25)
56173 Composting storagelprocessing, commercial P
54151 Computar sarvicas P P R P P P P P P P
2373—238 Corrtractor's yard P P
P P P 623 Convalescerrt home, nursing home P
44512 Convanianca stora P P A A P P P P P
�3& R R
Crematories P P P P
P P P P P P 6233 �ay care,adutt P P R A P P P A A
C C C C P P 624410 �ay care,child(1 3 children or more] P P A A P A A
P P P P P P 624490 �ay care,child[12 children or fewer) P P R A A P P P A A
4521 �epartmerrtivariety store P P R P P
nn�nn 9rag-siera R R R A R R R R R
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
x � � � � � _ � �
Schedule of Permitted Us�es � � � o � ��' � � � a � ��rence condnians
cn Appendix '19,A � � -°a m m z � � � o � � � � m
� r� r� � r r� � x � �� m � " � E E E "a5 E � � T x
c[ c[ c[ c[ � � a � � cs � ' c7 � i � � � � � atn _ `~'
8123 Dry cleaners P P R A P P P P
81 2332 Dry cleaning, laundry, linen supply plarrt, P P
commercial
3211114 Dry kiln P
S S S 814 Dvwelling,accessoryapartmerits SVMC 99.40.100
894 D�welling,caretaker's residence 5 5 S SVMC 19.60.060(B)(1)
P P 7213 Dwelling,congregffie P P R P
P P P P 814 Dwelling,duplex P P
P P P 814 D�+elling,muttifamily P P R S 5 SVMC 19.60.020(B)
P P P P P P 814 Dwelling,single-family P P S 5 SVMC 19.60.020(B)
P P P 894 D�welling,townhouse P P R R
334-335 ElectricallelectronicJcomputer componerrt and P P P P P P P I
system manufacturinglassembly
�2�-2�Fi G...e�.. ,.i,-h�e...��e...�..e..e� ..,e.,..re._+..�:.... R R
713 Errtertainmenthecreation facildies, indoor P P R P P P P C
7139 Errtertainmenthecreation facildies, outdoor P P R P P P P
5323 Equipmerit rerrtal shop P P P P P
8113 Equipmarit salas,rapair,and mairitenanca P P P P P
7222 EspressoAatte retail service P P R P P P P P P P
R R R R R R 92 Esserrtial public facilities R R R R R R R Chapter 19.90 SVMC
A A 71394 Exercise facildyJgymlathletic club P P R A P# P P P A A
� G....�,.�:.,e ...e e R
493190 Explosive storage P P
P P P P P P 814 Family homa, aduR P P P P
P P P P P P 814 Family home, child P P P P
449 222 Farm machinery sales and repair P P P
112112 Feed lot P
311211 FeedlcerealJflour mill P P
�s re.+;i„e. ...e e R
81292 Film developing P P R A A P P P
44313 Filmlcamera saleslservice P P R A A P P P
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
x � � � � � _ -� �
Schedule of Permitted Us�es � � � o � �' � � � a = � ��rence condnians
cn Appendix 99,A � � � a+ m � � � � o � � a+ m m
� r.i r� � � r� � x � �� m � '-' � E E E 'm E � m T x
L.L L.L d G7 O Vi . �L GS 8 8 O GY 8 4q a N
[L"_ [L" [L" [L" � � 2 � {._7 L._7 � L.7 � 2 {._} {._} L._7 [L" {._} a i15 - -
4531 Florist shop P P R A A P P P P
3�4 R
44521 Food sales,speciaRyR�utcher shophneat P P R 5 P P SVMC 19.60.040(BJ(3]
marketJspeciaRy foods
484 Freight forwarding P P
447 Fueling station P P P A P P P P
81221 Funeral home P P P
�3� ° ° ° R R
-� r_e..,,e.,+ e e R R
453 Gift shop P P R A A P P P A
S S S S S S 79391 Golf course P 5 P P Chapter 22.60 SVMC
C C C C C C 71391 Golf driving rangehraining cerrter P C 5 P P Chapter 22.60 SVMC
49313 Grain elevator P P
44422 Greanhouse, nursary,gardan carrter,retail P P P P P P
1114 Greenhouse, nursery,commercial 5 S P P SVMC 99.60.050(B)(3]
4451 Grocerystore P P R 5 P P SVMC 99.60.040(B)(3]
44413 Hardwarestore P P R 5 P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(3]
562211 Haaardous wastatreatmarit and storaga 5 S SVMC 21.44.060
4812 Heliport P P
4812 Helistop C C C C P
45112 Hobby shop P P R P P# P P P
442 Home furnishings, retail sale P P P P P
6221 Hospital P P P P P
R R R R R R 622210 Hospdal, psychiatric and substance abuse R R R R R R R R
622310 Hospdal, speciatty P P R P P P A A
7211 Hotallmotal P P R P P P P
31 2113 Ice plarrt P P
32591 Ink manufacturing P
45322 Jewelry,clock,musical instrumerrt assembly, P P R A P P P P P
saleslservice
81291 F(ennel, indoor kennel, doggie day care facildy 5 5 5 S P P See aoning districts for
conddions.
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
x � � � � � _ -� �
Schedule of Permitted Us�es � � � o � �' � � � a = � ��rence condnians
cn Appendix 99,A � � � a+ m � � � � o � � a+ m m
� r.i r� � � r� � x � �� m � '-' � E E E 'm E � m T x
CC CC CC CC �2 �2 'L � V C.7 � C7 � 'L C.1 C.1 C.7 CC C.1 a i17 _ N
54138 La6oratories(Bio Safety Level 2] P P P
54138 Laborffiories(Bio Safety Level 3] P P P
54938 L&I50Y&tOY185(Bio Safety Level 4] P P
62151 Laboratories,medical and diagnostic P P R P P P
44419 Landscape materials sales P P P P P
I# I# I# 812314 Laundromat P P A P P P P
4453 Liquor store P P R A A P P
561622 Locksmith P P R A A P P P
3211 Lumbermill, sawmill,shingle mill, ply+woodmill P
33271 Machine shop P P P
� e e e e e e R R
236115 Manufactured home fabrication P P
S S S S S 814 Manufactured home park SVMC 18.44.134
45393 Manufactured home sales P P P
Manufacturinq
336411 Rircraft manufacturinq P
33522 Appliances manufacturinq P P
32412 RsphaR plarrtlmanufacturinq P
31181 Bakerv products manufacturinq P P
33591 Batterv re6uildinqJmanufacturinq P P
339994 Broom manufacturinq P P
325 Chemical manufacturinq P
3342 Communications equipmerrt manufacturinq P P P P
339 Cosmetic and miscellaneous manufacturinq P P
322226 Emerv cloth and sandpaper manufacturinq P P
32582 Explosive manufacturinp P
3253 Fertilizer manufacturinq P
311 Food product manufacturinpfstoraqa P
337 Furniture manufacturinq P P
315 Garmerit manufacturinq P P
333 Machinelmachinerv manufacturinq P P
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
x � � � � � _ -� �
Schedule of Permitted Us�es � � � o � �' � � � a = � ��rence condnians
cn Appendix 99,A � � � a+ m � � � � o � � a+ m m
� r.i r� � � r� � x � �� m � '-' � E E E 'm E � m T x
CC CC CC CC �2 �2 'L � V C.7 � C7 � 'L C.1 C.1 C.7 CC C.1 a i17 _ N
327 Manufacturinq. nonmetallic metal products P P
Mineral product manufacturinq, nonmetallic P
32411 Petroleum and coal products manufacturinq P
32511 Plastic and rubbar products manufacturinp P
314991 Rope manufacturinq P P
325212 Rubber reclamation. manufacturinqJfabrication P
33895 Sipn manufacturinqhepair P P
31411 Textile manufacturinq P P
321 Wood product manufacturinq P P
�� nne.,��.e e e R R
453888 Market, outdoor P� P� �P P� P� �P P�
629 498 Massage therapy P P R P P P P P
3116— MeatJfish canning, cutting, curing and smoking P P
3117
3391 Madical and laboratory instrumaritlapparatus P P P
manufacturing
42345 Medical, derrtal, and hospda]equipmerrt P P P P
supplylsales
629 4 MedicalJderital clinic P P R P P P P P
621 MedicalJderital office P P R P P P P P
332 Metal fabrication P P
332 Metal plating P
332 Metal processes,hot P
nn�.,e.vi e e e R
212 Mining P
722330 Mobile food vendors S S S 5 5 S 5 S 5 5 S SVMC 19.60.010(H]
T T T T T T 236115 Model home units
71211 Museum P P R P P P P
45114 Music store P P R A A P P P
A A 569 Office P P R P P P P P P P
45321 Office and computer supplies P P R Ik e P P P P
999 Off-road recreational vehicle use P P
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
x � � � � � _ -� �
Schedule of Permitted Us�es � � � o � �' � � � a = � ��rence condnians
cn Appendix 99,A � � � a+ m � � � � o � � a+ m m
� r.i r� � � r� � x � �� m � '-' � E E E 'm E � m T x
CC CC CC CC �2 �2 'L � V C.7 � C7 � 'L C.1 C.1 C.7 CC C.1 a i17 _ N
1113 Orchard,tree farming, commercial P P
32219 PaperJpulp mills P
4859 Park-and-ride facildy P P R P P P P P
522298 Pawnshop P P P P
812 Personal ser�ice P P R P P P P P
45391 Pet shop P P R A P P P
44611 Pharmac�+ P P A P P P P P
3�4�4 � � � � � R
54192 Photographic studio P P R PA AP P P P
�25�4 � � � � � R
3269 99 Plastic injection molding, thermoset P
326199 Plastic injection molding, thermoplastic P P P P P P
326199 Plastic injection solverrt molding P
481 Post offica,postal caritar P P R P P P P P P P
221 Power plarit (excluding pu6lic utildy facilities] P
56143 Prirrt shop P P R A P P P P P P
323 Pririting, reprographics,600k6inding services, P P
commercial
48849 Public pay parking garage�lot P P R P P P
S S S 5 5 5 221 Public utilFly+ distribution facildy 5 5 R P P P P P P P P See aoning districts for
conddions.
