Agenda 07/11/2013 sookane
Valle
Y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
July 11, 2013 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 13, 2013
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. OLD BUSINESS:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT: CTA-2013-0005, Outdoor Lighting Standards
2. STUDY SESSION: Shoreline Management Program Update
a. Cumulative Impact Report
b. No Net Loss Report
c. Buffer Zone Report
d. Shoreline Development Regulations
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR
KEVIN ANDERSON MARTY PALANIUK,PLANNER
CHRISTINA CARLSEN SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MANAGER
ROBERT MCCASLIN ERIK LAMB, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
STEVEN NEILL
JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR CARL HINSHAW,SECRETARY
MIKE PHILLIPS WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: July 11, 2013
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business
❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ® pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: CTA-2013-0005
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings and Recommendation — Amendment to the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A City-initiated text amendment proposing to amend Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.60 to streamline the outdoor lighting standards by eliminating the
watts per square foot lighting limit, eliminating redundant provisions, eliminating the requirement for a
photometric plan, adding a requirement for a lighting plan, removing reference to outdoor recreation
facility lighting and adding two additional exemptions.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: The Planning Commission conducted a study session June 13,2013
and a public hearing on June 27,2013 to consider the amendment. Following public testimony and
deliberations,the Planning Commission voted 6 -0 to approve the proposed code text amendment.
BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the following areas in the SVMC:
Eliminates redundant references to the Washington State Energy Code; Eliminates the watts per square
foot standard as a means to limit luminosity; Eliminates the height restrictions on light poles; Eliminates
the requirement for a photometric plan; Establishes the requirement for a lighting plan; Eliminates
reference to recreational facility lighting; and Establishes two new outdoor lighting exemptions.
Draft amendment language to SVMC 22.60 has been included in Attachment B of the Request for
Planning Commission Action(RPCA).
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Planning Commission Findings and
Recommendation to City Council.
STAFF CONTACT:
Martin J.Palaniuk,Planning Technician
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations
B. Planning Commission's Recommended Code Text Language
CTA-2013-0005 RPCA(Findings and Recommendation) Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
July 11,2013
The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval.
Background:
1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on
October 28,2007.
2. The City-initiated text amendment proposes to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
22.60 to streamline the outdoor lighting standards by eliminating the watts per square foot lighting
limit, eliminating redundant provisions, eliminating the requirement for a photometric plan, adding a
requirement for a lighting plan if deemed necessary by the building division, eliminating outdoor
recreation facility requirements, and adding two additional exemptions.
3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 13, 2013 and voted 6-0 to recommend
approval of the amendment to City Council.
Planning Commission Findings:
1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria
a. The proposed City-initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of
the Comprehensive Plan;
Finding(s):
i. Land Use Policy LUP-1.2 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential
uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land
use regulations and joint planning.
ii. Land Use Policy LUP-13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by
continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate.
iii. Housing Policy HP-1.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations on the
cost of housing.
iv. Housing Policy HP-1.2: Streamline the development review process and strive to eliminate
unnecessary time delays and expenses.
v. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility,
consistency,predictability and clear direction.
vi. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote
compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they
are equitable,cost-effective, and expeditious.
vii. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,
consistency and predictability.
viii. Neighborhood Goal NG-2: Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential
neighborhoods.
ix. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future
residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use
regulations and joint planning.
x. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary,existing land use regulations to
provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory
dwelling units,and in-fill development.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and
protection of the environment.
Finding(s):
i. The proposed amendment will streamline the outdoor lighting development review process
and provide flexibility in lighting choices. The requirement to shield lighting trespass will
minimize glare and mitigate off-site impacts.
ii. The public health, safety,welfare,and protection of the environment are furthered by
ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
2. Conclusion(s):
a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F).
b. The Growth Management Act stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development
regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City.
Recommendations:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed City-
initiated code text amendments to SVMC 22.60 as attached.
Approved this 11th day of July, 2013
Bill Bates, Chairman
ATTEST
Can Hinshaw,Administrative Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2
Chapter 22.60
OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS
Sections:
22.60.010 Purpose.
22.60.020 Application.
22.60.030 General requirements.
22.60.040 Prohibited lights.
22.60.050 Exceptions.
22.60.060 Temporary lighting.
22.60.010 Purpose.
The regulation of outdoor lighting discourages excessive lighting of outdoor spaces, encourages energy
conservation and prohibits lighting creating a nuisance for adjacent property owners. (Ord. 07-015 §4,
2007).
22.60.020 Application.
The requirements of this chapter and the Washington Energy Code(Chapter 51 11 WAC) apply to
outdoor lighting requirements for all developments except one- and two-family dwellings and public street
lighting. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
22.60.030 General requirements.
The installation of new outdoor lighting or the extension, modification or expansion of existing outdoor
lighting is subject to the following requirements:
A. The lighting allowance for covered parking, open parking and outdoor areas shall not exceed 0.20
e._.
per square foot for covered residential parking when ceilings and walls are painted or stained with a
reflectance value of 0.70 or higher.
B. The lighting allowance for building exteriors, including landscaping lighting, shall not exceed either 0.25
watts per square foot of building facade or 7.5 watts per linear foot of building perimeter.
C. The maximum height of pole mounted outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed /12 feet in Regional
Commercial and industrial zoning districts and 35 feet in all other districts.
A. All outdoor lights shall include a light source and reflector that controls the light beam so that
unshielded na light does not extends across any bounding property line between incompatible uses or
into the public right-of-way,
CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page I 1
II q:114ScrKPTAOLE -
I
.WI,{ 4+r'1,4%4 ."5,-%
9.
v yei^
- V...,, P.,*P•r 4y .N..I;hbyr. rrnry•'rty
Irr A C C L T''I'A f I.F.
ffs...
Yen.. rrr•.I+r.tr f41crightr,rw Frnr. -',
B. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed so that the light source is shielded at any bounding
property line except where topographical characteristics make this impossible.
t''JACCEPTABLE ACCEY'T'AIZI,';
rr 4:41.1311211;:::::411.
..—N.. .7 _7�''p+�I11114
a
Y III I!
�I{I Fl FlwR
F. All outdoor lighting systems shall be equipped with automatic switches conforming to the requirements
• -:- _• - _. e •= Washington Energy Code.
C.A Aapplications for building permits for commercial development will be evaluated by the
Community Development Director to determine if a lighting plan is required to assess and mitigate
impacts. The need fora lighting plan will be based on the scope and scale of the project, compatibility
with surrounding uses, and anticipated light impacts. If required, the plan will include the following: s#a�4
be accompanied by a photometric analysis of the lighting effects prepared by a qualified engineer.
1. A site plan showing the location of all outdoor light fixtures.
2. The type and method of shielding for each light fixture.
CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page 12
H. The mounting height of walkway lighting shall not exceed 12 feet and all fixtures mounted at a height
of more than eight feet shall be fully shielded.
-[D. Lighting designed to accent landscaping features or architectural elements, including the illumination
of pole-mounted flags of the United States, shall be concealed or positioned so that the light source is not
visible at adjacent property lines.
J. Lighting for outdoor arenas, stadiums and playfields shall not remain on longer than 30 minutes
following the end of the event. (Ord. 07 015 §/1, 2007).
22.60.040 Prohibited lights.
The following lights are prohibited unless a temporary permit is obtained for specific events with specific
times of operation:
A. Laser source light, strobe lights and similar high intensity light sources, except those associated with
approved activities of the City of Spokane Valley. High intensity lights for which a temporary permit is
issued shall not project above the horizontal plane nor extend into the public right-of-way.
B. Searchlights. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
22.60.050 Exceptions.
A. Navigation and airport lighting required for the safe operation of boats and airplanes.
B. Emergency lighting required by police, fire, and rescue authorities.
C. Lighting for state and federal highways authorized by the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
D. Internal lighting of permitted signs.
E. Outdoor lighting for public monuments.
F. In-pool lighting for private swimming pools.
G. Holiday decorations. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
22.60.060 Temporary lighting.
The building official may authorize temporary exceptions not to exceed 30 days for good cause shown.
(Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007).
CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page 13
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: July 11, 2013
Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
® information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: Shoreline Master Program Update
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study Session — DOE Preliminary Draft copies of the No Net Loss Report,
Cumulative Impacts Analysis and the Buffer Report
BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update team has completed Drafts of the
No Net Loss Report, Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Buffer Analysis Report. These documents are
support documents for the shoreline development regulations which implement the SMP and complete
phase six of the City's Shoreline Update Process. The components are required by SMP Guidelines.
The SMP Guidelines establish the standard of "no net loss" of shoreline ecological functions as the
means of implementing the SMP through the policies and regulations. Over time, the existing condition
of the shoreline ecological functions should remain the same as the SMP is implemented. Regulations
ensure that new impacts to shoreline ecological functions do not occur as a result of new development.
This is achieved through both the SMP planning process and regulation of individual development as
they are proposed in the future. The analysis provided in the these documents determines if the
regulations are adequate to protect the shorelines from the impacts anticipated form future
development and yet still meet the state required standard of "no net loss." The documents are
expected to be modified in response to changes to the draft development regulations as the review
process progresses. Therefore, these documents will not be adopted by resolution, nor considered as
final drafts. Staff will discuss the following documents and applicable WAC guidelines:
No Net Loss Report: The report demonstrates how the updated City's SMP will meet the required no
net loss of ecological functions (NNL) requirement within shoreline areas. The report is intended to
summarize documents prepared throughout the current SMP update process to demonstrate how each
supporting element combines to achieve NNL.
Shoreline Buffers Report: The report provides background information and the rationale used to
establish shoreline buffers sufficient to achieve the "No Net Loss of Ecological Functions" requirement.
Shoreline buffers protect the shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural
resources and are an important regulatory tool that help the City comply with the "No Net Loss"
standard.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis: The Cumulative Impacts Analysis is intended to be a model of
cumulative impacts on shoreline ecological functions within the City and is based on a variety of inputs
filtered through the draft environmental designations and their applicable level of land use restrictions.
The analysis ensures that shoreline environmental designations and proposed SMP regulations will be
protective of shoreline functions even when considering incremental actions that cumulatively have the
potential to negatively impact those functions. Findings of this model may result in modifications to the
draft SMP regulations if it is determined that cumulative impacts could result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions over time.
1 of 2
Attorney Tadas Kisielius has completed a review of all three documents. He has provided input that has
been incorporated into each draft during document development. Mr. Kisielius will not attend the
Planning Commission meeting, but is available for discussion at subsequent meetings. A public hearing
will not be conducted for the review of these documents since they are considered informational only.
