SDP-01-07 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, )
Barker Road Bridge Replacement Project; ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Applicant: City of Spokane Valley ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
File No. SDP-01-07 ) AND DECISION
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Application for a shoreline substantial development permit, for a bridge
replacement project.
Summary of Decision: Approve application, subject to conditions.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Procedural Information
1. The application requests approval of a shoreline substantial development permit, to replace
the existing Barker Road Bridge over the Spokane River with a new bridge.
2. The site is located along Barker Road, and across the Spokane River, approximately one-
half(1/2) mile north of the intersection of Mission Avenue and Barker Road; in Spokane Valley,
Washington.
3. The site is situated in the East 1/2 of Section 7, and the West 1/2 of Section 8, Township 25N,
Range 45 EWM of Spokane County, Washington.
4. The applicant is the City of Spokane Valley, c/o Steve Worley, City Public Works
Department, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206.
5. On March 19, 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a"nationwide permit" to
allow construction of the project in the Spokane River, subject to conditions.
6. On May 18, 2007, the City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department issued a r£
Determination of Nonsignificance for the project. The DNS was not appealed.
7. On September 28, 2007, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
issued a hydraulic permit for the project, subject to conditions.
8. On October 3, 2007, the applicant submitted a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application
(JARPA) for the project to the City Community Development Department-Planning Division
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 1
("City Planning Division"), and to pertinent state and federal agencies. Such application
comprises an application for a shoreline substantial development permit.
9. On December 20, 2007, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the
application. The notice requirements for the public hearing were met.
10. The Hearing Examiner heard the application pursuant to the City Interim Shoreline Master
Program, Chapter 10.35 of the City Municipal Code (Hearing Examiner Ordinance), and the City
Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.
11 The following persons testified at the public hearing:
Micki Harnois, Associate Planner Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
City Community Development Department City Community Development Department
11707 E. Sprague, Suite 101 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 101
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Steve Worley Tim Stromberger
Public Works Department 18625 E. Riverway
11707 E. Sprague, Suite 101 Spokane Valley, WA 99016
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Howard Collison Rex King
2601 N. Barker Road 18710 E. Montgomery
Spokane Valley, WA 99027 Spokane Valley, WA 99027
Doug Rider Doug Miller
19410 E. Buckeye PO Box 123
Spokane Valley, WA 99027 Greenacres, WA 99016
Jim Dingfield Marlene Humphrey
CH2M Hill 18816 E. Montgomery Drive
9 S. Washington Otis Orchards, WA 99027
Spokane, WA 99201
Richard Mundt
River Rose Village, Office
2601 N. Barker Road
Spokane Valley, WA 99027
B. Items in Record
12. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the Spokane Valley Interim Shoreline Master
Program, Interim Critical Areas Ordinance and maps, Environmental Ordinance, Comprehensive
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 2
g
Plan, Uniform Development Code, and. Municipal Code; other applicable development
regulations; and prior land use decisions in the vicinity.
13. The record includes the documents in the project file at the time of the public hearing, the
documents and testimony submitted at the public hearing, and the items taken notice of by the
Hearing Examiner.
C. Description of Site
14. The existing bridge across the river is a 6-span concrete structure, was constructed in 1952,
is approximately 36 feet wide and 478 feet long, has two traffic lanes, and has barricades and
narrow sidewalks along both sides.
15. The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient, due primarily to inadequate load
capacity and a mid-span design deficiency. The bridge is also substandard in width, and has
footings in the river that are potentially subject to critical scour,
16. Qwest has existing conduits and active cables supported from the bridge. An existing AT &
T fiber optic communications line is located under the Centennial Trail near the south bridge
abutment.
17. Remnants of five (5) concrete pilings associated with a previous bridge are found in the
vicinity of the existing bridge. This includes three (3) partially submerged pilings; one located
beneath the existing bridge on the north bank, and two located on the north shore of the river east
of the bridge. Another piling stands on the north bank, east of the existing bridge, and the
remaining piling is incorporated into riprap beneath the south end of the bridge.
18. The Spokane Centennial Trail, a regional trail system situated on land owned by the
Washington State Parks and Recreation Department, passes under the existing bridge on the
south bank of the river. A kayak/canoe put-in point is located on state parkland near the bridge
on the north bank of the river.