S S S 5 5 5 237 Public utility+transmission facility 5 5 S S 5 S 5 S 5 5 S See aoning districts for
conddions.
79399 Racecourse P P P P
711212 Racetrack P P
5151 RadioFTV broadcasting studio P P P P P P
4821 Railroad yard,repair shop and roundhouse P
7212 Recreational vehicle parklcampground C S SVMC 19.60.060
44121 Recreational vehicle sales and service P P P
56292 Recycling facility 5 5 S P P
P P P P P P 51511 Repeater facildy P P P P P P
7222 Restaurarit, drive-in P P P P P P
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
x � � � � � _ -� �
Schedule of Permitted Us�es � � � o � �' � � � a = � ��rence condnians
cn Appendix 99,A � � � a+ m � � � � o � � a+ m m
� r.i r� � � r� � x � �� m � '-' � E E E 'm E � m T x
CC CC CC CC �2 �2 'L � V C.7 � C7 � 'L C.1 C.1 C.7 CC C.1 a i17 _ N
7222 Restaurarrt, dri�+e-through P P A C P P P P
722 Rastaurarrt, full sar�ica P P R R P P P P P P
452-453 Retail sales P P R I# P P P A A Limded to dems
manufactured on the
premises.
79 399 Riding stable C P P
33122 Rolling mill P
�,-.�r a,...e...e e R R
�� o..hhe..e e e e e R
P P P P P P 6111 Schools,public and private, F5 through 12 P P R P P P
P 6114 Schools,professional,vocffiional and trade P P R P P P P P P
schools
Showroom P P P P P P
4533 Secondhand store,consignmerit sales P P R P P P 5 SVMC 19.70.010(BJ(9)
�399� ° ° ° ° R R
33885 Sign pairrting shop P P P P P
32561 Soap and cleaning compound manufacturing P
56292 Solid waste recyclingRransfer sde 5 5 S SVMC 19.60.060(B)
6116 Speciali�ed training�learning schools or P P R P P S P P Rdaptive reuse of
studios existing structures only.
No expansion allowed.
P P 49319 SYorage,self-service facildy P P P P P P
493 Storage,general-outdoors S S S S P See xoning districts for
conddions.
Tank storage,LPG a6ove ground S S S S S S S S SVMC 21.40.060
213112 Tank storage,crdical material above ground 5 S SVMC 21.40.060
21311 2 Tank storage,crdical material below ground 5 5 5 S SVMC 21.40.060
31 61 Tanning, curing of hides and skins P
7224 Tavern P P R P P P
Taxidermy P P P
5 5 5 5 5 5 5172 Telecommunication wireless aritenna array 5 5 S C S 5 5 5 S Chapter 22.120 SVMC
C C C C C C 5172 Telecommunication wireless support tower 5 5 S C S 5 5 5 S Chapter 22.120 SVMC
�,� ° ° ° ° R R
������. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
x � � � � � _ -� �
Schedule of Permitted Us�es � � � o � �' � � � a = � ��rence condnians
cn Appendix 99,A � � � a+ m � � � � o � � a+ m m
� r.i r� � � r� � x � �� m � '-' � E E E 'm E � m T x
CC CC CC CC �2 �2 'L � V C.7 � C7 � 'L C.1 C.1 C.7 CC C.1 a i17 _ N
. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..
711 Theater,indoor P P R P P P
711 Theater,outdoor P P P P
56292 Tire,recap and retread manufacturing P
S S S S 5 5 5179 Tower,ham operator S S S C 5 S 5 S SVMC 19.40.110(AJ
221119 Tower,windturbine support C S 5 S S S SVMC 19.40.110(B)
4851 Transit cer�ter P P R P P P P P
C 7213 Transitional housing
441222 Truck sales,rerrtal, repair and mairrtenance P P
445—447 Truck stop P P
81142 LJphalstery shop P P P P P
48311 Warehousing� A S P A P P Adaptive reuse of
existing structures.No
expansion allowed.
0 5nr.,.,.a.,.,.r��.-h.,,e ��fe.-h��. R R
56292 Wrecking, recycling,junk and salvage yards C S SVMC 19.64.464(B)
������.. " '` Department of Community Development "
Varle � '`��. , ! }.
� ,3'_.. Planning Division � , i�;
• �
uestlons .
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: June 28,2012
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent � old business ❑ new business ❑public
hearing ❑information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Planning Commission Rules of Procedure Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: On May 7, 2012, Stan McNutt facilitated a special Planning Commission meeting
which focused on Planning Commission procedures, appearance of fairness, conflict of interest, public
records and open public meetings. T his agenda item allows for follow-up discussion on the topics
presented,with specific attention to potential changes in the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure.
On June 14, 2012,legal staff presented proposed changes to the PC Rules of Procedure. The Planning
Commission suggested a few additional changes,which have been incorporated into the attached draft.
OPTIONS: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Move to adopt Rules of Procedures as presented.
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta,AICP, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure—Draft Changes
1of1
City of Spokane Valley
Planning Commission �'��'c n� ,�u n��r,T T,��Rules of Procedure
Adonted bv PlanninQ Commission 02-19-05
Updated bv Resolution 10-004,02-09-2010
Updated bv Resolution 11-010,11-29-2011
Undated bv Resolution 12-???, ?-?-2012
We, the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Spokane Valley, State of Washington,
pursuant to the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 1810, do hereby adopt and �
submit to City�Council for a�roval the following Rules of Procedure:
ORGANIZATION AND RULES OF PROCEDURE
1. Name
A. The "City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission,"hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"
is an advisory body created by the City Council for purposes consistent with SVMC 1810.
2. Location
A. The Commission offices shall be the City Hall of the City of Spokane Valley.
3. Officers
Unless otherwise required by a vacancy in office, the Commission shall organize every year in
accordance with SVMC 1810.
A. Of�cers of the Commission shall be elected from its membership; the of�cers shall be Chair,
Vice Chair, and other appropriate officers that the Commission may choose to approve and
appoint by maj ority vote.
B. Planning Commission members must have served at least one full calendar year to be eligible to
be elected as an Officer.
� C�.The Chair shall preside over the Commission and exercise all powers incidental to the office,
retaining however, the full right as a member of the Commission to propose motions, second
motions and have a vote recorded on all matters of the Commission.
� D�. The Vice-Chair shall, in the absence of the Chair from any meeting, perform all the
duties incumbent upon the Chair, and retain the full right as a member of the Commission in the
same manner as the Chair.
4. Secretary of the Commission
A. The Director of the Department of Community Development or his/her designee shall serve as the
Secretary to the Commission.
B. The Secretary shall provide for a recording of all Commission meetings, including public
hearings and shall ensure that summary minutes of all public hearings and meetin�s are prepared,
approved, and filed in the public record.
C. The Secretary will conduct and record a roll call of the Commission members at each meeting,
public hearing and study session.
5. Election of Officers
I Updated and Approved by Council�7-�7-2012� Page 1 of 8
A. Officers shall be elected at the first regular meeting in January of each year, by majority vote of
the membership of the Commission. Terms of office shall run from the first January meeting
until December 31 or until a successor has been elected. No Commission member shall serve
more than two full consecutive terms as Chair of the Commission. No member shall serve as
Vice-Chair for more than two full consecutive terms.
In the event that the Commission has no sitting Chair at the first regular meeting in January, the
Vice-Chair will preside over the Commission until officers are elected. If at the first regular
meeting in January,both the Chair and Vice-Chair are no longer Planning Commission members,
the Planning Commission Secretary will preside over the meeting until Officers are elected.
B. A vacancy in any office will be filled by a special election, to be held at a convenient time with a
majority present. In the event that the office of Chair is vacated, the vice-chair shall serve in that
capacity until the required special election is held. Any member of the Commission who has
served for at least one full calendar year,is eligible to fill the vacancy. However, no member can
hold two office positions.
6. Quorum
� A. A quorum shall consist of four or more members of the Commission and no action can be taken
in the absence of a quorum except to adjourn the meeting to a subsequent date. A quorum must
Ibe present for����'�'��'�°����� ��a �*��a� �all meetin�s.
7. Voting
A. The affirmative vote of a majority of those present sha11 be necessary for the adoption of any
motion or other general matter.
B. For the conduct of business dealing with matters which require adoption or changes to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the election of officers, at least four a�rmative votes must be cast.
Each member of the Commission is entitled to one vote but no proxy shall be allowed.
C. No member may participate or vote on a matter unless the member has been in attendance at all
public hearings regarding such matter or has listened to the taped recording of the public hearing
and reviewed the written record of the matter in question.
8. Meetings
A. There shall be at least one regular meeting each month with additional meetings scheduled as
necessary. Regular meetings shall be scheduled on the 2nd and 4"' Thursdays of the month,
commencing at 6:00 p.m. and ending not later than 9:00 p.m. Meeting ending time can be
extended by a majority vote of the Commission. Meetings may be used for general planning
matters, study sessions or public hearings as described below.