At this time the Planning Commission is asked to review the documents, but will not be asked to
provide a recommendation to the City Council. The drafts are attached for review.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) under RCW 90.58
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Numerous discussions regarding SMP Update.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 define the process for approval of an SMP and
require that the document be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None required
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. DOE Preliminary Draft No Net Loss Report May 31, 2013
2. DOE Preliminary Draft Cumulative Impacts Report May 31, 2013
3. DOE Preliminary Buffer Report and Map May 31, 2013
2 of 2
NO NET LOSS REPORT
DOE Preliminary Draft
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program Update
May 31, 2013
Prepared for:
City of Spokane Valley
Community Development Department
Spokane Valley City Hall
11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
Prepared by:
URS Corporation
111 S.W. Columbia, Suite 1500
Portland, Oregon 97201-5814
URS Project Number 36298174
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction 1
Section 2 Summary of SMP Update Elements 2
2.1 Inventory and Characterization Report 2
2.2 Shoreline Environmental Designations 3
2.3 Shoreline Policies and Regulations 4
2.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis. 5
2.5 Shoreline Restoration Plan 5
Section 3 Conclusion 6
Section 4 References 7
URSCity of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report-DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013
SECTION ONE Introduction
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-186(8) directs that shoreline master programs
(SMPs) include policies and regulations designed to achieve no "net loss of ecological functions
of the shoreline". Generally, ecological functions of the shoreline include interrelated fish and
wildlife habitat,water quality, and hydrologic (water/flood storage) functions.
This No Net Loss report demonstrates how the updated City of Spokane Valley (COSV) SMP
will meet this no net loss of ecological functions (NNL)requirement within shoreline areas under
the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Within the COSV municipal
boundary, this includes the shorelines of the Spokane River and Shelley Lake (Error! Reference
source not found. 1). This report is intended to summarize the following documents prepared
throughout the current SMP update process to demonstrate how each supporting element
combines to achieve NNL:
• Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
• Shoreline Use Analysis
• Shoreline Environmental Designations
• SMP policies, regulations, and their protection strategies
• Restoration Plan
• Cumulative Impacts Analysis
As a summary of these supporting documents, this report also provides a general chronology of
the update with regard to the SMP checklist.
UMCity of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 1
SECTIONONE Introduction
Legend
J City of Spokane Valley City Limits
Shoreline Master Program Areas
Note Aerial imagery source is USDA,NAIP 2011
Spokane Rived
r ----________
rii.
Shelley Lake
N City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program Jurisdiction
W E
I I
s 0 1 21Nil es URS
UMCity of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report-DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 2
SECTIONTWO Summary of SMP Update Elements
2.1 INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
For the SMP update, existing conditions are considered the baseline for measuring no net loss of
ecological functions over the future, 20-year planning period. The Inventory and
Characterization Report (URS 2010) describes the existing condition of shoreline areas along the
Spokane River and Shelley Lake within COSV city limits. The report divides the Spokane River
into four study segments within the COSV based on unique factors including surrounding land
uses, ecological characteristics, aquifer characteristics (gaining vs. losing), hydraulics, and
substrate characteristics (Figure 2).
Within each segment, the report provides a detailed characterization of the land use, the physical
and biological condition, as well as the ecological condition, stressors, and opportunities for
restoration or conservation. To assess the current condition of shoreline ecological functions
within each river segment and around Shelley Lake, information was gathered on rare plants,
fish, impervious areas, degraded habitats, existing land uses, critical areas, soils, cultural/historic
resources, sediment transport,vegetation, wildlife, and Priority Habitat and Species data.
"' ffirailefs 11111n111111yrrW ,
Legend
\ Spokane River Study Segment Boundary
f �__. Q City Limits
i �� ` 1 •�1N0tB SMABoundary
1 . , _ ��8 Centennial Trail
1 r
Segment 4 ��' i re>ttur ��`� rrl ,r
Segment 3 i to �� ,�
gljxw p_... d• . Park :-' ;S,.Gle - `� 1
V� r� r�� � r� Segmen t��...„.„.,,,,,:„....ii..„,,jh
ri ii9,1 al�ii M wwood ` = grand ,ANNE ••
#1 mg;' 5. ii +�� i Empire .. i SPA -
ll i11� rdip.-� 90 ' .Segment 2 �`: �� �i
' i'r~'�►'.l{/1■ •e '. City of _ -"`-�■ g ' e Valley IhFJ— 'or
............... .....,,
la_.,„„,' �""�..... f�s�� �� " Spokane River Stud Segments
'�ItIltlr ■ ((77�� ��7A16�1! City of Spokane Valley
0■`s�iiir l� ger'.�1 I u I URS
R" ;t"17 11 "1172=ar� M'Iii,�:Pl rlf:M s 0 0.5 1 11 les
Ecological condition was assessed for each shoreline study area and recommendations to achieve
NNL were provided based on localized conditions. The ecological condition was based upon
data gathered through literature review, communications with local experts, discussions with
agency biologists, and field assessments conducted by URS in 2009 and 2010.
UMCity of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report-DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 3
SECTIONTWO Summary of SMP Update Elements
Shoreline Use Analysis
The Inventory and Characterization Report also contains the Shoreline Use Analysis. This
analysis discusses current shoreline uses within SMP jurisdictional areas. It estimates future
demand for shoreline space, identifies potential land use conflicts, and provides management
recommendations for the shoreline areas. The analysis also discusses the preferred shoreline uses
(Water Dependent, Water Related, Water Enjoyment) identified in the SMP Guidelines (WAC
173-26-201(2)(d)).
Based on the estimate of projected shoreline uses and current land availability, the analysis
concludes that the COSV should be able to accommodate future demand for shoreline
development and recreational uses. In addition, because of the widespread state park land along
the inner riparian areas, it appears that a balance of shoreline land uses (including recreation,
residential, mixed use, and industrial) are adequate to meet current and future demands while
maintaining valuable shoreline ecosystem functions.
A balance between future uses and ecological functions would occur by issuing shoreline
substantial development or conditional use permits. Shoreline permits must meet SMP
regulations designed to assure no net loss and can impose conditions requiring native plant
establishment or other ecological function enhancements. Similarly, future capital improvement
projects undertaken by the COSV in shoreline zones can be tailored to fit the goals of public
access,restoration of degraded shoreline habitats, and avoidance of high-quality riparian areas.
Finally, the Shoreline Use Analysis provides a discussion and recommendations for
implementing the"preferential uses"for shorelines as outlined in RCW 90.58.020.
2.2 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATIONS
Based on data gathered during the shoreline inventory, shoreline areas with similar
characteristics are assigned a common SED that reflects unique land management goals and
policies that are appropriate for the area. The SED is used during the shoreline planning review
process as a zoning overlay, which provides additional land use approval considerations above
those associated with the underlying zoning category.
The five SED categories are Urban-Conservancy-High Quality (UC-HQ), Urban Conservancy
(UC), Shoreline Residential—Waterfront (SR-W), Shoreline Residential-Upland (SR-U), and
Aquatic (AQ). The AQ SED applies to those areas below the ordinary high water mark for
Waters of the State. Most of the Spokane River shoreline is designated as UC, including State
Park lands. The UC designation allows for conservation of near-shore habitat while allowing
limited commercial and mixed use development within the outer portion of the SMP jurisdiction.
Areas specifically identified as proposed conservation areas in the 2010 inventory were
designated as UC-HQ. The AQ and UC-HQ designations allow for the least amount of habitat
URSCity of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 4
SECTIONTWO Summary of SMP Update Elements
alteration and generally focus on preservation and management of existing, high-quality riparian
and aquatic habitat.
There are two Shoreline Residential designations. Each was developed to provide a means for
allowing appropriate residential uses with regard to the proximity of the residential area to the
waterline. For areas directly adjacent to the water, the SR-W designation addresses land uses
along the water line that are not applicable to upland residential areas (SR-U).
These five SEDs protect, maintain, or restore ecological functions in higher quality shoreline
habitat areas,while allowing certain appropriate uses in other shoreline areas.
2.3 SHORELINE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
The updated SMP will include new shoreline policies and regulations that allow for a
combination of appropriate development, conservation, and restoration activities. The SEDs
would allow development at the outer periphery of the SMP jurisdiction within the Urban
Conservancy and Residential SEDs while promoting the maintenance and enhancement of
shoreline ecological functions within the inner, more sensitive shoreline areas in these SEDs, and
within all areas designated as Urban Conservancy — High Quality or Aquatic. Shoreline
regulations are in addition to other state and federal environmental protection laws and locally
adopted ordinances and rules, including the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Spokane Valley
Comprehensive Plan, and the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, as amended. Where
conflicts exist between local regulations, those that provide more substantive protection to the
shoreline area shall apply.
Updated SMP regulations include the following protections to shoreline ecological functions:
Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations — Additional regulations for uses and development within
wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and
geologically hazardous areas provide protection over especially sensitive/vulnerable areas.
Mitigation Sequencing — Measures to avoid, minimize and, lastly, to mitigate impacts must be
demonstrated prior to approval of a shoreline use
Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Measures — For most projects proposing vegetation removal,
vegetation conservation measures ensure that vegetation within the shoreline jurisdiction is
protected and/or restored when damaged or removed by development activities.
Buffers and Setbacks — Shoreline buffers protect the shoreline environment by limiting
development and use within a reasonable distance from the shoreline, ensuring no further
degradation of the existing shoreline environment. Shoreline buffers are synonymous with the
vegetation conservation boundary identified in the shoreline inventory. As such, building
setbacks ensure that impacts to riparian habitat functions associated with development and
maintenance activities near the vegetation conservation boundary are minimal.
URSCity of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 5
SECTIONTWO Summary of SMP Update Elements
Restrictions on Shoreline Stabilization Measures — Proposed regulations encourage the use of
nonstructural shoreline stabilization measures instead of structural shoreline stabilization
measures.New structural stabilization measures require a Shoreline Conditional Permit.
2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
The intent of the Cumulative Impacts Analysis was to ensure that SEDs and proposed SMP
regulations are protective of shoreline functions even when considering incremental actions that
cumulatively have the potential to negatively impact those functions.
The initial draft of the analysis determined that draft regulations were generally protective of net
shoreline ecological functions, but that opportunities for minor changes to the regulations would
help ensure no net loss of functions. As a result, the regulations were slightly altered to ensure
adequate protections and the cumulative impacts analysis conclusions were revised to document
no net loss of ecological functions due to cumulative impacts.
2.5 SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN
Based on shoreline observations, existing natural resource assessments, and watershed plans, a
list of"limiting factors" were identified in the COSV's shoreline Inventory and Characterization
Report (URS 2010). Limiting factors are variables that impair ecosystem processes and limit the
capacity of ecological functions. Limiting factors within the COSV include dissolved metals
(contamination), high summer water temperature, areas lacking riparian cover, lack of lake-
fringe vegetation, presence/spread of noxious vegetation, low dissolved oxygen, lack of fish
passage, and low summer flows.
The Shoreline Restoration Plan (URS 2012) describes existing and ongoing projects and
programs that can guide or support restoration efforts in the COSV to address these limiting
factors and improve ecological functions. Additionally, forty site-specific restoration
opportunities were identified in the COSV's shoreline areas. These restoration opportunities have
the potential to increase ecological functions in specific shoreline areas. A priority scoring
criteria was established and rated each restoration opportunity site on a scale from 0 to 25. The
score illuminates restoration opportunities that are both practical to develop and result in the
greatest benefit to shoreline functions. Each site's impairments are also identified and a
conceptual restoration approach is offered to correct the impairment.
The plan identifies many local organizations that could act as potential restoration partners to
assist with restoration project funding, construction, and/or maintenance and monitoring. The
plan also presents an implementation plan, which offers several potential funding sources, a
timeline with benchmarks, as well as a monitoring and maintenance plan.