I
19. The Spokane River has a well-defined channel at the location of the project; with vertical
cut banks, a maximum slope of 67% on both sides, and scant vegetation. The project site is
located on alluvium soils, according to the geotechnical reports prepared for the project.
D. Description of Project
20. The proposed bridge is a 3-span, concrete bridge that would be 71 feet wide, 448 feet long
and lie 32 feet above the ordinary high water mark(OHWM) of the river. The bridge would have
two (2) pairs of cylindrical, 2-column, concrete piers; which would be installed in the river.
21. The proposed bridge would have two (2) travel lanes, capacity for future expansion to four
(4) travel lanes, and 4.5-foot bicycle lanes and sidewalks on each side. The future travel lanes
would be used for up to 20 spaces of parallel parking, until needed for traffic.
Ems.
,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 3
22. The deck for the proposed bridge would be wider and situated approximately two (2) feet
higher above the water than the existing bridge. The concrete surface area of the proposed bridge
is more than double that of the existing bridge, and would generally have a bulkier appearance.
23. The existing bridge would be demolished for the project, including removal of the existing
piers from the river. The piers associated with an earlier bridge at the site would also be removed.
24. Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in late March of 2008, and be completed
by September of 2009. Barker Road would be closed over the river during the duration of the
project. Temporary work access dikes or trestles would be extended from each bank of the river,
with a minimum 8-foot clearance between the OHWM of the river and the trestle bottoms.
25. Vehicular access to the Centennial Trail parking lot would be maintained during
construction; except for short periods of time during curb and sidewalk construction and roadway
paving, on the portion of Barker Road lying adjacent to the parking lot entrance. The trail, as
well as block and concrete walls that support the slope above the trail at the south bridge
abutment, would be reconstructed in approximately the same alignment after the new bridge is
completed. Work on the trail is anticipated to occur for a distance of approximately 55 feet on
each side of the bridge.
26. A barrier would be installed across the Centennial trail some distance west of the site. A
signed detour for the Centennial trail would begin further to the west; east of the trail access at
Flora Road, along Montgomery Avenue and Riverway Avenue. Access to the trail would remain
available via the Harvard Road day use area located to the east, and the Flora Road access to the
west.
27. Recreational activities at the kayak/canoe input area on the north side of the river would be
temporarily closed during construction, but another access point would be provided during the
times of closure.
28. The bridge replacement project will extend within the City road right of way along Barker
Road, for a distance of approximately 400 feet north of the existing bridge south to a point lying
approximately 350 feet south of the existing bridge. Some disturbance would occur throughout
the project length within 10 feet outside the right of way borders on the east and west.
29. The staging areas for equipment and materials for the project would be located within City
road right of way on both sides of the river. The gravel parking lot for the Centennial Trail,
located at the southeast corner of the river and Barker Road, may also be used for staging. 3'
30. Spokane County Utilities, Consolidated Water District No. 19, Qwest, and Avista Utilities
have proposed suspending sewer, water, utilities and other infrastructure, respectively, from the
underside of the bridge across the river.
31. The environmental checklist for the project indicates that approximately 340 cubic yards of
material would be excavated, demolished or removed; approximately 1,000 cubic yards of
is
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 4
material would be excavated for new drilled shafts; approximately 1,500 cubic yards of concrete
would be installed for new bridge piers; approximately 2,400 cubic yards of material would be
placed and removed for temporary rock dikes to provide for pier demolition or construction; and
approximately 2,500 cubic yards of fill would be placed for the grading of road approaches-all
within the OHWM of the river.
32. The environmental checklist indicates that an "access lane", consisting of a small area on the
north bank of the river located east of the bridge installed between the summer low water mark
and the OHWM, would be re-graded to the existing surface elevation prior to placing 12 inches or
more of barrier cover material, equal to 20 cubic yards; in coordination with a State shorelines
cleanup project directed at capping heavy metal pollution in the river.