1. Meetin�s on General Plannin� Matters. General planning matters to be reviewed by the
Commission will typically be preceded by a study session of the Commission to discuss the
issues with Community Development Department staf£ Generally, no testimony from the
public shall be taken at a study session.
2. Public Hearin� Meeting. A public hearing is a meeting wherein general business and public
hearing items, such as the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations are discussed
and decided.
3. Scheduled meetings may be canceled or convened at other times if deemed necessary by the
Chair or,in the absence of the Chair,by the Vice-Chair. Notice of cancellation shall be given
personally to Commission Members and to the public by posting a notice at Commission
offices.
I Updated and Approved by Council�7-�37-2012� Page 2 of 8
4. The recommended order of business for meetings is:
a. Call to order by Chair.
b. Pledge of Allegiance.
c. Roll call by recording secretary.
d. Approval of Agenda.
e. Approval or amendment of minutes.
f. Public Comment.
g. Commission Member�Reports.
h. Administrative Report.
i. Commission Business.
i. Unfinished Business
ii. New Business
j. For the Good of the Order. .,
k. Adjournment.
B. Planning Commission meetings shall be held in accordance with the requirements of the Open
Public Meetings Act, RCW Chapter 4230.
C. Special meetings and study sessions may be called:
� 1. By the request of the Chair, or, in the Chair's absence,by the Vice-Chair.
2. By the written request to the Chair, or, in the Chair's absence, to the Vice-Chair, of three or
more members of the Commission.
3. By agreed motion of the Commission.
9. Conduct of Hearings
A. Actions for a Planning Commission Public Hearing.
Prior to the start of the public hearing, the Chair may require that all persons wishing to be heard
� �sign in with the Secretary, giving their names and addresses, the agenda item, and whether
they wish to speak as proponent, opponent, or otherwise. Any person who fails to sign in shall
not be permitted to speak until all those who signed in have done so. At any public hearing,
� persons who have signed in and wish to be heard shall be given an opportunity to be heard..- The
Chair, subject to concurrence by the majority of the Commission, may establish time limits and
otherwise control presentations. The Chair may change the order of speakers so that testimony is
heard in the most logical groupings, (i.e., proponents, opponents, adjacent owners, vested
interests, etc.)
B. The Chair introduces the agenda item, opens the public hearing, and announces the following
Rules of Order:
1. All comments by proponents, opponents, or the public shall be made from the speaker's
rostrum, and any individual making comments shall first give his/her name and address. This
is required because an official recorded transcript of the public hearing is being made.
2. It is not necessary to be a proponent or opponent in order to speak.
If you consider yourself neither a proponent nor opponent,please speak during the proponent
portion and identify yourself as neither a proponent nor an opponent.
3. No comments shall be made from any other location, and anyone making "out of order"
comments shall be subject to removal from the meeting.
I Updated and Approved by Council�7-�7-2012� Page 3 of 8
4. Demonstrations, applause or other audience participation during or at the conclusion of
anyone's presentation are prohibited. It is distracting to the Commission and persons
testifying.
5. These rules are intended to promote an orderly system of holding a public hearing; and to
give persons an opportunity to be heard �ra +� ° ° *'��* ��a�� �a���'� � �+ °m'��,.,.���°a '��,
,.�t�,,:,.,. ,.t�� ,.��;.,,,, ,. ,.t�
o.,,,,.,..,..� . �,,,,
'------�----a ------ --a--- ------ -r-----•
C. When the Commission conducts a hearing to which the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies,
the Chair(or in the case of a potential violation by that individual, the Vice Chair) will ask if any
Commission member knows of any reason which would require such member to excuse
themselves pursuant to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. The form of the announcement is as
follows:
All Commission members should now give consideration as to whether they have:
1. A demonstrated bias or prejudice for or against any party to the proceedings;
2. A direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding;
3. A prejudgment of the issue prior to hearing the facts on the record, or
� 4. Had ex parte contact with any individual, excluding administrative staff, with regard to an
issue prior to the hearing. Please refer to Section 15(B) for more specific information on how
to proceed where there has been an ex parte communication.
If any Commission member should answer in the affirmative, then the Commission members
should state the reason for his/her answer so that the Chair may inquire of administration as
to whether a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine exists.
CONDUCTING THE PUBLIC HEARING
a. The Chair announces the matter and opens the public hearing stating the date and time.
b. The Chair allows staff to describe the matter under consideration and place matters in the
public record.
c. The Chair inquires as to whether Commissioners have any questions of staf£ If any
Commission member has questions, the appropriate individual will be recalled.
d. The Chair allows proponents, opponents and the public to offer testimony and evidence
on the pending matter. The Chair may allow Commission members to ask questions of
any person at the conclusion of their testimony.
� e. At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Chair asks staff if there is=any additional
information, testimony or evidence to submit for the record.
£ The Chair either closes or continues the public hearing. Additional testimony may not be
requested or considered after the closing of the public hearing, unless the Chair declares
the record open until a date certain for the purpose of receiving written testimony or
materials.
g. The Chair inquires if there is a motion by any Commission member. If a motion is made,
it shall be in the form of an affirmative motion. Affirmative motion are preferred to
prevent "approval by default" of a failed negative motion. Following the motion and its
second, discussion occurs among Commission members.
h. The Chair inquires if there is any further discussion by the Commission members.
i. The Chair inquires if there are any final comments or recommendations from staff.
I Updated and Approved by Council�7-�37-2012� Page 4 of 8
j. The Chair inquires of the Commission members if they are ready for the question.
k. The Chair calls for the vote on the motion
l. The Chair may direct staff to prepare findings for approval.
D. Pre-�ling of testimony or evidence is encouraged and may be delivered to the Department of
Community Development in advance of a hearing.
10. Agenda, Staff Reports and Minutes for Regular Meetings.
A. Typically, a copy of the agenda for every regular meeting of the Planning Commission shall be
sent to each member up to seven (7) days prior to the date of the meeting.
B. If available, staff reports will be sent to Planning Commission members with the agenda. Agendas
and staff reports will be made available to applicants and the public at the same time.
ll. Minutes and Communications with the City Council.
A Minutes of all meetings shall be kept and the complete �les of proceedings and actions taken in
connection therewith shall be considered the public record and filed with the City Clerk.
The Secretary shall provide the Commission members with a set of minutes of the previous
meeting. These minutes shall be considered for approval by the Commission at a regularly
scheduled public meeting and upon approval shall become part of the official record of action of
the Commission. Approved �L4minutes shall also be transmitted �� ��•.,.°����a°��° to the C�
Clerk for City Council���-� �' �������+���.
B The assigned City Council Liaison may attend meetings for the purposes of communications with
the Council as set forth in the "CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY GOVERNANCE
Ir�nnn r�r�r n-rTn�.r MANUAL."
12. Recording of Meetings
� Whenever possible, g�roceedings of all public hearings, meetings, study sessions and any special
meetings shall be recorded and retained.
13. Statement of Ethics / Code of Conduct
A. Statement of Ethics.
It is hereb,��nized and established that hi�h moral and ethical standards of City Planning
Commissioners are vital and essential to provide unbiased, open and honest conduct within all
phases and levels of�overnment that rules of ethics are helpful in �uidin� Commission members
to eliminate or �revent actual or �erceived conflicts of interest in �ublic office, and to im�rove
and elevate standards of�ublic service so as to�romote and stren�then the confidence, faith and
trust of the people of the Ci .t�pokane Valley in their local�overnment.
B. Interests in Contracts Prohibited; Exce�tions.
No Commission member shall be beneficiallv interested, directiv or indirectlY, in any contract
which may be made by, throu�h, or under the supervision or direction of an�pokane Valley
City employee, in whole or in substantial part, or which mav be made for the benefit of his or her
office, or acce�t, directiv or indirectlY, an,��ensation, r� atuity or reward in connection with
such contract from any�erson beneficially interested therein. The fore�oin� shall not a�lv to
the exceptions specified in RCW 4223.030 which are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
C. Conflicts of Interest
1. A Conflict of Interest includes:
I Updated and Approved by Council�7-�37-2012� Page 5 of 8
i. En�a�in� in a transaction or activity which impairs, or would to a reasonable person
appear to im�air, the member's inde�endence of jud�ment or action in the �erformance
of their official duties�
ii. A Commission member havin� a financial or other private or personal interest in any
matter upon which the member is required to act in the dischar�e of his or her official
duties;
iii. A "Professional Conflict of Interest" includes any real or perceived conflict of interest
caused by circumstances such as a Commission member's emplo, m�past or present.
Where the member's em�lo, e��rofessional activi, is onl,�� e� ntially related to a
matter before the Commission, recusal need not occur if the member can reasonably
conclude that the connection is, or was remote and inconsequential.
If a member is required to refrain from deliberation or�artici�ation bv his/her em�lo,�
because of a real or�erceived conflict of interest, then the member should be allowed to
recuse or withdraw from that deliberation.
2. Conflict of Interest Procedure: Every member who has a conflict of interest shall publicly
disclose the conflict at the next Plannin� Commission meetin� after the member discovers the
conflict. The nature and extent of such conflict of interest shall be fully disclosed, and a
summary of the same shall be incorporated into the official minutes of the Commission
proceedin�
If a member feels that thev cannot be unbiased because of anv conflict of interest, the
member shall recuse themselves from further proceedin�s on the issue. Such member shall
make a public statement disclosin� the reasons why the member feels disqualified, and state
the,��are recusin� themselves from the issue. The disqualified member will then leave
the Council Chambers until such time as the issue at hand has been disposed of in the re�ular
course of business. If there are other matters on the a�enda, then the disqualified member
must return to the Council Chambers to �artici�ate in the other matters as soon as the
Commission ends discussion of matter in which the disqualified member has a conflict of
interest.