City of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 6
SECTIONTHREE Conclusion
Upon review of the baseline conditions and ecological issues identified in the Inventory and
Characterization Report, the current and projected future uses described in the Shoreline Use
Analysis, the proposed shoreline environmental designations and protective regulations, and the
opportunities for ecological improvements presented in the Restoration Plan, the City of Spokane
Valley is expected to achieve no net loss of ecological function in their SMP jurisdictional areas.
Measuring NNL in future years may be accomplished by focusing on specific factors that
currently limit shoreline ecological functions, per the Inventory and Characterization Report and
the Shoreline Restoration Plan. An example of metrics that can be used to monitor change is
provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Metrics for Measuring No Net Loss
Limiting Data Source Measurement
Factor
Various dissolved metal
Water quality sample data concentrations at fixed locations,
Dissolved metals
from ongoing water testing especially known"hot spots"over
time
High summer water
Change in monthly average or
Temperature/stream gauge maximum temperature over time or
temperature
increases in riparian cover
Areas lacking GIS mapping from Inventory Riparian cover measurements on
riparian cover and Characterization aerial photographs relative to the
current riparian area map layer
Currently majority of lake draw-down
zone is sparsely vegetated or un-
Lack of lake-fringe Aerial photos/direct vegetated so ocular estimates of cover
in future years,from direct
vegetation estimates
observation or aerial photo review,
can be used to note increased cover
over time
Due to a lack of percent cover data for
baseline conditions,cover and spread
Presence/spread of of noxious weeds can be estimated
Weed maintenance records
noxious weeds based upon the regularity of ongoing
routine maintenance. Decreased
efforts may infer an increase.
URSCity of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 7
SECTIONF OUR References
Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD). 2005. Spokane County Proper Functioning
Condition Stream Inventory & Assessment. Spokane, WA.
URS Corporation. 2010. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization Report. Spokane Valley,WA.
URS Corporation. 2012. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline
Restoration Plan. Spokane Valley, WA.
UMCity of Spokane Valley No Net Loss Report—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 8
SHORELINE BUFFERS REPORT
POE Preliminary Pra rt
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program Update
May 31, 2013
Prepared for:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Spokane Valley City Hall
11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
Prepared by:
U RS Corporation
920 N. Argonne Road, Suite 300
Spokane Valley, Washington 99212
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Shoreline Buffers
DOE Preliminary Draft
Introduction—Shoreline Buffers
This section of the Shoreline Master Program provides background information and the
rationale used to establish shoreline buffers sufficient to achieve the "No Net Loss of
Ecological Functions"requirement of the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
Shoreline buffers protect the shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline
natural resources. Shoreline buffers typically include naturally vegetated areas adjacent
to water bodies that protect the ecological functions of the shoreline and help to reduce
the impacts of adjacent land uses on the water body, as described in the scientific
literature. Shoreline buffers identify those areas that, if disturbed may cause impacts to
shoreline functions. In essence, shoreline buffers protect riparian vegetation and limit
near-shore development. By protecting existing riparian areas, the SMP provides
protection from erosion, protects water quality, maintains the shoreline microclimate, and
provides habitat and cover for fish and wildlife. Riparian areas also provide shade and
nutrients that are important for aquatic and near-shore fish and wildlife. Buffers can
protect and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the shorelines including views of and from
the water. Areas protected by a buffer also provide restoration opportunities in degraded
areas as described in the City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS
2009) and the Shoreline Restoration Plan (URS 2012). In addition to protecting
ecological resources, shoreline buffers help to protect new shoreline development from
hazards such as erosion, landslides, floods, and storm damage associated with a water body.
The shoreline buffer is an important regulatory tool that helps the City comply with the
No Net Loss standard. In general, however, the No Net Loss standard is not intended to
preclude appropriate development within the shoreline jurisdiction and the City has also
considered existing development patterns and preferred uses discussed in the Shoreline
Master Program and supporting documents when designating the shoreline buffer and
developing the SMP. For example the SMP anticipates development of the recreational
day use and public access sites as identified in the City's Public Access Plan (URS 2013).
1.0 Background—Literature
The science behind establishing shoreline buffers is constantly evolving and many studies
have been prepared to document appropriate buffer widths for various ecological
functions. The primary documents used to determine appropriate buffer widths are
referenced at the end of this document and are also summarized in Chapter 11 of
Ecology's Shoreline Master Program Planning Process ("SMP Handbook"). These
Scientific studies typically include observations of undisturbed areas when considering
the effectiveness of buffers and report a specific distance to protect function or
percentage of an existing function in an undisturbed area. Despite the fact that they are
based on undisturbed areas, they provide a helpful starting point for identifying
appropriate buffer widths.
URSMay 31, 2013 2
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Shoreline Buffers
DOE Preliminary Draft
According to the scientific literature, the buffer widths adequate to protect shoreline
ecological functions in existing undisturbed areas vary according to the parameter observed
and the site conditions of the study. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) recommends 250 foot buffers in their Management Recommendations for
Priority Riparian Habitats (1997). WDFW states that buffers are ineffective if less than
32 feet wide in their Integrated Streambank Protection Manual (2003). The Washington
Sea Grant's 2009 publication titled "Protection of Marine Riparian Functions in Puget
Sound" provides recommendations for shoreline buffers to protect various shoreline
functions as shown in Table 1. This document mainly relied upon research done on
freshwater bodies and is appropriate for use on the Spokane River.
Table 1 Recommended Shoreline Buffer Widths
Shoreline Function Recommended Buffer Width
Water Quality 50-75 feet
Shade 125 feet
Large Woody Debris 125 feet
Forest Litter(nutrients) 50-120 feet
Wildlife Habitat varies(200'-300')
Hruby, 2009 provides a means for assessing water quality, and wildlife habitat shoreline
functions. Within the City of Spokane Valley, using the Hruby methods, the shorelines
are rated as having a potentially high impact for water quality functions and a low impact
for wildlife habitat functions. This is a reasonable assessment according to the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization Report, URS, 2009 which provided mapping and
information on existing shoreline conditions within the City, including a map of the
vegetation conservation boundary.
2.0 Shoreline Buffers
The literature described in Section 2, above, identifies the range of buffer widths needed to
protect these functions in undisturbed areas. However, the SMP Guidelines do not require a
return to pre-European settlement conditions. The "no net loss" standard in the SMA
anticipates that local governments will tailor shoreline buffers to local conditions including
existing shoreline functions and existing and planned land use and public access.
For purposes of incorporating local conditions into shoreline buffer management
decisions, the City relied on detailed information contained in the Shoreline Inventory
and Characterization Report (URS 2010) ("Inventory"). The Inventory includes a
detailed characterization of land uses and development in the shoreline, including the
Spokane River and Shelley Lake, and the physical and biological characterization of the
shoreline. The Inventory included information on Critical Areas and Priority Habitats
mapped within the City. The Inventory also mapped a "vegetation conservation boundary"
within which lies a relatively healthy riparian area that provides the majority of the shoreline
ecological functions within the city. Outside of this boundary shoreline functions are
impaired due to existing development patterns.
URSMay 31, 2013 3
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Shoreline Buffers
DOE Preliminary Draft
In establishing the shoreline buffers, the city considered the potential risk to existing
ecological functions described in the inventory. Shoreline buffers were initially established
as the mapped vegetation conservation boundary prepared for the Inventory to protect the
riparian area and the existing shoreline ecological functions. Where the vegetation
conservation boundary is less than 75 feet, a minimum 75 foot buffer width was
established. The three exceptions to the 75 foot minimum buffer width intended to
protect the shoreline functions of water quality and the remaining vegetation are in the
Orchard Avenue area, the River Rose Mobile Home Park, and the developed portion of
Shelley Lake which currently have existing homes and development up to 50 foot from
the ordinary high water mark. In a few areas the buffer area was increased on publicly-
owned lands to either the edge of the Centennial Trail or to the outer boundary of State
Park land to provide additional area for potential future restoration. The buffer protecting
the wetland adjacent to Shelley Lake was primarily set at 150 feet. This buffer width is
consistent with the wetland buffer widths in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, and
provides sufficient buffer for no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. There are two
exceptions where the 150 foot buffer was not applied to the Shelley Lake wetland,
consistent with the no net loss standard. The wetland buffer was reduced to 50 feet
adjacent to existing Shelley Lake residences, where existing development limits wetland
function up to 50 feet from the wetland. Additionally, the buffer was reduced at the
boundary of S. Steen Road and associated driveway embankment to the east where
wetland function is limited by the road and embankment. The buffer also protects most
of the mapped critical areas with the exception of the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and
three areas of mapped geological hazard areas located Myrtle Point and Shelley Lake.
Shoreline buffers are shown on the City Shoreline Buffer Maps.
In addition to the shoreline buffers the City is establishing a setback. Where applied, the
setback separates structures, such as single family homes, from the edge of the buffer.
The purpose of the setback is to protect the buffer from activities associated with the
structure, including, for example the initial construction of the home or ongoing
maintenance of the home as well as indirect impacts of development, such as stormwater
runoff. Regulation of activities and uses within the setback is more permissive than in
the buffer. For example, within the setback low intensity uses, such as lawns,
landscaping,patios, decks, and outbuildings will be allowed.
A fifteen foot setback from the buffer was established for the Urban Conservancy and the
Urban-Conservancy-High Quality Environmental Designations. A different approach is
warranted in the Shoreline Residential-Waterfront and the Shoreline Residential-Upland
Environmental Designations, which are mostly developed with existing homes at the
edge of the buffer and where there are few vacant lots. The primary issue for purposes of
anticipating potential for net loss of ecological functions is redevelopment of large sites
which results in new residential development that is more intense than current, existing
conditions on the parcels. Therefore, in the instance of subdivision, binding site plans or
planned unit developments, the City will apply a fifteen foot setback on all newly created
lots in the Shoreline Residential Water-front and the Shoreline Residential upland zones.
Otherwise no shoreline setback is applied in these residential zones.