E. Land Use Designations for Site and Area, Surrounding Conditions
33. The state parkland located along the river in the area is designated in the Park/Open Space
category, and is zoned Community Facilities (CF). The parkland is improved with the Centennial
Trail on the south side of the river, a gravel parking lot for the trail directly southeast of the river
and Barker Road, and a kayak/canoe facility directly northeast of Barker Road and the river.
34. The other land in the vicinity is designated in the Low Density Residential category of the
Comprehensive Plan.
35. The land lying east of Barker Road on both sides of the river, except for state parkland, is
zoned Single-Family Residential Urban(R-4) and developed with single-family homes on urban-
sized lots. The land lying northwest of the river and Barker Road, north of state parkland, is
zoned R-4 and consists of a recreational vehicle campground.
36. The land lying southwest of the river and Barker Road, south of state parkland, is zoned
Single-family Residential Suburban (R-2), and consists of single-family homes on acreage parcels.
Further to the south, the land is zoned Single-family Residential(R-3) and consists of single- ff
family homes on lots less than one (1) acre in size.
37. The City Arterial Street Plan designates Barker Road as a Principal Arterial; Mission
to the south as a Minor Arterial; and Montgomery Avenue, Riverway Avenue (east of
Montgomery Avenue) and Flora Road as Collector Arterials.
38. Trent Avenue (State Route No. 290) is located one-half(1/2) mile north of the Spokane
River at Barker Road, and Interstate 90 is located approximately one (1) mile south of the river.
A public transit stop is located at the intersection of Mission Avenue and Barker Road.
39. The City Interim Shoreline Master Program designates the Spokane River as a shoreline of
statewide significance. The Master Program designates the shoreline on the north side of the
river, extending east from a short distance west of Barker Road, under the bridge and to the east
for some distance, in the Conservancy category; and designates the other shorelines in the area in
the Pastoral category.
4b
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 5
Ih
I
1
1
j
40. The City Interim Shoreline Program provides that land designated by the City shoreline map
in shoreline areas other than Rural or Urban, which land was platted before December of 1974, is
considered to be designated in the Rural Area. See paragraph 3.2(1) on page 4-5 of the City
Interim Shoreline Program.
41. The Examiner takes notice, based on the County Plat Index, and the County Assessor parcel
information in the file, that the private parcels of land in the vicinity located adjacent to the Barker
Road right of way, and that have a portion of their land located in the 200-foot shoreline area,
were platted before 1974. Accordingly, the shoreline area on such properties would be regarded
as being designated in the Rural Area of the City Interim Shoreline Master Program.
42. City Critical Areas maps designate the Spokane River as a DNR Type 1 stream, which is
protected by a standard 250-foot riparian buffer under the City Interim Critical.Areas Ordinance.
43. City Critical Areas maps, and the current WDFW map of priority wildlife habitat and
species, designate Urban Natural Open Space priority wildlife habitat on both sides of the river.
44. A 100-year floodplain is located along both sides of the river in the vicinity. Some
construction work related to the bridge would be conducted in the floodplain.
F. Concerns expressed by Neighboring Property Owners
45. Neighboring property owners generally did not oppose the project; but expressed various
concerns, including the loss of vehicular, emergency, pedestrian and public transit access during
the closure of Barker Road over the Spokane River; loss of trees due to project construction;
potential trespass by users of the Centennial Trail east of where it would be barricaded during
closure due to the project; noise and disruption from construction activities; flooding of the river
at the northeast corner of Barker Road and the river; the need for bicycle lane on the trail detour
route; and other concerns.
r
G. Relevant Policies of Comprehensive Plan
46. The Staff Report sets forth applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan relating to truck
routes and freight corridors, and the location of utilities.
47. Several policies of the Comprehensive Plan are found under Goal TG-9, which policies G
encourage community livability and transportation through a connected system of pedestrian and
bicycle ways that is integrated into a coordinated regional network. See also Policy TP-16.1.
48. Policy TP-2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that street design complement
adjacent development. Policy TP.8.1 recommends that the City's transportation system and
infrastructure be used to support desired land uses and development patterns.
49. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the current project is included in the City's Six-Year
Transportation Capital Facilities and Financing Plan, for construction in 2008.
f
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 6
50. The Comprehensive Plan designates the project site and surrounding land in a critical aquifer
recharge area(CARA) of high susceptibility to groundwater contamination.
51. Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan contains numerous policies applicable to development
in designated critical areas; including, in pertinent part, priority wildlife habitat, geologically
hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and CARAs.
52. The Comprehensive Plan also adopts the policies and goals of the City Interim Shoreline
Master Program as goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
53. Policy LUP-15.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that archaeological and historic
sites be continually identified and evaluated to determine which should be preserved.
H. Shoreline Regulations pertinent to Project
54. The Staff Report sets forth a number of policies and regulations of the City Interim
Shoreline Master Program("Master Program") that apply to the project. The project will be
conducted in the Pastoral and Conservancy Areas of the Master Program, but small portions may
also be conducted on adjacent private properties that are designated in the Rural Area.
55. The goals and policies of the Master Program for shorelines of statewide significance, on
pages 1-3 and 1-4 of the Master Program, recommend, in pertinent part, that the statewide
interest be protected over the local interest, the natural character of the shoreline be preserved,
priority be given to long term over short term benefits, the resources and ecology of the shoreline
be preserved, and public access to the shoreline be increased. These policies echo the policies set
forth in the State Shoreline Management Act, in RCW 90.58.020.
56. General use regulation#5.5 of the Master Program provides that in areas of 5% or greater
slope, ground cover shall be retained or replaced with similar vegetation to prevent erosion.
57. General use regulation#5.9 of the Master Program provides that no structure in the
shoreline areas shall exceed a height of 35 feet above the average elevation, except where
specifically authorized by the Master Program and where a substantial number of views will not
be impaired.
58. General use regulation#5.8 of the Master Program provides that all development,
particularly recreation and public access, shall be designed to protect property rights and privacy
of owners or inhabitants of adjacent properties.
59. General use regulation#5.16 of the Master Program requires that all development and
practices adhere to federal EPA regulations governing point and non-point discharges under
federal clean water legislation.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 7
60. General use regulation#5.17 of the Master Program requires that adequate buffer areas of
permanent vegetation be maintained above the OHWM to protect against shoreline erosion; and
to reduce the amount of silt, nutrients and pollutants entering the water from agricultural runoff.
61. Use regulation#9.2.1 of the Master Program, applicable in the Pastoral, Conservancy and
Rural Areas, authorizes transmission lines, including electrical facilities, water, oil and gas lines, to
traverse the shoreline area only when necessary to cross a stream or lake to reach the ultimate
destination of the transmission line.
62. Use regulation#9.2.5 of the Master Program, applicable to the same shoreline areas,
requires that transmission and other pipelines cross streams either by being constructed on public
roadway bridges designed for, or capable of, accommodating the inclusion of such pipelines; or b
P by
being constructed below stream bottoms.
63. Use regulations #9.2.7 and#9.2.8 of the Master Program, applicable to the same shoreline
areas, authorize other utilities, including public sewer mains, to be constructed on public roadway
bridges.
64. Use regulations #12.3.3 and#12.3.4, applicable to the Rural Area, are the same as Use
regulations #12.2.3 and#12.2.5 on page 4-21 of the Master Program, which apply to the Pastoral
and Conservancy Area and are set forth in the Staff Report.
65. Use regulation#14.1.1 of the Master Program, applicable to all shoreline areas, limits the
use of waterfront areas for recreation to activities that are dependent on or enhanced by the
shoreline environment; such as fishing, boating and swimming; and recreational trails.
66. Use regulation#14.1.2 of the Master Program, applicable to all shoreline areas, requires that
the design and development of recreational areas protect the natural features of the land, its
vegetation, wildlife, water quality and habitat; and take into consideration the biophysical
capabilities of the site.
67. Use regulation s #14.1.3 of the Master Program, applicable to all shoreline areas, requires
r
that access to and along the waterfront be provided for pedestrians and bicycles, where
appropriate and where the biophysical capabilities allow such uses. Use regulation#14.1.4,
pertaining to recreational uses, requires that the scenic views and scenic quality of the shoreline a
area be preserved and enhanced.