D. Other Prohibited Acts. Members of the Commission are prohibited from:
1. Acting in a manner; which would result in neglect of duty, misfeasance or malfeasance in
office.
2. Acting in a manner that intentionally disrupts Commission meetings.
� 3. Missing three or more consecutive regularly scheduled meetings or study sessions, or missing
six meetings in a 12 month period (whether consecutive or not) without such absences being
excused by the Commission.
The Commission reco�nizes that consistent and re�ular attendance of ineetin�s bv all
members is inte�ral to fulfillin� the �ur�ose of the Plannin� Commission. All members
should attend all meetin�s and keep absences to an absolute minimum.
If a member is absent, then at the be i� nnin� of the Plannin� Commission meetin�, the Chair
shall inform the Commission of the member's absence, state the reason for such absence, and
inquire if there is anv obj ection to excusin�the member. If there is an obj ection,the Presidin�
Officer shall call for a motion to excuse the member. If the motion is seconded, a vote shall
be had, and the outcome of the vote shall determine whether the member shall be considered
excused. If there is no obj ection, or a motion to excuse the member is not seconded after an
obj ection was made,then the member shall be deemed excused.
I Updated and Approved by Council�7-�37-2012� Page 6 of 8
If the Chair finds that the Commission has inadequate information to determine whether the
absent member should be excused, and the�erson is not�resent, then the Chair should defer
any determination of whether to excuse the member pendin r� eceipt of more information.
A member's absence is excused if thev have recused themselves from a matter that is bein�
discussed durin�the meetin�, and the recusal is due to an actual or perceived conflict of �
interest.
4. Using his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself, herself, or
others.
5. Directiv or indirectly receivin�, acce�tin�, takin�, seekin�, or solicitin� an, hin� of economic
value re�ardless of the amount, as a �ift, r� atuit�%, or favor. '
> > � � ��
�
, �
6. En�a�in� in or acceptin�private emplovment or render services for an�person or en�a�e in
any business or professional activity when such emplovment, service or activi , is
incom�atible with the �ro�er and faithful dischar�e of his/her of�cial duties as a member, or
when it would require or induce the member to disclose confidential information acc�uired bX
reason of such official position.nc�e-}���e���n�e-��e� e��g�����sr,r-�
r�
��
7. Disclosing confidential information gained by reason of his or her membership on the
Planning Commission or using such information for his or her personal gain or benefit.
� 8. En�a�in�in any meetin�that violates the O�en Public Meetin�s (OPMA). OPMA strictly
forbids any meetin� of a quorum of the Commission durin�which any city business is
discussed. The OPMA�rovides that Commissioners ma,�a)meet informally in less than a
quorum and discuss City business, and (bl meet in a quorum if City business is not discussed.
but Commissioners are encoura�ed to be mindful that such meetin�s risk creatin�an
appearance of violation of the OPMA when such meetin�s can be avoided.
I
If a meetin� occurs that is, or would to a reasonable person a�pear to constitute a violation of
the OPMA, the Commissioners involved in the activity should publicly disclose the nature of
such activity at the next Commission meetin�. If�ossible, the Commissioner may consult the
City Attorney for advice on whether the meetin�violates the OPMA.
�n �,.�t�c,.� ,.r r��,...,.��
. ,
, ,
,.oa i,. i.,.� ,.v�.,;� �„ri, �.,,.�;,.;,..,�;�,. „ „�;�,. „r �i.o ri..,��o,.
, •
14�. Appearance of Fairness
A. The Commission shall adhere to the applicable requirements of the appearance of fairness
doctrine, RCW Chapter 4236.
B. During the pendency of any quasi judicial proceeding,no Commission member may engage in ex
parte communications with proponents or opponents about a proposal involved in the pending
proceeding,unless the Commission member:
I Updated and Approved by Council�7-�37-2012� Page 7 of 8
1. places on the record the substance of such oral or written communications; and
2. provided that a public announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties'
right to rebut the substance of the communication shall be made at each hearing where action
is taken or considered on the subject. This does not prohibit correspondence between a
citizen and Commission members if the correspondence is made part of the record, when it
pertains to the subject matter of a quasi judicial proceeding. (RCW 42.36.060)
I15b. Review of These Rules of Procedure
The Planning Commission shall review these rules of procedure on the first anniversary of their
adoption and the odd numbered years thereafter. Any amendments identified by the Planning
Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council for review and ratification.
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT:
That the undersigned Secretary of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission does hereby certify that
upon review and majority vote the above and forgoing rules have been duly adopted by the members of
said Commission.
'�
BY:
Secretary of the Commission
Date: ��
I Updated and Approved by Council�7-�37-2012� Page 8 of 8
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
July 7, 2011
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
IIL ROLL CALL
Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Hall, Mann, Neill and Stoy were present.
Commissioner Sands was absent. Commissioner Mann made a motion to excuse
Commissioner Sands from the July 7, 2011 meeting which was seconded and
unanimously approved.
Staff in attendance: Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Mike Basinger, Senior Planner;
Mary May, Engineering Technician; Dean Grafos, Councilmember; Deanna Griffith,
Administrative Assistant
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Mann made a motion to approve the July 7, 2011 agenda as presented.
This motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
VL PUBLIC COMMENT •�
There was no public comment. 1
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Mann stated he attended a Built Green workshop at the Spokane Home
Builders Association.
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manger Kuhta stated that staff had briefed the City Council regarding the sign
and the landscaping sections of the municipal code. Mr. Kuhta also stated that the
Goals and Policies of the Shoreline Master Plan were ready for a review by the City
Council and would be coming to the Planning Commission soon.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business.
B. New Business: Public Hearing for the Chapter 11, Bike and Pedestrian Master
Program.
07-07-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9
Senior Planner Mike Basinger made a presentation to the Planning Commission
regarding the adding of an additional chapter to the Comprehensive Plan with
regards to the proposed Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. Mr. Basinger
explained the information contained in the program and how the plan could benefit
the City and the City's future.
Commissioners asked questions about the program, the grant which funded the
process to write the program, the EECBG (the Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Block Grant). Engineering Technician Mary May explained the City applied for and
received $824,000 with projects that would demonstrate energy conservation the
bike plan was one part of the grant. Commissioner Neill had a question regarding
timelines, and if the way they were written would mandate the City to have to
commit to having the projects done at a committed time, some seem to have quite a
bit of expense behind them. Staff also mentioned that many of the projects listed
were performed by our partners, for instance the safety projects are done by the
SCOPE office and the Health District. There were also questions about how
projects are funded, and chosen projects are chosen, some must be on the
Transportation Improvement Program, which is updated every year. Another
question was if this Bike and Pedestrian Plan is approved by the Commission and
Council, and added to the Comprehensive Plan, does that make us better suited to
be able to awarded grants, and the answer was, yes it would.
After this discussion Chair Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:41 p.m. and read
the rules of the public hearing.
Richard Harmon, 17610 E Mission: Mr Harmon stated he was concerned about
the finishing of Mission Ave between Barker and Indiana. Mr. Harmon stated that
the neighborhood would like to see a shared use path and would like for the City to
discuss with the neighbors how the road and path will be finished.
Kim Brewer, 7918 E Heroy: Ms. Brewer stated that Argonne is listed in a City
survey as one of the most dangerous streets for bikes. Ms. Brewer stated she had
been in a collision with another cyclist on a blind corner of the trail on Argonne and
believes places like that should be monitored more closely. Ms. Brewer stated she
hopes the City will cooperate on issues like this with the Counry.
Helene Dewy, 717 S Bartholomew: Ms. Dewey stated she works for the Spokane
County Regional Health District. Ms. Dewey said she had been working with the
planners on the Safe Routes to School program and she had brought a letter of
support from the Chief inedical Officer Mr. Joel McCullough, which Ms. Dewey
read into the record. Ms. Dewey also shared that the Health District had also
received its own grant to focus on bike and pedestrian safety and work is currently
going on throughout the County.
Richard Bryant, 12025 E. 31gt Ave. Mr. Bryant stated he was keeping in touch
with Mr. Basinger over the plan, he was also involved with trying to bring light rail
to the valley. Mr. Bryant stated he felt that several elements would be very
beneficial to the City. Mr. Bryant shared some bicycle experience from a trip
Germany. Mr. Bryant stated he had been speaking to Rails to Trails and they would
like to bring trails here. Mr. Bryant said he believed the plan was very workable.
07-07-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9
Wyatt Larson, 3126 W. Riverside but work at the Mountain Gear warehouse:
Mr. Larson stated he had been following the plan personally, as well as a business
entity which supports bicycling and bicycle commuting. Mr. Larson stated that
implementation of the plan would allow a greater amount of people to be able to
commute to work by bike. Mr. Larson said the grid work, the north, south and east,
west routes have been researched and bike boulevards would be an inexpensive way
to get started. Mr. Larson said he was a proponent of the plan because it would help
his employees be able to get to commute to work easier and possibly promote more
four season riders.
Dick Denney, 1516 S Virginia: Mr. Denney stated he would like to support the
plan. Mr. Denney said he felt staff had done a thorough job in the outreach to the
community. He shared he had participated in several personally. Mr. Denney
stated the Valley had a serious connectivity problem. He was an active recreation
rider. This plan would allow the council to have long term planning and allow this
communiry become adaptable to be more bike and pedestrian friendly for both
recreation and commuting.