URSMay 31, 2013 4
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program
Shoreline Buffers
DOE Preliminary Draft
3.0 References
Futurwise,2010,Recommendations on Making Small Shoreline Buffers Work with Buffer
Science
Hruby, Thomas, Washington Department of Ecology, 2009. Developing Rapid Methods
for Analyzing Upland Riparian Functions and Values
Washington Department of Ecology, SMP Handbook, Chapter 11, Vegetation
Conservation, Buffers and Setbacks
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003, Integrated Streambank Protection
Manual
Washington Sea Grant, 2009 Protection of Marine Riparian Functions in Puget Sound
Washington
URS Corporation, 2009, City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization Report
URSMay 31, 2013 5
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
POE Preliminary Dra1i
City of Spokane Valley
Shoreline Master Program Update
May 31, 2013
i {
Prepared for:
City of Spokane Valley
Community Development Department
Spokane Valley City Hall
11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
Prepared by:
URS Corporation
111 S.W. Columbia, Suite 1500
Portland, Oregon 97201-5814
URS Project Number 36298174
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction 1
Section 2 Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions 2
2.1 Natural Processes and Shoreline Functions 2
2.2 External Factors Affecting Shorelines 2
2.3 Internal Factors Affecting Shorelines 3
2.4 Summary of Ecological Functions at Risk 3
Section 3 Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses 5
3.1 Review of Past and Current Shoreline Developments 5
3.1.1 Past Shoreline Uses 5
3.1.2 Current Shoreline Uses 6
3.2 Expectations of Growth 6
3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Uses 7
Section 4 Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities 10
4.1 Protective Provisions of Proposed SMP 10
4.1.1 Shoreline Environmental Designations 10
4.1.2 Buffers and Setbacks 12
4.1.3 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Measures 12
4.1.4 Shoreline Hardening Restrictions 13
4.1.5 Avoidance and Minimization Standards 14
4.1.6 Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations 14
4.2 State and Federal Regulatory Protections 15
4.3 Other Activities that May Protect or Restore Shoreline Functions 16
Section 5 Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation 17
Section 6 References 28
Tables
Table 2-1: Summary of Local Shoreline Ecological Functions 2
Table 2-2: Summary of Potential Impairments to Shoreline Ecological Functions 4
Table 3-1: Summary of Shoreline Permits since Incorporation 5
Table 3-2: Summary of Zoning Categories within SMP Jurisdiction 6
Table 3-3: Anticipated Development by Zoning Designation 7
Table 4-1: Shoreline Development Allowances by Environmental Designation 11
Table 5-1: Findings 18
Figures
Figure 1: Spokane River Segments 8
Figure 2: Shoreline Environmental Designations 26
Figure 3: Shoreline Buffers 27
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 1
SECTION ONE Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Guidelines under Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 173-26-186(8)(d) states that, "To ensure no net loss of ecological functions and
protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain policies,
programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the
burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities". Cumulative
impacts are not specifically defined in the SMA; however, they generally describe the impact of
an action or project in conjunction with other similar,reasonable foreseeable actions.
This Cumulative Impacts Analysis is intended to develop a model of cumulative impacts on
shoreline ecological functions within the City of Spokane Valley (City). The intent of this
analysis is to ensure that shoreline environmental designations and proposed SMP regulations
will be protective of shoreline functions even when considering incremental actions that
cumulatively have the potential to negatively impact those functions. Per the SMA Guidelines,
the evaluation of such cumulative impacts should consider:
(i) Current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes;
(ii) Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline; and
(iii) Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state,
and federal laws.
Findings of this model may result in modifications to the draft SMP regulations if it is
determined that cumulative impacts could result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions
over time. If such changes are made to the SMP regulations as a result of this report, a brief
addendum will be prepared for this report that documents those changes and updates the model
results accordingly.
The results of this analysis are based on a variety of inputs filtered through the draft
environmental designations and their applicable level of land use restrictions. The inputs
include anticipated growth, development estimates, and existing shoreline functions with
particular emphasis on those that are most at risk. These are then analyzed based on the
proposed protections in the updated SMP, other regulatory protections, and estimates of non-
regulatory shoreline restoration.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 1
SECTIONTWO Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions
2.1 Natural Processes and Shoreline Functions
As described in the shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010), the shoreline
zone within the City provides several ecological functions that the SMA seeks to protect.
Influenced by watershed processes, such as erosion and deposition, the hydrologic cycle, and
nutrient transport and uptake, these functions provide ecological services that are less available
outside of the shoreline zone. Shoreline functions are often separated into three general
functional categories for ease of assessment and description. These functional categories
include habitat functions, water quantity (hydraulic) functions, and water quality functions.
Table 2-1 provides an overview of commonly assessed shoreline functions provided by the
Spokane River and Shelley Lake (including associated wetlands).
Table 2-1: Summary of Local Shoreline Ecological Functions
Habitat functions Hydrologic functions Water quality functions
• Aquatic habitat for • Flow attenuation/ • Nutrient Cycling
invertebrates,native fish, regulation • Sediment filtering and
and amphibians • Water storage stabilization
• Terrestrial(riparian) • Base flow support • Cover for contaminated
habitat for mammals, • Transport of water and aquatic sediment
birds,invertebrates materials,including wood • Shade/thermoregulation
• Support for native • Creation and maintenance • Aquifer recharge
biodiversity of in-stream habitat • Toxicant removal
• Production of organic complexity(pools,riffles,
material gravel bars,etc.)
• Creation of conditions for
breeding and
nesting/rearing
2.2 External Processes Affecting Shorelines
There are several processes affecting shoreline ecological functions within the COSV that are
beyond the City's ability to control. Habitat functions are affected by the spread of invasive
weeds along the shoreline zone by wind, foot traffic, water flow, animal droppings, and other
means. Aquatic habitat is affected by hydroelectric project management, which controls the
amount of water flow moving through the City. During periods of low flow, temperatures rise
and dissolved oxygen, which fish require, decreases. Water quality is affected by upstream
agricultural runoff, urban runoff, limited erosion, temperature, and 303(d) contaminants
associated with historical and current industry upriver. Water quantity/hydrologic functions are
highly affected by upstream and downstream hydroelectric dams; natural aquifer inputs and
recharge locations; and, to a lesser extent, upstream agricultural diversions.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 2
SECTIONTWO Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions
2.3 Internal Factors Affecting Shorelines
Within the City, several land use activities and natural processes affect shoreline ecological
functions. Unlike the external processes listed in Section 2.2, many of these land use activities
and processes can be controlled by the City, in coordination with the Washington Parks and
Recreation Commission (State Parks), through a combination of regulations and land
management activities.
Within the City, habitat, water quality, and hydrologic functions are primarily affected by
development, recreation, industry, and vegetation management. Riparian habitats are affected
by unmitigated land clearing and development, after which they can become especially
susceptible to invasive plant species establishment, which lowers the riparian habitat value for
most species. Riparian areas can also be affected by recreational uses, including foot traffic,
fire, and litter.
Water quality within the City is largely affected by external processes but degradation can be
exacerbated by erosion from concentrated surface runoff, contamination from localized
discharge of untreated stormwater, motorboat pollution, and general aquifer contamination
throughout the City. Erosion from runoff into the river and lake also affects water quality and
aquatic habitat. Too much runoff can result in turbid water, which is harmful for fish.
Water quantity within the river and lake is primarily affected by external factors but impervious
development has the potential to increase "flashy" flows and decrease summer base flows
through rapid discharge of stormwater that would otherwise infiltrate and recharge the aquifer
over a longer period.
2.4 Summary of Ecological Functions at Risk
Much of the COSV's shoreline jurisdiction along the Spokane River is managed by State Parks,
as part of the Riverside State Park. As a result, river shoreline functions are largely protected
from development within the City relative to other cities. However, recreational uses are
common, encouraged by the SMA, and provided for by the Spokane River Centennial Trail
(SRCT) and various public parks along the shoreline, which has the potential to degrade
shoreline functions as noted in Section 2.3 above. In addition, shoreline areas above the State
Park lands and adjacent areas outside of the SMP jurisdiction, particularly on the south side of
the river, have the potential for development and or redevelopment/infill based upon the land
use analysis in Section 6 of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (URS 2010).
The majority of Shelley Lake is currently developed, making the potential for incremental
current and future shoreline development impacts low around the lake. Table 2-2 below
provides a list of potential impairments to shoreline ecological functions based on conditions
within the City.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 3
SECTIONTWO Current Circumstances Affecting Shoreline Functions
Table 2-2: Summary of Potential Impairments to Shoreline Ecological Functions
Habitat functions Water quantity functions Water quality functions
• Loss of riparian cover from • Lower stream flow due to • Increased turbidity due to
development and recreation increased aquifer use erosion from foot traffic,
• Degraded habitat functions from • Increased short-term flow construction
spread of noxious weeds velocity after rain events • Degraded water quality
• Degraded fish habitat due to due to increased impervious due to increased
turbidity from erosion/sediment area/runoff contamination/nutrient
loading • Lower summer base flow loading from vehicles,
• Degraded aquatic habitat due to support due to lack of lawn chemicals,pet waste,
untreated stormwater runoff infiltration associated with etc.
• Degraded wildlife habitat due to new impervious • Warmer water
edge effects(noise,light, development temperatures due to loss of
human/pet presence)from new riparian cover
development
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 4
SECTIONTHREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses
This section discusses the estimated developments and other uses that are reasonably expected
within the shoreline zone over a 20-year period.
3.1 Review of Past and Current Shoreline Developments
3.1.1 Past Shoreline Uses
In an effort to understand past shoreline impacts for the purpose of determining cumulative
impacts of shoreline development, the preceding nine years of shoreline permits issued within
the COSV was researched, reviewed, and summarized. Table 3-1 provides a snapshot of
shoreline development over the past 8 years since the city incorporated in 2003. When
combined with estimates of growth, as described in Section 3.2, this provides a reasonable tool
for estimating future growth as well.
Table 3-1: Summary of Shoreline Permits since Incorporation
Development Type COSV Permit Type
No.
Year In-water Grading/ Upland Pathway Subst. Cond. Permits
Dock Exempt Var.
Fill Utilities Structure w/Reveg. Devel. Use
2004 2 2 2 2 2
2005 0
2006 1 1 1
2007 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 7
2008 0
2009 0
2010 2 1 2 1 1 2
2011 4 4 1 6 3 9
2012 1 2 1 1 3 4
Avg./yr. 0.67 10.22 11.0 11.22 0.44 1.22 11.56 10.00 10.00 12.78
Although the short period of time since incorporation makes the City's permit history short for
the purposes of prediction, there are certain trends that are clear, even with the large standard
deviation between values year-to-year. Based on Table 3-1, upland structures appear to be the
most common type of development requiring a shoreline permit. They are also the type of
development most likely to require a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit under the
existing SMP. Docks are allowed as an exempt shoreline development at a rate of less than one
per year, which indicates that, unless regulated differently by the SMP update, several more
docks are likely over the future SMP planning period of 20 years within areas zoned for
residential uses. The table also indicates that infrequent in-water fill occurs, generally associated
with bank stabilization following a flood. Both in-water fill projects were allowed as an
exemption. Under the current SMP, conditional uses and variances have never been used to
permit a shoreline development.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 5
SECTIONTHREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses
3.1.2 Current Shoreline Uses
Within the City, there are approximately 511 acres under the jurisdiction of the SMA. This
accounts for approximately 3 percent of the 24,464 acres within City limits. Per Table 3-2,
below, the majority of the shoreline zone is held in parks/open space. This is followed by
Industrial zoning, which is associated with the gravel pits and Kaiser Aluminum. Low-density
residential zoning is the third-largest shoreline zone. A combination of other zoning categories,
including Mixed Use, Commercial, and Public ROW account for less than 10 percent of the
shoreline zone, combined. Shoreline areas lacking a zoning designation include 287.46 acres of
open water and 20 acres of public right-of-way.
Table 3-2: Summary of Zoning Categories within SMP Jurisdiction
Zoning Category Acreage °!o
Parks/Open Space 201 42.4
Industrial 153 32.3
Low Density
Residential 76 16.0
Mixed Use 29 6.1
Railroad ROW 8 1.7
Commercial 7 1.5
The Spokane River currently receives moderate to high in-water recreational use due to the
hydraulics of the Spokane River, which provide prized floating conditions for non-motorized
boats, rafts, and kayaks. Due to an abundance of public park land and access provided by the
SRCT and parking at Mirabeau Park, the southern shoreland areas receive a good deal of
recreational use, primarily by bicyclists and pedestrians. The northern shoreland areas receive
moderate hiking and angling uses at specific, publicly accessible areas, particularly around
Sullivan Park.