68. Use regulation#15.1.1, applicable to the Pastoral Area, prohibits landfill, except .
pP , p ept for landfill
associated with permitted bulkheads and permitted bridges. Use regulation#15.2, applicable in
the Conservancy and Rural Areas, permits landfill only where justified by an overriding public g'
interest; subject to certain requirements intended to protect water quality and aquatic life, prevent I
erosion, and preserve the navigability and flow of the water; and prohibits the dumping of dredge
spoils.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 8
69. Use regulation #16.1.1, applicable to the Pastoral Area, prohibits dredging; except to
preserve, maintain or restore the natural qualities of the waterway. Use regulation#16.2.2,
applicable in the Conservancy and Rural Area, prohibits dredging for the purpose of securing fill
or construction materials. Dredging for the purpose of improved navigation, recreation or
improved water flow, or other primarily public purposes, may be permitted in such areas subject
to certain conditions that are intended to protect the shoreline environment.
70. Use regulations #19.1.1 through 19.1.7, applicable to all shoreline areas, provide various
requirements for shoreline protection measures.
I. Pertinent provisions of City Critical Areas Ordinance
71. The City Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) requires the City Planning Division to consult
with the WDFW when a development is proposed on land designated in a priority wildlife habitat,
to determine whether the development will have a significant adverse impact on the habitat, and a
habitat management plan should be prepared.
72. The CAO requires riparian buffer areas established for DNR Type streams to be retained in
their natural condition, with certain exceptions; and prohibits the removal of riparian vegetation
except in the case of fire or disease, unless there are no alternatives. This includes the 250-foot
riparian buffer required by the ordinance adjacent to the Spokane River, as a DNR Type 1 stream.
73. The CAO provides that roads within riparian buffer areas shall be kept to a minimum, and
shall not run parallel to the water body; crossings, where necessary, shall cross riparian areas at as
near right angles as possible; and that if no alternative exists to placement of a roadway within a
riparian area, mitigation may be required, with the mitigating measures to be specified in a
management plan. Such mitigating measures may include the fencing of the riparian area to
protect remaining vegetation, and the enhancement of the remaining buffer area through the
planting of native vegetation.
74. The CAO states that water crossings must be approved by the WDFW, pursuant to the
hydraulic permit requirements of RCW 75.20.100. The CAO authorizes equestrian, pedestrian
and bike trails in riparian buffer areas, but indicates that such trails should be set back at least 50
feet from the OHWM, if possible, and be a maximum of 14 feet in width.
75. The CAO requires the submittal of a geo-hazard evaluation report for certain types of
development applications; not including a shoreline permit application but including an application
for a topsoil removal permit.
J. Compliance with Development Regulations, and consistency with Comprehensive Plan
76. The Staff Report recommends adoption of the conditions of approval submitted by the City
Planning Division, the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, and the Washington State
Department of Ecology. This includes conditions requiring compliance with the hydraulic permit
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 9
issued by the WDFW for work in the river, the State Shoreline Management Act, and the Master
Program.
77. The hydraulics permit issued by the WDFW limits work in the river for the project to June
15 through August 15, of 2008 and 2009. The permit imposes numerous measures to protect the
river during demolition and construction; and requires the restoration of disturbed vegetation
located adjacent to the bridge with native vegetation.
78. The replacement of the piers from the existing bridge with piers that will occupy a smaller
area of the river; and the removal of the remnant piers from the previous bridge in the river; will
provide additional habitat for aquatic species in the river.
79. The City Planning Division advised at the public hearing that it did not require the applicant
to submit a habitat management plan for the Urban Natural Open Space priority wildlife habitat
designated on the site; because WDFW did not request preparation of a plan, after being notified
of the project, and the hydraulics permit issued by WDFW requires replanting of the shoreline
areas disturbed by the project but not underlying the bridge (where the vegetation cannot grow).
80. The replacement bridge will cross the river at right angles, and the vegetation disturbed
within the 250-foot riparian buffer(measured from the OHWM) applicable to the Spokane River
under the CAO will be restored to the maximum extent possible. These features assure
compliance with the riparian buffer requirements of the CAO.