Sheila Gates-Ping, 116 N Clinton Rd: Ms. Gates-Ping stated she was supportive
of the plan. She was pleased to see new development include new bike
improvements. Ms. Ping shared she, her husband and several of their cycling
friends had attended the workshops held by staf£ Ms. Ping said she worked
downtown and would like to be able to commute if the facilities were safer, more
direct to places. She shared that raised roads would be safer for cyclists.
Commissioners asked if she rode her bike to work currently, and she answered that
no, because there is not safe direct route. Sprague is the most direct route, less
mileage, however it is not safe to ride on. Going down Evergreen to the Trail is not
convenient in time wise to get to town and to work.
Scott Polurs, 4802 N Farr Rd: Mr. Polurs stated he was a 40 year commuter from
the Valley to town and he knew the roads of the Valley. He shared that he was not
a rider that worried too much about traffic. However, he did have a complaint
which was bicycles are invisible to traffic signals. Mr. Polurs said it causes a
cyclist to make choices which could be unsafe or reflect badly on the biking
community and he felt they already get enough blame for road issues.
Commissioners asked how many months a year Mr. Polurs road a year, based on
the weather, could be as many as 11 months. Commissioners also asked him if he
had a suggestion regarding traffic signals, of which he did not really.
Commissioners asked him what his suggestions for which roads needed
improvement. Mr. Polurs explained he did not have specific roads however his
biggest issue would be north/south access. Then questioned him if he knew how
many year round commuters, like him there were and if the improvements were
made to the road how many more did he feel there would be. He said he road at
4:00 am and he might see S-6 riders and maybe you would get a few more, but
those would be from downtown to the valley, there would and could be many more
that are just trying to get to the store, or somewhere closer to home.
Karl Otterstrom: 1811 E 34th Ave/: Mr. Otterstrom shared he was the planning
director for the Spokane Transit Authoriry (STA). Mr. Otterstrom stated he
07-07-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9
appreciated the opportunity to participate in the plan and to offer STA's support for
the plan. He supports the capital projects, safety measures and the basic principals
if the plan itsel£ Mr. Otterstrom stated he not only a avid bus rider but a devoted
pedestrian as well, He walked, many places, even in this city and based on walking
behavior people walk more when there are more things to walk to, more places to
walk Transit also extends the reach of the pedestrian. Transit supports the
pedestrian as the other way around. Research says that people who live within a
quarter mile of the transit lines, while they might not be able to reach beyond their
own area without other methods of transportation however when they have access
to transit they now have a much larger reach of resources at their fingers. Mr.
Otterstrom stated he appreciated the collaboration and support of staff and
supported the Plan. Commissioners asked Mr. Otterstrom with the increase of
bikers and bike commuters was there any thought of increasing the number of racks
on the front of the bus? Mr. Otterstrom stated they had been considering it, had
posted a survey on the STA website, and one of the things that came up was would
ride more if there were extra racks however, they did find that they were not turning
away that many riders because the racks were full. Commissioners inquired if he
had looked into how the bike routes line up with the transit routes, he explained he
had not but that several of the riders had said they don't like riding on the busy
streets which is what transit routes usually are.
Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin,: Ms. Pollard stated she was representing the
North Greenacres Neighborhood. Ms. Pollard started with a thanks to Mr. Basinger
and Ms, May for the hard work dedicated to putting the plan together. Ms Pollard
stated that the meeting held for their neighborhood was informative and the staff
listened to the neighborhood concerns. Ms. Pollard stated that the consultant at the
open house told her he thought that bike lanes on Mission could be considered too
dangerous. Ms. Pollard stated she expected to see Mission designated as a shared
use path on the map but still was showing bike lanes. She was requesting the map
be amended to change Mission back to the shared use path designation. Ms Pollard
shared with Mission being designated a regional transportation route, something
must be done to protect the children from having to bike in the streets. She reflected
that consultant had told her the map would reflect this designation and she was
disappointed to see it was not in place. Ms. Pollard expressed that she understood
the constraints of right-of-way however she was disturbed to discover that Public
Works had changed the designation back to just bike lanes. Ms Pollard made the
suggestion of another color on the map that would allow flexibility for more than
one option on a road such as cycle tracks or shared use paths. The neighbors want a
path like the Centennial Trail has. Ms Pollard stated that although the Barker
Center is not currently being used for anything more than a kindergarten at the
moment, historically it has served as more and feels that the neighborhood should
not be left off the Safe Routes to School and the long range planning. Ms. Pollard
stated the neighborhood supported the bike blvd on Long Ave. Ms. Pollard shared
after a question from Commissioners about sidewalks on `Barker that the neighbors
are unhappy with the City for the way they have placed the bike lanes on Barker
Road, feeling they are unsafe.
07-07-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9
Mark Mimms, 15127 E. 26th Ave: Mr. Mimms stated he was an avid cyclist, and
leads a group ride every Wed. night. He and his companions are all supporters of
the plan. Mr. Mimms said this is Bike and Pedestrian plan and there were plenty of
suggested improvements for both in the plan. Mr. Mimms explained he does not
have a problem getting out on the streets and the Valley does have nice streets for
riding as opposed to the City of Spokane which has broken up streets. Mr. Mimms
stated he felt the biggest issue for cyclists was the road culture. He explained we
are a car society, and bikes are not appreciated. Mr. Mimms shared that most of the
recreational cyclists he knows will not ride on the roads alone. He felt the safest
thing is more riders so that drivers know the bikes belong there. He stated the plan
priorities based on feedback received from the community.
Frank Ping, 116 N Clinton Rd: Mr. Ping stated he was a proponent of the plan.
Mr. Ping explained he felt strongly about many of the thoughts shared so far this
evening, and would not repeat them, but did want to share he participated in the
Wed. night group rides which at times can have up to 50 riders. He said he was
aware of another group that rode on Wed night which could be on average 30
people, and there are other days where there are other organized rides as well.
Katie Farris, 19103 N Coffman Rd.: Ms. Farris stated she was a teacher in the
Central Valley School District. She shared they have been running a bike safety
program for the last three years now in cooperation with the Health District and
recently working with SCOPE, as well as branching out to parent education. Ms.
Farris explained she felt it was important for the lcids to have bike safety so they can
ride to and from school more safely. Ms Farris shared her school also participated
in the mapping of the Safe Routes to School.
Eric Moose, 1404 N Locust: Mr. Moose stated he was a four season commuter,
who works for a Spokane Valley company. He shared he had participated in the
workshops and had submitted some suggestions for the plan and was pleased to see
they had been included in the plan. Mr. Moose said he would like to see a program
in which the installation of public bike racks (similar to those in the International
`District) could be streamlined so it would not take so long to get them.
Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Carroll closed the public
hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Commission took at break at 7:38 p.m. and returned at 7:55 p.m.
Commissioner Hall made a motion to adopt the findings in the staff report and
recommend approval of the amendment to modify the Comprehensive Plan and add
Chapter 11, Bike and Pedestrian Element.
Commissioner Neill stated he was concerned that the statements —under the
implementation under Sections 11.4.1, 11.4.2, 11.4.3, could be misconstrued as a
mandate. Saying we will get this implemented within one year. Mr Neill said he
would like to see the wording changed to reflect something more in line of"as City
resources allow" so that these things don't take priority over projects that could
come which would be deemed more important.
07-07-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9
Commissioner Hall asked if the funds came from another source than the City
would that give pause. Commissioner Neill stated he still felt that specific time
lines would create a mandate for the City to have to comply. Commissioner Carroll
asked staff for the reasoning behind placing the timelines in the plan. Mr. Basinger
stated he thought that to give the City goals not to hold it to any kind of mandate.
Commissioner Bates requested confirmation from staff the Bike and Ped Plan
needed to be in the Comprehensive Plan in order to move forward to apply for
grants. Mr. Basinger did confirm this fact. Mr. Bates said he was fine with that,
but that he was not in favor of just putting things in a Comprehensive Plan just
because we might need it in 20 year Transportation Improvement Plan worked just
fine, and that most businesses only worked off of a five year plan. Mr. Bates said
that a 20-year plan was a vision and he did not feel that everything in the well
written Bike Plan needed to be in the Comprehensive Plan. He did say he was
concerned the City would only be able to change it once a year. Mr. Bates also said
he felt it was an excellent plan, staff had put extra effort into it and the workshops
had been excellent. Although he did not feel the plan should be amended at the
moment, he also said he did not feel that implementation was addressed in the plan.
He also felt that motorists had not been addressed in the plan. Commissioner
Carroll asked Commissioner bates what his concerns were. He said there far too
many bike routes in the plan to accomplish in five or six years, there isn't any
funding as of yet he was aware of, and he was concerned about regulations the City
would be placing on businesses. He said he would rather see coordination with the
TIP and on short term projects.
Commissioner Mann shared he stated in was in support of the plan. However he
expressed his concern over the costs and although he was aware the document was
a vision, he felt the Commission would be remiss if they sent it forward to council
without some kind of costs estimates associated with it. Mr. Mann stated he felt
that although it was a vision, he was uncomfortable with "as resources allow"
because based on that resources would never allow. He is in favor of setting goals
with timelines. He expressed that if we did not make the timelines, it did not mean
we had failed but it gave something to work for. Commissioner Mann shared that
he also agreed with the neighbors in regard to Mission Ave. and once Mission is
through to Indiana the traffic count would increase and he felt there needed to be
something in order to keep people safer as they rode. He also said, how would this
get paid for, bikes don't pay gas tax, don't pay use taxes and so he was concerned
about how it would get paid for.