3.2 Expectations of Growth
Per the Shoreline Use Analysis in Section 6 of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
Report, the COSV expects an annual growth rate of approximately 1.5 percent. Developable
lands that are currently listed as "vacant" in the City Assessor's tax parcel database were
quantified for the COSV by Planning Department staff in 2009 to update their comprehensive
plan. Based on this effort, it was determined that there are currently 48.95 acres of developable
land categorized as "Vacant"within the City's shoreline zones.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 6
SECTIONTHREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses
3.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Uses
In general, shoreline areas with development potential are limited to dispersed fragments of
parcels with industrial, residential, or mixed use zoning designations. Many of these lack
adequate access, utilities, or are otherwise constrained in a manner that limits development
potential (such as by utility or railroad easements). The majority of areas under SMA
jurisdiction within the City are either not developable (e.g., park land) or have already been
developed. Some minor redevelopment and infill are expected within residential shoreland
areas, particularly within River Segment (SR)-1 (Figure 1); however, this would be restricted
from infringing upon park lands and, as such, would have little direct effect on the current state
of shoreline ecosystem functions.
Planners often estimate a regions ability to support additional growth by quantifying
developable lands that are currently listed as "vacant" in the City Assessor's tax parcel database.
Such a land quantity analysis (LQA) was conducted by the City of Spokane Valley Planning
Department staff in 2009 to update their comprehensive plan. Using the LQA data, there are
currently 48.95 acres of land categorized as "Vacant" within the City's shoreline jurisdiction.
Table 3-3 provides a summary of anticipated development within currently vacant lands, which
fall into three zoning designations within SMP jurisdiction. This list is based upon
conversations with COSV planning staff, State Parks, and Avista Corporation, a utility company
with natural gas and electrical transmission within the SMP zone.
Table 3-3: Anticipated Development by Zoning Designation
Zoning Developable % Anticipated Development River Segment'
Designation Acreage in SMP
Coyote Rocks Residential SR-3
Development
Trailside Residential SR-3
Development
Likely short plat applications SR-1, SR-2
Residential 4.15 8 that will break large lots into
smaller lots for development(not
specific—estimated based on past
development trends)
Residential redevelopment(not SR-1, SR-2, SR-
specific—estimated based on past 4, Shelley Lake
development trends)
Flora Road gravel pit will SR-2
Heavy Industrial 16.72 34 eventually transition into other
land uses
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 7
SECTIONTHREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses
Zoning Developable
Designation Acreage in SMP �O Anticipated Development River Segment
Pinecroft business and SR-2
commercial area
Mixed Use Center 28.08 57
Centennial Properties mixed use SR-2
development
'Refer to Figure 1 below for river segment reference.
In addition to the private and commercial developments noted in Table 3-3, there are public
developments that are likely to occur, which are not specific to one zoning designation. The
COSV Parks Plan is currently being updated. The plan is in the early stages of updating but
future improvements at Sullivan or Mirabeau Park may include shoreline developments
associated with improved access, as per the Public Access Plan (URS 2012). State Parks has no
plans for park improvements within the foreseeable future. However, they would like to see the
riprap revetment in SR-1 improved to provide enhanced visual benefits and ecological
functions.
Legend
n City Limits
w;- Spokane River Study Segment Boundary
i SMA Boundary
Centennial Trail
Segment 4 t='
Segment 3
R Segment 1
t a
Kaiser
Aluminum
Millwood r4
Mirabeau
Sullivan:
, rk
`'>• ,, - Park
Segmenti2 i r
•
Spokane affIM -•
r
" Figure 1:Spokane River Segments
r'. City of Spokane Valley
_ I w e ITS
•: � 5 0 0.5 t M'des URS
Also, the City intends to replace the aging Sullivan Bridge. The bridge replacement will be
similar in scale to the Barker Road Bridge Replacement. Access improvements in conjunction
with the Sullivan Bridge Project are expected, including an improved pathway to the water.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 8
SECTIONTHREE Estimate of Future Shoreline Developments and Uses
Additionally, Avista conducts maintenance projects and upgrade projects routinely. These
include access road maintenance and repair, periodic pole replacement, tower upgrades, and
buried natural gas line maintenance, repair, and replacement.
Lastly, the Barker South metals cleanup site is expected to occur in the near future. This
cleanup site was planned for 2012 but delays in the Barker Road Bridge project made the
associated river access restrictions that would be associated with the cleanup activity
unfavorable to the public. As a result, the cleanup activity is currently being re-evaluated.
The primary effect on Spokane River's shorelines is expected to come from increased
recreation. Due to the presence of the SRCT and widespread public park land throughout the
river corridor, increased populations within the region have direct access to the majority of the
river's shorelines through the City, particularly along the southern shoreline due to the SRCT.
Future recreational use may increase with the establishment of the proposed Spokane River
Water Trail, which is being discussed by members of the local Spokane River Forum. As
currently envisioned, the Water Trail would formalize and provide improved direct river access
at many of the existing access points identified in the Inventory and Characterization Report
(URS 2010).
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 9
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
4.1 Protective Provisions of Proposed SMP
Based upon the actions described in Section 3 above, certain shoreline uses appear to have the
greatest potential to result in losses of ecological shoreline functions due to incremental actions
over time. These uses are analyzed by shoreline environmental designation (SED) in Table 4-1,
below, to determine whether they would be allowed outright through an exemption, allowed with
a shoreline substantial development application, potentially allowed as a conditional use, or
outright prohibited. In addition to the general allowances and prohibitions associated with each
SED, there are several additional shoreline regulations that further protect shoreline
environmental functions. These are described in Sections 4.1.2 through 4.1.6. Following this,
Section 4.2 describes other state and federal regulatory programs that function to protect
shoreline ecological functions. Lastly, Section 4.3 describes other activities that are expected to
enhance shoreline ecological functions and, as such, should be considered together with
potentially detrimental anticipated development and recreation effects to assess the potential for
a net loss or gain of shoreline ecological functions.
4.1.1 Shoreline Environmental Designations
The SMP currently includes five SEDs. Based on data gathered during the shoreline inventory,
shoreline areas with similar characteristics are assigned a common SED that reflects unique land
management goals and policies that are appropriate for the area. The SED is used during the
shoreline planning review process as a zoning overlay, which provides additional land use
approval considerations above those associated with the underlying zoning category.
The five SED categories are Urban-Conservancy-High Quality (UC-HQ), Urban Conservancy
(UC), Shoreline Residential—Waterfront (SR-W), Shoreline Residential-Upland (SR-U), and
Aquatic (AQ). The AQ SED applies to those areas below the ordinary high water mark for
Waters of the State. Most of the Spokane River shoreline is designated as UC, including State
Park lands. The UC designation allows for conservation of near-shore habitat while allowing
limited commercial and mixed use development within the outer portion of the SMP jurisdiction.
Areas specifically identified as proposed conservation areas in the 2010 inventory were
designated as UC-HQ. The AQ and UC-HQ designations allow for the least amount of habitat
alteration and generally focus on preservation and management of existing, high-quality riparian
and aquatic habitat. There are two Shoreline Residential designations. Each was developed to
provide a means for allowing appropriate residential uses with regard to the proximity of the
residential area to the waterline. For areas directly adjacent to the water, the SR-W designation
addresses land uses along the water line that are not applicable to upland residential areas (SR-
U). Further descriptions of each SED are provided in COSV Resolution 12-007, which was
passed on November 13, 2012.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 10
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
Table 4-1: Shoreline Development Allowances by Environmental Designation
i
Shoreline Development I I >, >,
with Potential to Degrade c c
Shoreline Ecological
c c c c o m Notes
2 L L V
Functions 13 c 11 13 a c y c y a a
O N O N R 2 c 2 O> .
U) w m U) c m o m O 2 <
Boating Facilities N/A P C X P/C/X See note below'.
Commercial Development would be located
Development(Non- X X P X X within outer portion of SMP
water-Oriented) jurisdiction
In-stream Development N/A C C X C Floodplain protections will be a
(i.e. flood protection) conditional use.
Mining X X X X X No new gravel mines will be allowed
in the SMP zone.
Accessory parking for mixed
Parking Facilities use/residential/recreational
P P P C X developments permitted in most non-
aquatic areas. Parking as a primary
use prohibited in all SEDs.
Recreational Development
Water-dependent/related P P P P P No recreational development is
Non-water-oriented P P P C C prohibited outright and none is
Trails and walkways P P P C P exempted outright.
Residential Development/Redevelopment
Residential structures are subject to
Single-family A A A A X underlying zoning requirements only
outside of Aquatic SED.
Multi-family P P P X X
Private docks serving 1-3 residences
Private docks X P P P X require permit review;4+is covered
through"boating facilities"
Public Facilities and Utilities
Public facilities Includes bridge repairs,park
P P P X C improvements.
Utilities A A P P P
Routine maintenance of Includes existing utility corridor
existing infrastructure A A A A A maintenance.
KEY: A=Allowed/Exempt. P=Permitted. C=Conditional Use. X=Prohibited. N/A=Not Applicable
'Note: For these uses within the Aquatic Environment,the adjacent upland environment per the City of Spokane
Valley Environment Designation Map shall govern.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 1 1
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
4.1.2 Buffers and Setbacks
Shoreline buffers and building setbacks protect the shoreline environment by limiting
development and use within a reasonable distance from the water edge and associated sensitive
shoreline habitats, ensuring no further degradation of the existing shoreline environment.
Shoreline buffers generally follow the vegetation conservation boundary identified in the
shoreline inventory and can be seen on Figure 3 (page 27). Buffers occupy the majority of the
shorelands. Buffer reductions in all SEDs may be granted by Shoreline Variance Permit;
however, sites which have had buffer widths reduced or modified by any prior action are not
eligible for buffer reduction.
In addition to buffers, a 15-foot setback is generally required within all SEDs. Setbacks
proposed for the residential areas are limited to new subdivisions, binding site plans, and planned
residential developments. In addition, the existing Spokane Valley Zoning Code (SMC 19.40),
requires a 20-foot setback from the property line. For most residential properties, this zoning
setback provides a full 20 feet setback from the shoreline buffer. There are ten residential lots,
only one of which is currently vacant,where the zoning setback would allow development along
the buffer area without a setback. The SMP allows the following developments within the
building setback area when accessory to a primary structure:
• Landscaping
• Uncovered decks or patios
• Paths, walkways, or stairs
• Building overhangs, if not extending more than 18 inches into the setback area
4.1.3 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Measures
The Inventory and Characterization Report identifies the loss of riparian cover from development
and recreation as a threat to shoreline habitat function (URS 2010). Shoreline vegetation plays a
number of functional roles by providing bank stability, habitat and wildlife corridors, shade and
cover, and wood and organic debris recruitment. Vegetation conservation measures ensure that
vegetation within the shoreline jurisdiction is protected and/or restored when damaged or
removed by development activities. Vegetation conservation also improves the aesthetic
qualities of the shoreline.