81. The provision of sidewalks and bicycle lanes on the replacement bridge, the provision of
additional room on the bridge to additional traffic lanes in the future, the preservation of the use
of the Centennial Trail during the project, rehabilitation of the Centennial Trail after the new
bridge is completed, and the preservation of kayak and canoe access for the project makes
appropriate provision for vehicular traffic, non-motorized travel and recreational uses along and
adjacent to the river; as required by the Master Program and as encouraged by the Comprehensive
Plan.
82. The cultural resources survey submitted by the applicant for the project establishes that the
site likely does not contain archaeological or historic sites or artifacts, but indicates that
prehistoric sites have been recorded in the general vicinity along the river. The conditions of
approval require that an archaeologist monitor ground-disturbing activities prior to construction,
including site preparation, utility location, geotechnical boring and bridge removal.
83. RCW 27.53.060 prohibits any person, company, organization or public agency from
removing or damaging any historic or prehistoric archaeological resource or site on property; or
from removing any archaeological object from such site; without first obtaining a permit from the
State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office (DHAP) and the consent of
the owner.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 10
84. A condition of approval should be added to ensure that if archaeological or historic sites or
artifacts are encountered during construction, prompt notice will be given to the City Planning
Division and the DHAP.
85. The geotechnical reports submitted by CH2MHil1, the applicant's geotechnical engineering
consultants, ensure that the potential impacts of constructing the bridge on the steep slopes and
alluvium geo-hazards located on the banks of the river, including erosion or landslide impacts, are
adequately identified and mitigated.
86. A condition of approval should be added that requires the project to comply with the
riparian buffer and geo-hazard provisions of the CAO, as applicable.
87. A condition of approval should be added that requires the applicant to obtain a floodplain
development permit for the project, as applicable; since some construction related work will take
place in a 100-year floodplain.
88. The project is consistent with the development regulations and the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan that are set forth in the Staff Report, as found in the Staff Report.
89. The project may impact fire and emergency response in the area, due to the closure of the
roadway across the bridge. The Spokane Valley Fire Department (Fire District 1) was contacted
regarding the project, but did not submit any comments. Further, Doug Rider, a retired fire chief
of the Spokane Valley Fire Department who resides in the area, and whose son works for the fire
department, indicated that adequate fire and emergency response currently exists on both sides of
the river, and the project would not have much impact on such services. Such testimony was not
rebutted by competent evidence.
90. The project will impact the ability of residents located on the north side of the bridge from
accessing public transit south of the bridge at the intersection of Barker Road and Mission
Avenue. This appears to be an unavoidable impact that will have to be addressed by the Spokane
Transit Authority.
91. The project may need to remove a few trees on private property. However, the applicant
will be required to obtain necessary right of way or permission from the owners of such property
to accomplish this. Some trees will also be removed from the right of way. The applicant plans
to replant such areas with trees and native vegetation to the extent feasible.
92. The project will have to comply with applicable noise requirements. The hours, duration
and maximum noise levels set forth under such standards are somewhat relaxed during daylight
construction hours.
93. The project appears to make appropriate provision for protecting private property during
the closure of a portion of the Centennial Trail for the project. Some adjustments in the closure
plan may be required as the project proceeds.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 11
1
94. The design of the project, and the conditions of approval required for the project, assure the
consistency of the project with the goals and policies of the State Shorelines Management Act,
and the Master Program, for a shoreline of statewide significance.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Hearing Examiner is authorized to hear and decide the application for a shoreline
substantial development permit. See Sections 10.35.070(G) and 10.35.110(4) of the City
Municipal Code, paragraph 8.06 on page 4-29 of Master Program, and RCW 36.70.970(2).
2. The State Shoreline Management Act (chapter 90.58 RCW) prohibits a"substantial
development" from being undertaken on the shorelines of the state without first obtaining a
substantial development permit from the pertinent local jurisdiction. See RCW 90.58.140(2), and
paragraph 2.1 on page 4-1 of City Shoreline Program.
3. The definition of"substantial development" in the State Shorelines Management Act means
any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $5,000; as well as any
development that materially interferes with the public use of the water or shorelines of the state.
The current project represents a"substantial development".
4. Development within the shoreline that does not require a shoreline permit must also comply
with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act, applicable provisions of chapter 173-27
WAC, and the regulations of the local master program.