Commissioner Hall congratulated staff on and excellent document and on the
collaboration with the Health District. The school district work was very
remarkable and he said he wasn't sure this kind of thing had been done before, in
other places, this kind of plan, especially Safe Routes to SchooL It will take a long
time to implement this plan since it is a long term plan. Commissioner Hall stated
he felt this does need to be in the Comprehensive Plan, he has looked at the
prioritization list and agrees with the methodology behind it, as long as they
timelines don't hold the city to any mandates. Commissioner Hall stated he felt the
Ciry needed to begin to project being a forward thinking communiry.
07-07-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9
There was a discussion about cycle tracks and how it is a new concept so none have
been proposed in the city as of yet.
Commissioner Stoy questioned having to buy right-of-way to create a bike path in.
He was concerned over some of the costs. He said he felt it was a good plan.
Commissioner Stoy said he supported needed more direct paths.
Commissioner Carroll stated that plans which are based on more detail for long
range plans which get modified often to adapt work better than having a plan that
has little detail in them. He also said he was concerned however about availability
of funds for non-road projects. He shared he was concerned about north south
connectivity, the Mission Ave safety issues, and concerned over sidewalks on
Barker road near the school.
Commissioner Carroll asked what would be the best way in order for the
Commission to get answers to their questions. Mr. Basinger said he felt he could
answer all of the questions the Commissioners had brought up. He stated there had
been many north south routes added to the plan. He shared several examples.
Mr. Basinger shared some examples of how having the Bike and Pedestrian Plan as
a chapter in the Comprehensive Plan would help with funding opportunities if they
came up. He shared that the plan was nothing more than a plan and did not place
the City in any kind of financial position to have to commit money to any project it
did not have Sr. Planner Basinger stated that he had made sure there was nothing in
the plan which would encumber the City, it would only reflect City's vision. The
benchmarks listed in the plan are not binding, they only layout a guideline in the
options of accomplishing goals if desired.
Mr Basinger stated the funding sources are listed in the document and staff tried to
list as many funding sources as possible. Mr Basinger explained at this time no
one, especially the Federal Government, is going to give the Ciry funding for
anything other than multimodal transportation and safety.
Commissioner Carroll asked how much would the items cost. Commissioner Neill
expressed concern regarding some of the costs stated in the appendix regarding,
cycle tracks, for example, thinking them to be cost prohibited. Commissioner Neill
stated the costing is listed in the appendix. Commissioner Mann asked if we
implemented all of this, what would be the comprehensive estimate of the cost?
Mr. Basinger stated he thought staff could produce an estimate however, doing
everything on the list would be very expensive. Staff does not expect the City
would only be doing what we would be able to find funding for at any one time.
Engineering Technician Mary May spoke regarding table 11.4.5 looking at the
different elements and how they would relate to the TIP and how funding could be
secured as projects became available.
Commissioner Hall stated there is a difference between what something might cost
and what it is worth to the citizens of Spokane Valley. If the City applies and
receives a grant then there would be no cost to the citizens, out of pocket. If they
would want the project bad enough, then funding of another kind could be found,
but it might mean some out of pocket expenses. Mr. Hall said he was not sure if
07-07-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9
there was an answer to the question being asked. He share that this plan will be
implemented in any number of ways, there is nothing which states this is a mandate.
This is a starting point. Let's look 40-50 years into the future and see where we
would like things to be. He continued then starting there and moving backwards
what decisions does the Commission need to make today and tomorrow that will
make this work, or get in the way of making this work That is what vision is all
about. If the vision is there and you have a choice in the future on a development
and you could do it one way or another and one will work with the plan and the
other doesn't, let's do the one that will not get in the way of the vision. If there is no
plan in place, then there is no guide to make a decision with. Mr. Hall shared he
knew it would be expensive, but he was not hung up on it, as there were ways to
fund it and it would not all be done at one time, but without a plan, there would be
no funding. Mr. Basinger shared if we don't have a plan then we would lose out to
on those funding opportunities we might have had a chance with otherwise. Mr.
Basinger also said this would become a part of the TIl', which the Ciry Council
approves and it is a guidance document which will address the community's needs.
Commissioner Bates stated he understood this plan would be incorporated as part of
TIl'. Ciry Council would approve it and they would worry about the cost, work
closely with Public Works to incorporate more projects to do some things at the
same time, which would make more sense and save money.
Planning Manager Kuhta said the Comprehensive Plan also has an arterial street
plan but the City would n ever be able to build out all the streets at one time and it
guides the TIl'. The BPMP would be a companion piece to that. The true costs will
not come up until the City has actual projects. Commissioner Bates shared the TIP
does include some bike and sidewalk facilities. SR Planner Basinger explained how
the TIP is reviewed every year by Public Works. This plan will assist the City in
getting a piece of the federal dollars to which we all contribute to.
Commissioner Carroll stated there were still two issues unanswered, safety problem
along Mission and the time frame in which we address it. Sr. Traffic Engineer Inga
Note stated current status of the Mission Road project is that Public Works has the
funding for design of the roadway. Due to other projects design work has not
begun, however they expect to begin in the fall. Ms. Note stated staff expects to be
doing neighborhood meetings to discuss the amenities they would like to see. Ms
Note stated that although there have been discussions regarding a shared use path in
the area, they are not generally in locations with driveways or heavy traffic or cross
streets due to safety concerns.
Commissioner Carroll now asked about time lines listed in the plan. Mr. Basinger
stated staff wanted to list some type of benchmarks in the plan however the purpose
was to only have to goals to work towards. Commissioner Stoy asked what is the
deadline was for obtaining funding for these projects. Ms. May responded the
EECBG has a three year time frame, Nov. 2012 is when the grant funds have to be
used. The grant money is slated for the preparation of the plan itsel£ The timeline
for any of the projects listed in the plan do not have any due dates or time lines.
Mr. Kuhta shared there are no pending grants in which are waiting for the adoption
of this plan in order for us to apply for them.
07-07-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9
Commissioner Neill moved amend the original motion to change the verbiage "time
frame implementation" from one year to as resources allow. Commissioner Hall
stated he did not see a time frame in the plan that the amendment was replacing or
making better. Commissioner Hall stated he thought the concern was an unfunded
mandate, to which Commissioner Neill agreed. Mr. Hall said he did not see that
anywhere in the plan. Commissioner Bates shared that in some places it states `one
year.' Commissioner Neill shared that in nine places it states "Implementation:
one year". Mr. Neill said, some of the projects staff is already working on, however
he did not see why changing the wording would make any difference. Mr Neill
shared his concern is, if the plan states one year, then the projects concerned must
be done in one year, he said he just did not want it put in a way that would force
the Ciry to have to do something. Commissioner Bates if it says one year, does it
mean it has to be done? It still must be approved by the Ciry Council and funds
appropriated, is this not true. Mr. Basinger stated most of the ideas listed do not
require any funding, for instance, continue to require bicycle racks with new
development. Most things state, consider or continue, and so it states something we
are already doing. The vote on the amendment is 1 in favor, 5 against, motion fails.
Commissioner Carroll asked to have the original motion re-read. Ms. Griffith
restated the motion "to adopt the findings and staff report and recommend approval
to the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan text to include Chapter 11 the
Bike and Pedestrian Element." The vote the motion is 6 in favor and 0 against.
Motion passes.
GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order
X. ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
SUBMITTED: � APPROVED:
'� �
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson
07-07-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers —City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
March 22, 2012
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Commissioner Bates called the meeting to order at 6:OOp.m.
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
IIL ROLL CALL
Administrative Assistant Griffith read a letter from Commissioner Sands asking to be recused
from the Shoreline Master Program.
Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Hall, Higgins, Neill, and Stoy were present. Commissioner
Sands was absent
Council members attended: Councilmember Grafos, Councilmember Grassel
Staff attending the meeting: Community Development Director John Hohman, Planning
Manager Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Lori Barlow, Planning Technician Marty Palaniuk.
Administrative Assistant Deanna Griffith, Office Assistant Cari Hinshaw,
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Stoy moved to accept the March 22, 2012 agenda as presented. This motion was
approved unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the March 8, 2012 minutes as presented. This
motion was approved unanimously.
VL PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
There were no Commission reports.
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Community Development Director Hohman spoke about the new proposed City Economic
Development Committee. He said Council is forming a committee that consists of two
Council members, two business representatives and or business owners, two hotel
representatives, citizens at large, and youth members between the ages of 16-19. Mr. Hohman
was designated the primary City contact for this committee. Applications are due to the city
by April 13th. City Council will be evaluating the applications on Apri124tn
03-22-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
Mr. Kuhta reported that on March 22, 2012, Ms. Barlow will be going thru the goals and
policies and the Shoreline Advisory Group information. The next meeting, on April 12th' will
be a Public Hearing. Staff will go over the goals and policies and deliberations can continue
April 26th if needed. The entire Planning Commission meeting will be needed for the goals
and policies. Outside legal counsel will be here to answer questions from the Planning
Commission.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business:
Approval of the Findings, 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Sr. Planner
Basinger stated that the Planning Commission received a corrected copy of the findings.
Commissioner Carroll made a motion to approve the #9 and 9b minor changes in the
findings and approve the amended findings of the 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan
amendments. The motion was approved unanimously.
Commissioner Carroll asked why a statement that had been presented by Commissioner
Higgins was being included as part of the findings packet when no one on the Commission
had discussed it. Commissioner Carroll pointed out that there had been no vote or
consensus to include the memo as part of the findings. Commissioner Higgins asked if
Commissioner Carroll had an objection to the memo. Commissioner Carroll stated he had
not read it. Commissioner Carroll asked why Commissioner Higgins did not forward the
memo as a private citizen. Commissioner Carroll made a motion to exclude the memo
from the Planning Commission's findings packet. Planning Manager Kuhta advised the
Commissioners they had a couple of options for dealing with the memo:
1) Leave the memo to Commissioner Higgins to take to the Ciry Council as a private
citizen or
2) Bring the document back and have the Planning Commission review it and
determine if everyone feels the suggestions should be forwarded as a group. . .