The proposed SMP requires vegetation conservation measures for most projects proposing
vegetation removal. For new development, expansion, or redevelopment, all clearing and grading
activities must comply with Spokane Valley Code Chapter 24.50 (Land Disturbing Activities). A
vegetation management plan, describing the vegetative conditions of the site and summarizing
functions provided by existing vegetation, is required for projects that propose removal of mature
trees or shrubs. Removal of vegetation from within the shoreline buffer also requires submittal of
a vegetation management plan. Mitigation, in the form of native vegetation replacement, may be
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 12
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
required. The City may also require a performance surety as a condition of shoreline permit
approval to ensure compliance with the SMP.
Exceptions to proposed shoreline conservation measures include activities related to maintenance
of existing yards or gardens; noxious weed removal; and dead or hazardous tree removal.
Pruning and thinning of trees for maintenance, safety, forest health, and view protection are also
exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Permit, if a letter of exemption is issued, and
if conducted on/or within the following areas:
• Public land
• Utility corridors
• Private residential land buffer areas
Pruning and thinning for view maintenance on public and private lands are subject to conditions
to ensure that pruning activities are conducted in a way that ensures the continued health and
vigor of shoreline vegetation.
Adherence with the Shoreline Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) regarding the application of
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals is required for all vegetation removal
activities.
4.1.4 Shoreline Hardening Restrictions
Bulkheads and other hard shoreline stabilization structures can disrupt natural shoreline
processes and destroy shoreline habitats. The proposed SMP encourages the use of nonstructural
methods (e.g., building setbacks, relocation of the threatened structure, soil bioengineering with
vegetation, groundwater management, and planning and regulatory measures to avoid the need
for structural stabilization) instead of shoreline hardening measures. New structural stabilization
methods require a Shoreline Conditional Permit and will be permitted only under the following
conditions:
• Evidence shows that an existing primary structure is in danger from shoreline
erosion caused by wave action and river currents.
• Nonstructural measures are not feasible or not sufficient.
• An engineering or scientific analysis shows that damage is caused by natural
processes.
• Structural stabilization will incorporate native vegetation and comply with the
mitigation sequencing in Section 4.1.5.
The SMP also includes provisions allowing for repair, maintenance, and replacement of existing
shoreline stabilization structures, so long as the location and footprint of the replacement
structure remain similar.
New or replaced shoreline stabilization structures must comply with the requirements of the
Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 24.50 (Land Disturbing Activities) and with Section
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 13
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
4.1.3 (Shoreline Vegetation Conservation), and require the submittal of design plans, a design
narrative, and engineering or scientific reports prepared by a qualified professional.
4.1.5 Avoidance and Minimization Standards
To achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, applications for proposed shoreline
modifications or developments must demonstrate that the proposed project meets the City's
Avoidance and Minimization standards. These standards require the applicant to first seek
opportunities to avoid impacts to sensitive shoreline areas, including the Riparian Habitat Area
and shoreline CAOs. Where impacts cannot be avoided, they must be minimized to the extent
practicable and remaining impacts must be mitigated. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
sensitive shoreline areas typically includes shoreline restoration. Mitigation measures will be
applied in the following order of priority:
i. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
ii. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to
avoid or reduce impacts;
iii. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
iv. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations;
v. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments; and
vi. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate
corrective measures.
Mitigation sequencing is required for all proposed shoreline uses and development, including
uses that are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
4.1.6 Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations
The City's shoreline CAO provides regulations for development within critical areas located
within SMP jurisdiction. Designated critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction include
wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, and critical
aquifer recharge areas. Development is generally restricted from occurring within a critical area
without a site specific analysis of potential impacts to the critical area and proposed mitigation.
Regulation of critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction will be administered as part of the
CAO guidelines that are being developed specifically for the SMP update. All use, modification,
or development proposed within the shoreline jurisdiction must comply with the CAO.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 14
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
4.2 State and Federal Regulatory Protections
Federal and state regulations also provide mechanisms that aim to avoid adverse impacts to
shoreline ecological functions. In addition to local regulations, several state and federal agencies
have regulatory authority over resources within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. These
regulations help manage potential cumulative impacts to shorelines. The following state and
federal regulations may apply to activities and uses within the City's shoreline jurisdiction to
avoid impacts.
• Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit: Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for authorizing fill activities.
• Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit: Applicants receiving a Section 404 permit from the
Corps are required to obtain a Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) permit from
Ecology. Water quality certification helps protect water quality by providing the state
with the opportunity to evaluate aquatic impacts from federally permitted projects.
• Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA): All projects with the potential to directly or
indirectly affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA are subject to
the review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries).
• National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): The Flood Insurance and Mitigation
Administration (FIMA) administers NFIP, which provides flood insurance, floodplain
management, and flood hazard mapping. Participants in the NFIP adopt and enforce
floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage.
• State Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA): Any work that will use, divert, obstruct, or
change the natural flow or bed of any of the salt or fresh waters of the state requires a
HPA permit from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Project
applicants must show that construction will not adversely affect fish, shellfish, and their
habitats.
• Washington State Water Pollution Control Act(WPCA): The WPCA prohibits the
discharge of pollutants into any water of the state. Any discharge of pollutants from point
sources to surface waters of the state requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)permit from Ecology.
• Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: Planning projects at Washington
State Parks require completion of the Classification and Management Plan (CAMP)
process. The process reflects the standards set out in the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and information collected through the planning effort is used to satisfy SEPA
requirements.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 15
SECTIONF OUR Summary of Mitigating Regulations and Other Activities
4.3 Other Activities that May Protect or Restore Shoreline Functions
As noted in Table 5-1, opportunities for the restoration of shoreline ecological functions have
been identified throughout the City's SMP jurisdiction. These restoration opportunities are
described in the COSV Shoreline Restoration Plan prepared for the SMP update (URS 2012b).
Implementation of these restoration projects is coordinated through the City but is dependent
upon volunteer interest or mitigation obligations associated with a shoreline permits. Local
environmental advocacy groups periodically work on tree planting and weed removal activities.
Two such activities occurred over the last two years, including weed and trash removal
combined with tree planting at Mirabeau Park and a separate tree planting effort near Barker
Road Bridge. Based on this, volunteer restoration activities are reasonably foreseeable.
Future developments requiring a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit are likely to require
mitigation if they involve habitat impacts that cannot be avoided. Where located near an
identified shoreline restoration opportunity the City is expected to work with applicants to
include an identified restoration opportunity as part of the permit approval.
Other activities that are likely to protect or restore shoreline functions include ongoing weed
management activities carried out by State Parks and the City of Spokane Valley as part of their
routine park maintenance, which includes areas along the SRCT. Also, ongoing metals cleanup
projects in and upstream of the city will improve water quality functions.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 16
SECTIONFIVE Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
5.1 Findings
As summarized in Table 5-1, this SMP will maintain existing shoreline ecological functions.
The current draft shoreline regulations require increased building setbacks where appropriate;
regulate uses likely to have a detrimental impact on ecological functions; establish standards for
achieving proper mitigation of impacts to vegetation conservation areas, critical areas, and
associated buffers; and encourage restoration activities.
While the cumulative impact of certain development activities, such as docks and associated
access, in portions of the Shoreline Residential SED may cause a minor decrease in shoreline
ecological functions over the planning period (estimated at 20 years), those losses are expected
to be relatively small in area and limited to a small portion of the City's shoreline jurisdiction
where coordinated development was deemed appropriate based upon the Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization Report(URS 2010). In contrast, the majority of the SMP jurisdiction is made up
by the Urban Conservancy SED, which appears likely to achieve a net increase in shoreline
functions over the planning period as a result of public interest in volunteering for shoreline
restoration projects, availability of shoreline restoration opportunities, and anticipated mitigation
activities associated with likely shoreline developments. As a result, the overall, or net, status of
shoreline ecological functions is expected to remain at its current state within the COSV.
As noted in Table 5-1, where minor decreases are possible within a SED, recommendations for
minimizing functional losses are provided that may help achieve no change over the planning
period. It should be noted that some of the factors that may degrade shoreline ecological factors
are largely beyond the scope of the SMP, including managed flows on the river and increased
recreational use of the State Parks.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 17
SECTIONFIVE
Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Table 5-1. Findings
Shoreline
Segment
Environmental
Designation
Existing Conditions/
Functions Provided/
Ecological Rating
Expected Growth/
Impacts
Effect of SMP&
Other Regulations
Expected
Ecological
Enhancement
Net Impact to
Functions over Next 20
years
Recommended
Actions
SR-1
Urban
Conservancy
y
(HQ)
Native riparian forest/
Habitat for terrestrial
wildlife, shade;bank
stabilization;native
ty;woody
biodiversity;
material provision,base
flow support
Ecological Rating:Fair-
Good
No growth expected;
area recommended
for conservation
Ongoing shoreline
erosion likely
Commercial and
industrial uses,
significant vegetation
removal,prohibited.
Non-water-oriented
recreational
development requires
conditional use
review.Requires
setbacks from RHAs.
Mitigation
requirements apply to
any development.
None planned;
none needed
Area located away from
recreation hot spots and
no developments
planned. Result is No
loss.
Conserve/protect
existing native
riparian functions
SR-1
Urban
Conservancy
Primarily State Park
land near shoreline/
Native riparian forest
habitat for terrestrial
wildlife, shade;bank
stabilization;native
biodiversity;woody
material provision,
flood protection,base
flow support/
Ecological Rating:Fair-
Good
Increased water-
dependent uses
Minor soil,water,
and vegetation
disturbance from
increased off-trail
pedestrian traffic
Protects existing
vegetation and limits
floodplain
development.
Requires setbacks
from RHAs. Allows
for restoration.
Mitigation
requirements apply to
most development in
this SED.
Riparian habitat
restoration/tree
planting associated
with voluntary
efforts
Vegetation restoration
should balance increased
foot traffic impacts to
result in no loss.
Encourage
restoration
opportunities 30-
38
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft
May 31, 2013
18
SECTIONFIVE
Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Shoreline
Segment
Environmental
Designation
Existing Conditions/
Functions Provided/
Ecological Rating
Expected Growth/
Impacts
Effect of SMP&
Other Regulations
Expected
Ecological
Enhancement
Net Impact to
Functions over Next 20
years
Recommended
Actions
SR-1
Shoreline
Residential
(Upland)
Single family
residential
development,low to
medium density,on
terrace above river/
Habitat for terrestrial
wildlife,bank
stabilization, shade/
Rating:Fair-
Good
Small amount of new
residential
development,
subdivisions and
redevelopment
expected/Increased
runoff from new
impervious,
vegetation alteration,
habitat loss,edge
effects on wildlife
(light and noise
impacts)
Maintains buffers,
limits development in
RHA,conserves
vegetation,protects
g p
critical areas,imposes
building setbacks,
provides public
access. Underlying
zoning requires 20-
foot development
setback from property
lines.
Riparian plantings,
slope stability/
erosion control in
nearby UC SED.
Development may result
in potential localized
minor loss due to
increased runoff,
increased shoreline
access,docks,and edge
effects. Functional losses
are minimized by
building setbacks,
vegetation conservation
and buffer standards,use
restrictions,mitigation,
and possible restoration
activities
Look for ways to
y
limit piecemeal
stormwater and
habitat impacts.
Restoration
opportunity 36
0.06 acre)
)
SR-2
Urban
Conservancy
(HQ)
Native riparian forest or
shrub areas with high
biological diversity,
mature vegetation,or
uncommon species
assemblages/
Habitat for terrestrial
wildlife, shade;bank
stabilization;native
biodiversity;
ty;woody
material provision,base
flow support/
Ecological Rating:Fair-
Good
Expected increase in
recreational use as
population increases
and access
improvements
p
facilitate greater use/
Potential for
increased noxious
weeds,fire,
vegetation
disturbance from foot
traffic.
Commercial and
industrial uses,
significant vegetation
removal,prohibited.
Non-water-oriented
recreational
development requires
conditional use
review. Requires
setbacks from RHAs.
Mitigation
requirements apply to
any development.
None planned
Most areas located
within a RHA and access
improvements designed
to direct recreation use
outside of HQ areas.
Restoration activities
elsewhere assumed to
balance minor effects of
increased recreation
resulting in no loss.
Conserve/protect
existing forest
areas;Place new
park develop-
menu in other
SEDs;Restoration
opportunity 29
(0.3 acre)
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft
May 31, 2013
19
SECTIONFIVE
Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Shoreline
Segment
Environmental
Designation
Existing Conditions/
Functions Provided/
Ecological Rating
Expected Growth/
Impacts
Effect of SMP&
Other Regulations
Expected
Ecological
Enhancement
Net Impact to
Functions over Next 20
years
Recommended
Actions
SR-2
Urban
Conservancy
Primarily State Park
land near shoreline with
limited mixed-use,
commercial,and
industrial areas at outer
edge of SMP zone/
Native riparian forest
habitat for
terrestrial/aquatic
wildlife, shade;bank
stabilization;native
biodiversity;woody
material provision,
flood protection/
Ecological Rating:Fair-
Good
Increased recreational
uses and new
commercial and
mixed-use
development south of
State Park lands/
Minor soil,water,
and vegetation
disturbance from
increased off trail
pedestrian traffic;
increased runoff from
new impervious p
areas; minor increase
in edge effects on
wildlife(light and
noise impacts)
SMP protects existing
vegetation and limits
floodplain
development.
Requires setbacks
from RHAs.For large
developments,
requires Habitat
Management Plan and
mitigation for habitat
impacts. Dimensional
standards limit size of
new developments.
City code and NPDES
requires stormwater
treatment for all new
development
Riparian habitat
restoration/tree
planting
lantin associated
with voluntary
ry
efforts
Ongoing noxious
weed control
Mitigation standards
should limit loss of
functions and large area
of potential vegetation
restoration should
increase shoreline
functions to result in no
net loss; potential net
increase.
Restoration
opportunities 8-
24,26-28 (-27.6
acres)
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013
20
SECTIONFIVE
Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Shoreline
Segment
Environmental
Designation
Existing Conditions/
Functions Provided/
Ecological Rating
Expected Growth/
Impacts
Effect of SMP&
Other Regulations
Expected
Ecological
Enhancement
Net Impact to
Functions over Next 20
years
Recommended
Actions
SR-2
Shoreline
Residential
(Upland)
Small area of single
family residential
development,low
density,on terrace
above river/
Habitat for terrestrial
wildlife,bank
stabilization, shade/
Ecological Rating:Fair-
Good
Small amount of new
residential
development and
redevelopment
expected/Increased
runoff from new
impervious,
vegetation alteration,
habitat loss,edge
effects on wildlife
Maintains buffers,
limits development in
RHA,conserves
vegetation,protects
critical areas,imposes
building setbacks,
provides public
access. Underlying
zoning requires 20-
foot development
setback from property
lines.
Riparian plantings,
slope stability/
erosion control in
nearby UC SED.
Development may result
in potential localized
minor loss due to
increased runoff,
increased shoreline
access,docks,and edge
effects. Functional losses
are minimized by
building setbacks,
vegetation conservation
and buffer standards,use
restrictions,mitigation,
and possible restoration
activities
Restoration
opportunity 25,26
(�0.8 acres)
SR-3
Urban
Conservancy
(HQ)
Native riparian shrub
areas with high
biological diversity and
unique riparian physical
environment near
Coyote Rock river
formations/
Habitat for terrestrial
wildlife, shade,bank
stabilization,native
biodiversity,flood
attenuation,woody
material provision,base
flow support/
Ecological Rating:Fair-
Good
Expected increase in
adjacent recreational
use as population
increases/
Potential for
increased noxious
weeds,fire
Commercial and
industrial uses,
significant vegetation
removal,prohibited.
Non-water-oriented
recreational
development requires
conditional use
review.Requires
setbacks from RHAs.
Mitigation
requirements apply to
any development.
None planned
Areas located within a
RHA and no
development is
anticipated in area
resulting in no loss.
Restoration
Opportunity#6
would expand the
HQ habitat to
provide a net
increase in
shoreline
habitat/water
quality functions.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft
May 31, 2013
21
SECTIONFIVE
Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Shoreline
Segment
Environmental
Designation
Existing Conditions/
Functions Provided/
Ecological Rating
Expected Growth/
Impacts
Effect of SMP&
Other Regulations
Expected
Ecological
Enhancement
Net Impact to
Functions over Next 20
years
Recommended
Actions
SR-3
Urban
Conservancy
Primarily State Park
land(Myrtle Point
Natural Area and
SRCT)near shoreline
with limited mixed-use,
commercial,and
industrial areas at outer
edge of SMP zone/
Native riparian forest
habitat for
terrestrial/aquatic
wildlife, shade;bank
stabilization; flood
attenuation,native
biodiversity;woody
material provision/
Ecological Rating:Fair-
Good
Small area with
potential for
increased recreational
uses and possible
new subdivision
and/or commercial
development/
Minor soil,water,
and vegetation
disturbance from
increased off-trail
pedestrian traffic;
increased runoff from
new impervious
areas; minor increase
in edge effects on
wildlife from new
residential
community(incl.
pets)
SMP protects existing
vegetation and limits
floodplain
development.
Requires setbacks
from RHAs.For large
developments,
requires Habitat
Management Plan and
mitigation for habitat
impacts.Dimensional
standards limit size of
new developments.
City code and NPDES
requires stormwater
treatment for all new
development
Riparian plantings,
passive restoration,
erosion control
Mitigation standards
should limit loss of
functions and large area
of potential vegetation
restoration should
increase shoreline
functions to result in no
loss; potential
increases.
Restoration
opportunities 5-7
(6.0 acres)
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013
22
SECTIONFIVE
Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Shoreline
Segment
Environmental
Designation
Existing Conditions/
Functions Provided/
Ecological Rating
Expected Growth/
Impacts
Effect of SMP&
Other Regulations
Expected
Ecological
Enhancement
Net Impact to
Functions over Next 20
years
Recommended
Actions
SR-3
Shoreline
Residential
(Waterfront)
Area currently vacant
but cleared and platted
for new single family,
waterfont development
behind a 75-foot
vegetated shoreline
setback/
Habitat for terrestrial
wildlife,bank
stabilization, shade/
Ecological Rating:Fair-
Good
Several new
residential
developments
expected.
Applications for dock
developments and
associated pathways
anticipated/
p
Increased runoff from
new impervious,
vegetation alteration,
habitat loss,edge
g
effects on wildlife
SMP maintains
buffers,limits
development in RHA,
conserves vegetation,
and protects critical
areas.Docks require
shoreline permits.No
setbacks.
Riparian planting
potential in nearby
UC SED.
Development may result
in potential localized
minor loss due to
increased runoff,
increased shoreline
access,docks,and edge
effects. Functional losses
are minimized by
building setbacks,
vegetation conservation
and buffer standards,use
restrictions,mitigation,
and possible restoration
activities
Encourage
planned, multi-
unit development
to provide formal
access to
shoreline to avoid
multiple footpaths
that result in
vegetation loss
and erosion.
Restoration
opportunities 1-4
(1.0 acre)
SR 3
Shoreline
Residential
(Upland)
Small area platted for
single-family residential
development but
currently vacant and
covered with young
pine trees/
Habitat for terrestrial
wildlife,bank
stabilization, shade/
Ecological Rating:Fair-
Good
New single family
residential
development/
Increased runoff from
new impervious,
vegetation alteration,
habitat loss,edge
effects on wildlife
Maintains buffers,
limits development in
RHA,conserves
vegetation,protects
critical areas,imposes
building setbacks,
provides public
access. Underlying
zoning requires 20-
foot development
setback from property
lines
Riparian plantings,
slope stability/
erosion control in
nearby UC SED.
Development may result
in potential localized
minor loss due to
increased runoff,
increased shoreline
access,docks,and edge
effects. Functional losses
are minimized by
building setbacks,
vegetation conservation
and buffer standards,use
restrictions,mitigation,
and possible restoration
activities
Look for ways to
limit piecemeal
stormwater and
habitat impacts.
Has potential for
Passive
p
restoration.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft
May 31, 2013
23
SECTIONFIVE
Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Shoreline
Segment
Environmental
Designation
Existing Conditions/
Functions Provided/
Ecological Rating
Expected Growth/
Impacts
Effect of SMP&
Other Regulations
Expected
Ecological
Enhancement
Net Impact to
Functions over Next 20
years
Recommended
Actions
SR-4
Shoreline
Residential
(Waterfront)
Fully developed
residential area along
slack water waterfront
behind upriver dam.No
public access.Many
docks; shoreline heavily
armored/
Shade from
landscaping/
Poor-fair
Residential
development,
recreational uses,
public access
Standards for density,
lot coverage limits,
shoreline stabilization,
vegetation
conservation,critical
area protection,and
water quality to assure
no net loss of
ecological function.
No change to
current ecological
condition expected
No change anticipated.
Require native
landscaping as
partial mitigation
for any new
substantial
developments.
SR(All)
Aquatic
Spokane River below
the ordinary high water
line/
Aquatic habitat for
native fish,amphibians,
benthic invertebrates;
support for sensitive
pp ,
aquatic species';aquifer
recharge;transport of
materials;nutrient
cycling;contaminated
sediment cover
Ecological Condition:
Fair Good
Increased recreation
and additional docks
Prevents most
development,
facilitates in-stream
habitat restoration,
TIVIDL&NPDES
restrict pollution and
provide for cleanup
plan, state/federal
permits required for
most in-water work.
Barker south
metals cleanup site
will reduce metals
contamination.
Increased
stormwater
treatment standards
likely to limit water
quality
degradation.
Riparian
enhancements will
provide shade,
organic matter.
Decreased flows likely
Reduced trout
populations likely with
increase human use.