Commissioner Carroll moved to exclude Commissioner Higgins memo from the Planning
Commission's findings. The vote is S in favor, 1 against with Commissioner Higgins
dissenting. Motion approved. Commissioner Higgins stated: he will take the memo to City
Council.
B. New Business:
Sr. Planner Lori Barlow gave an update of the Shoreline Master Program. The packet
included: The Shoreline Advisory Group's (SAG) Draft Goals and Policies;
• Public Comments on those SAG Draft Goals and Policies which were submitted by
Centennial Properties,
• Public comments by Centennial Properties on the SAG Draft Goals and Policies
submitted by Doug Pineo.
• A memo from the City's Shoreline attorney Tadas Kisielius from Van Ness Feldman
Gordon Derr which summaries Mr. Kisielius comments regarding the SAG draft Goals
and Policies and the public comment received so far. Ms. Barlow explained that Mr.
03-22-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
Kisielius would continue to update this matrix as the Draft Goals and Policies move
forward and staff receives additional comment.
Commissioners asked for information about Centennial Properties and it was explained that
they are a large land owner along the river.
Ms. Barlow explained there were 20 people on the Shoreline Advisory Group. The people
that have property were from Centennial Properties, two were home owners from the
Shelley Lake Home Owners Association and some were representatives of Central Pre-
Mix, as well as some other individuals. Ms. Barlow stated staff has an e-mail contact list
and places an ad in the Valley News Harold. The notice gets sent out as a media release and
it gets posted to the web site.
Ms. Barlow stated that the advisory group is an all volunteer group representing various
interest groups and that they met eight times.
Ms. Barlow explained the organizations include groups such as the Kayakers Club and that
Andy Dunau (representing River Forum) is working towards developing a water access
plan. Mr. Dunau was also a part of the Shoreline Advisory Group.
Ms. Barlow pointed out that there was a difference between the languages, such as: "you
should coordinate with agencies and jurisdictions". Ms. Barlow said that the property
owners and the Home Owners Association can participate in any stage of the process. The
whole update process allows for continuous public participation.
Questions from the Planning Commission:
• Commissioner Bates brought up Goal 13," Guaranteed" No Net Loss. Ms. Barlow
stated that Mr. Kisielius is recommending that throughout the document there are
different references to meet the requirement of No Net Loss. He recommends that
we revert back to the word "Ensure" No Net Loss and focus on what the policy is
conveying.
• Commissioner Carroll spoke about his strong feeling regarding 1.4 that it implies
there is an adversarial between the public's rights and the property owners. Ms.
Barlow stated it was their intention to recognize that private property rights should
be considered thru out the process, while recognizing that the law authorizes us to
regulate the Shoreline jurisdiction in a manner that protects the interest of the state.
Ultimately, that policy doesn't give more or any less protection for private property
rights.
• Commissioner Neill had a question on Goal 7. He wanted to know if the WAC
(Washington Administrative Code) or a RCW (Revised Code of Washington)
recognizes and protects the state wide interest over local interests. Also, if it
preserves the natural care of the Shoreline. Ms. Barlow stated that it was verbatim.
• Commissioner Neill wanted to know if there are any tribal historical sites. Ms.
Barlow stated that there are sites protected by the tribes.
• Economic Development. Commissioner Bates design incentives in Policy 5.13.
Ms. Barlow stated, it is something that will be flushed out in the regulations.
03-22-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
Recognition of creating and to encourage development to turn towards the water so
there is going to be usage to create an attractive environment.
• Critical Areas Element: Commissioner Neill asked if there are any areas they
consider wetlands. Ms. Barlow stated that are very few wetlands. Part of the
Sullivan Replacement below the bridge is a wetland.
• Public Access Element: Commissioner Carroll asked a question on 8.5. He wanted
to know if it applies to business. Ms. Barlow said no, the policy states only the
homes. Ms. Barlow stated that they are requiring that public access be required.
The Chair called for a ten-minute break which reconvened at 7:49 PM.
• Residential Subdivisions Commissioner Bates had a question on 12.5.
Nonconforming. Ms. Barlow said Mr. Kisielius will give detailed answers to
questions when he comes to the next meeting.
• Industrial Uses. Commissioner Carroll wanted to know why industrial uses are
called water dependent. Mr. Kuhta said the pits have been dug over time.
• Commissioner Carroll asked if in the inventory it identifies the pollution in the
river. Ms. Barlow stated she would find out and forward the information to
Commissioner Carroll. Ms. Barlow explained the state says to protect erosion from
happening and that she is going to do some research on public lots to see if it is
allowed to modify the shoreline without a use.
• Piers and Docks. Commissioner Stoy asked if boats are allowed on Shelly Lake.
Ms. Barlow explained that the Homeowners Associations doesn't allow motorized
crafts.
In coming to a conclusion Ms. Barlow explained that her hope was to help familiarize the
Planning Commission of the aspect of the goals and policies for the deliberation process.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Commissioner Bates moved to recuse Commissioner Sands. This motion was approved
unanimously.
XL ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Bill Bates, Chairperson
Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary
Date signed
03-22-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4
DRAFT
SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MINUTES
2:00 p.m., May 7, 2012
COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE: STAFF ATTENDANCE:
Bill Bates, Commission Chair John Hohman, Community Development Director
John Carroll, Commissioner Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Rustin Hall, Commissioner Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney
Rod Higgins, Commissioner Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager
Steven Neill, Commissioner Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer
Marcia Sands, Commissioner Cari Hinshaw, Office Assistant
Joy Stoy, Commission Vice Chair Mary Swank, Office Assistant
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Others in attendance:
Mayor Towey, Councilmembers Hafner, Grafos and Woodard.
Stan McNutt, Workshop Facilitator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L Commission Chair Bates called the meeting to order at approximately 2:00 p.m.
IL At the request of Chair Bates, Assistant Hinshaw called the roll; all Commissioners were present.
IIL Mr. Bates explained that the purpose of today's meeting is to review the Planning Commission's
Policies and Procedures, and he welcomed Mr. Stan McNutt as today's facilitator.
After Mr. McNutt provided a background of his work history and previous employment as a City
Manager, his capacity as a "Range Rider" with ICMA (International City Manager's Association),
his experience as a teacher and troubleshooter, and of his work with numerous cities and counties
since his 1998 retirement from city management,he explained that he was contacted by City Manager
Jackson to see if he could help the City clarify some appearance, performance, rules and procedure
issues associated with Commission Members in their roles as Planning Commissioners. Mr. McNutt
explained that having a good understanding and following the rules is basic to everything
Commissioners do; and mentioned that he previously met individually with each Commissioner and
that he appreciated those meetings.
Mr. McNutt distributed copies of his outline for this meeting, and as noted in those materials, said he
recommended that the Planning Commission include some basic de�nitions into the Rules of
Procedure, such as rules on procedure, guidelines, and appearance as it pertains to the Appearance of
Conflict laws. In response to Mr. McNutt's request for comment, Chair Bates said that there is
currently no training for people just coming in as a Planning Commissioner; that although they are
given manuals about the procedures, Open Public Meeting Act and the council's Governance Manual,
he feels there is likely no commissioner who fully understood all the materials; he said there was no
training other than what the Commissioner might do on their own, and said he feels that is not
adequate. Mr. McNutt suggested the Commission include in the Rules of Procedure, a statement of
guiding principles such as that adopted by Mill Creek, which he explained would address image,
accountability, how Commissioners communicate with citizens and staff; and to cover planning,
decision-making, teamwork, and personal development and said these are the types of resources
Planning Commissioners could use when dealing with the numerous gray areas of the rules and laws;
and he also suggested ended when Commissioners come across those gray areas and have questions,
to ask the City Attorney and staff for assistance.
Mr. McNutt recommended expansion of the "Code of Conduct" sections of Council Resolution ll-
O10 (Planning Commission Rules of Procedure), to include addressing absences from Planning
Commission Workshop,May 7,2012 Page 1 of 4
DRAFT
Commission meetings; and he suggested the Commission Chair announce that a member is absent,
give the reason for the absence, and ask if there are any objections to excusing the member, and if
not, then the member is deemed excused; and if there is an objection, the Chair would call for a
motion to excuse the motion, which motion is non-debatable, and he said the outcome of that vote
would determine whether the member is excused. There was discussion about a non-debatable
motion and if the Chair feels there is inadequate information to excuse the member, the matter and the
motion could be deferred until sufficient information is gathered. Mr. McNutt also discussed the
occasion when requests to be excused are based on professional conflicts of interest, such as when a
Commissioner's employer requires the Commissioner to recuse themselves from a certain topic due
to a professional conflict of interest. An additional section to consider adding to the rules of
procedures, Mr. McNutt explained, concerns appearance; and he explained that the Open Public
Meetings Act forbids any meeting of a quorum of the Commission if City business is to be discussed;
and said even when meeting informally in less than a quorum, Commissioners are encouraged to be
cognizant of any appearance of violation. Mr. McNutt further explained that should such an informal
activity occur that might lead a reasonable person to feel there is a possible violation of the Open
Public Meetings Act, the Commissioners involved should, at the next Commission meeting, disclose
the nature of such activity. Mr. McNutt said he realizes it is very difficult to meet together informally
and not discuss city business; but he reminded everyone that we serve the public, and to protect the
integrity of the Members and the City, we want to avoid even the appearance of being in violation of
the Act. City Attorney Driskell added that the main point is that it comes down to the integrity of
each Commissioner and each Councilmember to know the importance of following the Act, and to
actually follow the Act that it is staff's responsibility to teach the rules with the expectation that the
rules will be followed.