Prohibit/limit
motorboats,
design docks to
allow light
through decks,
post signs river use during limit
peak trout
spawning periods
' Aquatic environment contains Priority Species.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013
24
SECTIONFIVE
Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
Shoreline
Segment
Environmental
Designation
Existing Conditions/
Functions Provided/
Ecological Rating
Expected Growth/
Impacts
Effect of SMP&
Other Regulations
Expected
Ecological
Enhancement
Net Impact to
Functions over Next 20
years
Recommended
Actions
Shelley
Lake
Urban
Conservancy
Large private lot
containing native
riparian habitat and
used by local
community as a nature
trail/
Habitat for terrestrial
wildlife, shade,organic
material for lake/
Ecological condition:
good
Limited growth in
adjacent residential
areas will bring
additional foot traffic
along existing trail
SMP Establishes RHA
with limited
development allowed.
Possible noxious
weed control and
revegetation
No change likely. With
restoration,may see a
slight increase.
Restoration
opportunities 39,
40 (2.6 acres)
Shelley
Lake
Shoreline
Residential
bpd)
Single-and multifamily
residential development
above an existing paved
trail around majority of
lake/
Minor shade for lake,
roosting habitat for
birds/
Ecological condition:
poor-fair
New sin le and
g
multi-family
residential
development/
Additional water use,
lawn chemicals,and
Doff•
SMP Maintains
buffers and setbacks,
conserves vegetation,
g
protects critical areas,
limits lot coverage.
State and federal
permits regulate in-
water work
Work with local
conservation
district to establish
vegetation along
lake's draw-down
zone
Most of lake is already
developed along
shoreline in this zone.
Efforts to provide native
p
plants along shoreline
expected to maintain
existing functions as
recreational use
increases resulting in no
change.
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013
25
SECTIONFIVE
Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
ShorelineEnvironmenlal designation
t.ltcgory
i
Shoreline Residential•Upland
Shoreline Residential-Wk3LerrrnrYt
I 1 Urban Carsservanck
I—I Urban Can raancy NCB
I 1
€5 ive+ Scnincot 4'i:'75op
II lb'
e
r
Map Features
I.j Spokane Valley Cily Limit.
•I
65
Mies
Fipare 2
Shoreline Environmental Designatinna
City 41 Spt Sa n.Virlay
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report
Sharelme Masier.Pragram 1,1 ate
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis–DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013
26
SECTIONFIVE
Findings by Proposed Environmental Designation
•
• ' • •:Uf i_ t lie
l
11
tb
.1
s
or
•
Map Features
j Spokane Valley City Limits
Shoreline Jurisdiction(SMP)
I I
Shoreline Buffer
E
0
0.5
Miles
1
Figure 3
Shoreline Buffers
City of Spokane Valley
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report
Shoreline Master Program Update
May 2013
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft
May 31, 2013
27
SECTION SIX References
URS Corporation. 2010. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization Report. Spokane Valley, WA.
URS Corporation. 2012. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Public
Access Plan. Spokane Valley, WA.
URS Corporation. 2012b. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update, Restoration
Plan. Portland, OR
City of Spokane Valley Cumulative Impacts Analysis—DOE Preliminary Draft May 31, 2013 28
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
June 27, 2013
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III. ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF
Bill Bates-Chair x Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager
Joe Stoy—Vice Chair x Marty Palaniuk,Planner
Steven Neill Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Kevin Anderson x r
Mike Phillips x r
Robert McCaslin x
Christina Carlsen x r Can Hinshaw, Secretary
Planning Commissioners agreed to excuse Commissioner Stoy from the Planning Commission
Meeting.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the agenda as presented, a second was made and the
motion passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Neill moved to approve the June 13, 2013 minutes as presented, a second was
made and the motion passed unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Carlsen attended the Regional Short Course at the
City of Spokane. Commissioner Carlsen stated there was a lot of good information and wished
there were more that would have attended. She said there were many aspects of City Planning
that she had not wrapped her head around yet and the speakers did a good job at presenting the
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3
information. Commissioner Bates attended the City of Spokane Valley budget session and the
Joint Session on the Shoreline. He stated it was good to have a joint meeting and he
complimented the staff on what a good job they did.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manager Kuhta reviewed the advance agenda. He stated that the plan is to focus on
the Shoreline Master Plan issues. There is not a lot of detail to the advance agenda due to
waiting to see how the SMP issues plays out.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Old Business:
Findings of Fact: CTA-2013-0004, Sign Code Amendments
Commissioner Neill moved to approve and forward to City Council CTA-2013-0004 as
presented. A second was made.
Discussion: None
Planning Commission vote was to forward to the City Council as presented, the motion was
passed unanimously.
B. New Business:
Presentation: Spokane Regional Transportation Council.
Senior Transportation Planner Ryan Stewart provided an overview of the Horizon 2040
effort. Under Federal regulations, one requirement is to develop a metropolitan
transportation plan. This is a twenty-year minimum look into the future. It will be the blue
print for the entire county of what they want transportation to look like over the next
twenty plus years. He went over the Regional priorities, their vision, forecasting the
population and employment.
C. Unfinished Business:
Commissioner Bates opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 PM
Public Hearing and Deliberations: CTA-2013-0005.
Planner Marty Palaniuk provided an overview of the materials for the Outdoor Lighting
Standards and went over the proposed changes as attached in the draft materials for
Chapter 22.60 Outdoor lighting standards.
Commissioner Phillips asked if "lights on billboards" was in the sign code ordinance.
Planning Manager Kuhta read the regulation as follows: Sign code section of the municipal
code 22.110.060 General Provisions: Electronic signs shall be permitted on the same basis
as other signs. All electronic message centers are required to have automatic dimming
capabilities that adjust the brightness to the ambient light at all times of the day and night.
Mr. Kuhta stated there is suppose to be written documentation when people come in for a
permit to install their sign. It does not talk about a specific standard, it talks about dimming
capabilities.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
Commissioner Bates discussed criteria. His concern was about the maximum pole height.
He asked if the Planning Director would determine the height of each individual project
based on his knowledge of zoning and could we have different heights of poles in the City?
Planner Palaniuk responded with yes. Commissioner Bates discussed treating people fairly
by one of them not being able to put up the kind of fixture that he/she wanted verses
somebody else. He stated that maybe regulating it based on zoning would be good. Mr.
Palaniuk responded that the only purpose of the decision criteria is to decide whether a
lighting plan is required. He does not think it is going to limit the height of the pole. The
City is going to allow the developer to come in and provide the information. The only
requirement the City will have is that the light be shielded off the site. The intent of the
changes is to allow more flexibility for the developer.
Commissioner Bates closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 PM
Commissioner Neill moved to approve and forward to the City Council CTA-2013-0005 as
presented, a second was made
Discussion: Commissioner Anderson stated he will support the plan, but from a personal
standpoint, he said he could understand rules about minimal lighting for public areas or
parking lots that are all safety related. He does not like the idea that we would restrict
private people from how much electricity they use or pay for on their own property. The
state of Washington has taken it upon itself to put rules for that. From Commissioner
Anderson's standpoint, he stated the cost of electricity would control what people do with
their money. He is amazed at the thought process (not created by this City) in that we
would restrict people from doing whatever lighting process they wanted as long as it was
not a safety hazard.
Planning Commission Action: to forward to the City Council as presented, the motion
was passed unanimously.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
Bill Bates, Chairperson
Cari Hinshaw, PC Secretary
Date signed
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3
Chapter 22.60
OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS
Sections:
22.60.010 Purpose.
22.60.020 Application.
22.60.030 General requirements.
22.60.040 Prohibited lights.
22.60.050 Exceptions.
22.60.060 Temporary lighting.
22.60.010 Purpose.
The regulation of outdoor lighting discourages excessive lighting of outdoor spaces, encourages energy
conservation and prohibits lighting creating a nuisance for adjacent property owners. (Ord. 07-015 §4,
2007).
22.60.020 Application.
The requirements of this chapter and the Washington Energy Code(Chapter 51 11 WAC) apply to
outdoor lighting requirements for all developments except one- and two-family dwellings and public street
lighting. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
22.60.030 General requirements.
The installation of new outdoor lighting or the extension, modification or expansion of existing outdoor
lighting is subject to the following requirements:
A. The lighting allowance for covered parking, open parking and outdoor areas shall not exceed 0.20
e._.
per square foot for covered residential parking when ceilings and walls are painted or stained with a
reflectance value of 0.70 or higher.
B. The lighting allowance for building exteriors, including landscaping lighting, shall not exceed either 0.25
watts per square foot of building facade or 7.5 watts per linear foot of building perimeter.
C. The maximum height of pole mounted outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed /12 feet in Regional
Commercial and industrial zoning districts and 35 feet in all other districts.
A. All outdoor lights shall include a light source and reflector that controls the light beam so that
unshielded na light does not extends across any bounding property line between incompatible uses or
into the public right-of-way,
CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page I 1
II q:114ScrKPTAOLE -
I
.WI,{ 4+r'1,4%4 ."5,-%
9.
v yei^
- V...,, P.,*P•r 4y .N..I;hbyr. rrnry•'rty
Irr A C C L T''I'A f I.F.
ffs...
Yen.. rrr•.I+r.tr f41crightr,rw Frnr. -',
B. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed so that the light source is shielded at any bounding
property line except where topographical characteristics make this impossible.
t''JACCEPTABLE ACCEY'T'AIZI,';
rr 4:41.1311211;:::::411.
..—N.. .7 _7�''p+�I11114
a
Y III I!
�I{I Fl FlwR
F. All outdoor lighting systems shall be equipped with automatic switches conforming to the requirements
• -:- _• - _. e •= Washington Energy Code.
C.A Aapplications for building permits for commercial development will be evaluated by the
Community Development Director to determine if a lighting plan is required to assess and mitigate
impacts. The need fora lighting plan will be based on the scope and scale of the project, compatibility
with surrounding uses, and anticipated light impacts. If required, the plan will include the following: s#a�4
be accompanied by a photometric analysis of the lighting effects prepared by a qualified engineer.
1. A site plan showing the location of all outdoor light fixtures.
2. The type and method of shielding for each light fixture.
CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page 12
H. The mounting height of walkway lighting shall not exceed 12 feet and all fixtures mounted at a height
of more than eight feet shall be fully shielded.
-[D. Lighting designed to accent landscaping features or architectural elements, including the illumination
of pole-mounted flags of the United States, shall be concealed or positioned so that the light source is not
visible at adjacent property lines.
J. Lighting for outdoor arenas, stadiums and playfields shall not remain on longer than 30 minutes
following the end of the event. (Ord. 07 015 §/1, 2007).
22.60.040 Prohibited lights.
The following lights are prohibited unless a temporary permit is obtained for specific events with specific
times of operation:
A. Laser source light, strobe lights and similar high intensity light sources, except those associated with
approved activities of the City of Spokane Valley. High intensity lights for which a temporary permit is
issued shall not project above the horizontal plane nor extend into the public right-of-way.
B. Searchlights. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
22.60.050 Exceptions.
A. Navigation and airport lighting required for the safe operation of boats and airplanes.
B. Emergency lighting required by police, fire, and rescue authorities.
C. Lighting for state and federal highways authorized by the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
D. Internal lighting of permitted signs.
E. Outdoor lighting for public monuments.
F. In-pool lighting for private swimming pools.
G. Holiday decorations. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
22.60.060 Temporary lighting.
The building official may authorize temporary exceptions not to exceed 30 days for good cause shown.
(Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007).
CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page 13