Mr. McNutt recommended adding a new rule to define conflict of interest as "engaging in a
transaction or activity which impairs, or would to a reasonable person appear to impair, the
Commissioner's independence of judgment or action in the performance of official duties;" and to
include language about having a financial or other private interest, as he noted in his handouts.
Finally, Mr. McNutt suggested including language to address a professional conflict of interest, such
as a commissioner's employment; and said he recommends adding that if a commissioner's employer
required them to refrain from participation in an issue, the Commissioner should be allowed to recuse
or withdraw from deliberation on that issue.
At appro�mately 4:10 p.m., the group took a quick break, and was reconvened at appro�mately 4:15
p.m.
Upon reconvening, Chair Bates explained that the areas discussed are some areas the Commission has
been having problems with; he said this group has worked hard and worked well together; he said
each person's input is critical and even if there is not a unanimous recommendation to Council, the
recommendations are still good. Chair Bates said they may have gotten off track a little in
ascertaining when to defer something; that in a previous joint meeting with Council, communication
was discussed; and he said he feels the Commissioner's didn't get good information on some of this
from city staff and the attorneys; that the Commissioners were "flying blind;" but they asked
questions and didn't get answers; and he agreed with the need for written guidelines. Commissioner
Neill added that he feels when dealing with the professional conflict of interest paragraph, that it
should include at some point that a person needs to think about stepping down as it affects the
Commissioners and the citiaens; and said not ha�ing attendance mentioned anywhere in this
document is ridiculous; adding that perhaps not in government, but in any j ob in the private sector, if
you don't show up, you're fired. Commissioner Hall said that attendance is included in the
document, although he said he wasn't sure exactly where it is, and he explained that when a
Commissioner misses three or four meetings in a row that is grounds for possible termination. Mr.
Hall said he disagrees with Mr. Neill's previous statement that if there is a true professional conflict
of interest, the person should think about stepping down; he said if there is a professional conflict of
interest,it will only be on one issue and not on every issue on every agenda; and agreed with the need
to have something in the rules to address professional conflict of interest. Mr. Neill said the issue is
Commission Workshop,May 7,2012 Page 2 of 4
DRAFT
not one meeting, but several meetings; he said he has never worked someplace where you can show
up 50% of the time and still get "kudos" for the job. Mr. McNutt stated that is in the past, and he
suggested focusing on the future; and said the best practice when dealing with a recusal or conflict of
interest, that once disclosed, that recusal or statement of conflict of interest is honored; and said in
many instances, it is the chair's responsibility to discuss with a member, whether they feel they can
continue due to a constant conflict of interest and if needed; the situation can be brought to the City
Council's attention as the council has the ability to take action.; or even prior to that,he explained,the
matter can be discussed with the City Attorney; and he reminded everyone that Commissioners would
not have taken the job if they didn't have in mind the best interests of the City. City Attorney
Driskell said that state law addresses some of these issues, that if a Commissioner misses six or more
meetings or study sessions in a twelve-month period without the absence being excused by the
Commission,is prohibited; and state law provides when someone is unable to participate in a specific
item due to conflict, that Council has the option and ability to appoint a special planning
commissioner for a short period, or for that one item.
Commissioner Sands said when she accepted the job with Spokane Valley, she informed staff she
would not be able to work on shoreline issues because of a conflict with her position; she said that
was over a year and a half ago and she has reiterated that statement several times, including in an e-
mail to the City; but said it wasn't until after the second to last meeting on shoreline deliberations that
this became an issue. Commissioner Higgins said that since the Department of Ecology deals with
private lands, he feels there would be a conflict of interest on all matters, since dealing with land
issues is what the Planning Commission does; and said he wasn't aware Ms. Sands worked as a
geologist for the Department of Ecology until after the vote, and said he feels no one else on the
Commission was aware of Ms. Sands' other job. Ms. Sands said she has been a geologist for twenty
years; and that concerning a conflict of interest on all matters, said the only reason she is recusing
herself from the shoreline master program is because that program is directly overseen by the
Department of Ecology; and that she doesn't see more of a conflict of interest then there would be
with Councilmembers deliberating over things that have direct influence over their properties; she
said we all live in this community and have a right to participate and an obligation to determine for
ourselves, if we can deliberate on any one issue in good conscience; and said she personally feels she
could deliberate on the shoreline issue without a problem, but it was her employer who asked her not
to so as not to have the Department of Ecology perceived as being in conflict of interest and she
added that as a geologist, this is the one item she would have really enjoyed discussing. Ms. Sands
said the e-mail in which she included her conflict of interest statement was previously read into the
record. Chair Bates confirmed that the e-mail was read into the record, and said his concern was that
in dealing with this conflict, no one knew the procedure; that they took a vote; but as Mr. McNutt
said, that is in the past, but had they known the procedure, they would not have had to take a vote.
Ms. Sands voiced her understanding with Mr. Bates' statement, and concurred about not having
definitive procedures for such cases; and suggested new commissioners need training upon being
appointed. The need and procedure for training was discussed, including just training new members,
or training the Commission as a whole during a Commissioner meeting.
Commissioner Hall said in reading Mr. McNutt's materials, it appears something is left out under
Section 13-3B, because as it reads now, the meeting now being conducted would not be allowed as
the verbiage states: "The Open Public Meetings (OPMA) strictly forbids any meeting of a quorum of
the Commission if city business is discussed." Mr. McNutt and Mr. Driskell agreed there is an
obvious omission of the words "without being publicly noticed." Mr. Hall said the notion of training
can only go so far and then it becomes a"crutch" as ethical behavior cannot be legislated; that one is
either ethical or they are not he said it would be impossible to include in any document everything
one could not do in relation to their job or appointed position; he said we cannot change the rules
mid-stream and in this case, "throw Marcia out." Mr. Hall said he feels if a member of the
Commission has a problem with him, that he would expect that to be addressed in an open public
meeting. Commissioner Carroll added that concerning Section 14-B2, that he carried a private
interest with him on every issue before the Planning Commission; and if the words "private interest"
Commission Workshop,May 7,2012 Page 3 of 4
DRAFT
remained, he would not be able to discuss anything; and said that each Commissioner was chosen
based somewhat on their private interest. Mr. McNutt cautioned establishing rules that go beyond the
law, as the rules would be so restrictive it would be easy to accidentally stumble; and once the rules
are adopted, it is expected those rules will be adhered to; adding that the City's insurance carrier that
handles liability, requires that officials function only within the scope of duties; and any proposed
new duties should be brought to the attention of the insurance carrier to make sure the individual
would still be covered. City Attorney Driskell reiterated that it comes down to the individual being
able to make an obj ective decision on any issue; and if not,then the procedure would be recusal.
Moving the discussion to e-mail, Mr. McNutt said while there is not a specific e-mail policy for
Councilmembers or commissioners, there is a City policy which might be helpful for commissioners
to read. Mr. McNutt recommended revising the rules for Planning Commissioners as well for other
city officers, and said serial meetings,which he explained, is getting information and then forwarding
that to others, and even one-way communications can in some cases, constitute a meeting if the e-
mail is about the business of the Planning Commission. Mr. McNutt further explained that the Act is
not limited to in-person gatherings and said even a conference call could be deemed a meeting; and he
recommended Commissioners refrain from e-mailing other Commissioners as much as possible. Mr.
McNutt suggested putting in a warning on each e-mail message to state that the message is sent to
provide information only and that the recipient is asked not to respond. Mr. McNutt said that using a
computer for the purpose of city business subjects that computer to the Open Public Meeting Act.
Commissioner Higgins stated that they were promised quite some time ago that they would not have
to use their personal computers, and said they are now in a situation which opened them up to having
e-mails scrutinized. Mr. McNutt said he is aware that this takes some time to resolve and it is his
understanding that the City Manager is working on that but emphasized that the public has a right to
be given public communications when it involves city business. Commissioner Sands mentioned that
even phone calls could be construed as a serial meeting under certain circumstances. Community
Development Director Hohman said that e-mails should be sent to Deanna and she can distribute the
e-mail as appropriate. Chair Bates said they also need written clarification in the procedures of who
their contact person is; and Mr. Hohman said traditionally, Deanna has been the secretary of the
Planning Commission and was, is, and continues to be the main point of contact for attendance or
other issues. To summarize, City Attorney Driskell recommended unless there is a need, not to
communicate among commissioners via e-mail.
Commissioners Sands suggested that if there is an occasion where commissioners must recuse
themselves from multiple meetings, a procedure needs to be in place so Council will know how to
address the issue. Chair Bates said he agrees this would be a Council decision, but the procedure
should be included in the Commission Rules and Procedures so everyone is aware of how to handle
those issues. Mr. McNutt suggested Commissioners also read the Council's Governance Manual.
Next steps were discussed including bringing back a draft revision of the procedures, or bringing this
back for further discussion; and Mr. Hohman suggested bringing this topic back to a future
Commission meeting. Chair Bates agreed. The Commissioners thanked Mr. McNutt for facilitating
the meeting.
There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Sands, and unanimously agreed to
adjourn. The meeting adj ourned at 5:19 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Bill Bates, Chair
Commission Workshop,May 7,2012 Page 4 of 4