5. A shoreline substantial development permit may only be granted if the development is
consistent with the policies and procedures set forth in the Shoreline Management Act, the
provisions of chapter 173-27 WAC, and the provisions of the local shoreline master program
See WAC 173-27-150, RCW 90.58.140(3), and page 4-1 of Master Program.
6. WAC 173-27-150 authorizes local governments to attach conditions to the approval of a ;'
shoreline substantial development permit to assure consistency with the State Shoreline
Management Act and the local master program. k
7. WAC 173-27-180 sets forth application requirements for a shoreline substantial permit, /„
including the submittal of a detailed site development plan, delineation of the shoreline areas that
will be altered or used as part of the development, and the OHWM of the shoreline body
involved.
8. Under the City Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), the City Planning Division is responsible
for enforcing and interpreting the riparian habitat performance standards of the CAO within the
250-foot riparian buffer required adjacent to the river on the project site.
9. As conditioned, the application complies with applicable provisions of the City Interim ,
Critical Areas Ordinance; complies with applicable goals, policies and regulations of the State
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 12 k
d
d
4
Shoreline Management Act and the City Interim Shoreline Master Program; and is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
10. The application, as conditioned, will not have a significant, probable, adverse impact on the
environment. The requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and the City
Environmental Ordinance have been met.
11. Approval of the land use application, as conditioned, is appropriate under Chapter 10.35 of
the City Municipal Code, WAC 173-27-150, and the City Interim.Shoreline Master Program.
IV. DECISION
Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions, the above application for a shoreline
substantial development permit for the Barker Road Bridge Replacement Project is hereby
approved, subject to the conditions stated below.
Any conditions added or significantly revised by the Hearing Examiner below are italicized.
The Substantial Development Permit may be rescinded after a public hearing and notice,
pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8), based on a finding that the applicant has not complied with the
conditions of approval.
Conditions of Approval 1
1
SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT—PLANNING
DIVISION
1. The Shoreline Administrator of the Spokane Valley Community Development Department
shall prepare and issue the Substantial Development Permit, pursuant to the requirements of WAC
173-27-130 and chapter 90.58 RCW, and subject to the conditions of approval of this decision.
2. An archaeologist shall monitor ground-disturbing activities prior to construction; including
site preparation, utility relocation, geotechnical boring, and demolition and removal of the
existing bridge.
3. Upon the discovery of potential or known archaeological resources at the subject
properties prior to or during future on-site construction, the applicant, contractor, and/or any
other parties involved in construction shall immediately cease all on-site construction, shall act
to protect the potential or known historical and cultural resources area from outside intrusion,
and shall notify, within a maximum period of 24 hours from the time of discovery, the City of
Spokane Valley Community Development Department-Planning Division, and the State
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation of said discovery.
c
i
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 13
0
4. The project site is located in a 100-year floodplain. The applicant shall comply with the
City floodplain regulations set forth in Section 21.30 of the City Municipal Code, as applicable,
including application for any necessary floodplain development permit.
5. The City Interim Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) designates the Spokane River as a
DNR Type I stream, with a standard 250 foot riparian bz ffer. The applicant shall comply with
the riparian buffer requirements of the CAO, as applicable.
6. The project site contains steep slopes and alluvium geo-hazards. The applicant shall
comply with the geo-hazard provisions of the CAO, as applicable.
7. The applicant shall comply with applicable use regulations of the City Interim Shoreline
Master Program.
8. Reasonable caution shall be exercised to ensure that construction-related equipment, machine
fluids and fuels are not operated, stored, located, and/or transferred in any part of the shoreline
area(i.e. 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Spokane River) in a manner where
such fluids or fuels can drain into or later make their way into the Spokane River, contaminate the
water quality of the Spokane River or harm the related water habitat/wildlife.
9. During construction, measures shall be taken to prevent erosion of the shoreline area(i.e. 200
feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Spokane River) and prevent project-related silt
laden runoff from entering the Spokane River. Settling ponds, straw-bale filtering dams and/or
other erosion control techniques shall be used to ensure that the water quality of the Spokane
River is not degraded.
10. Construction of the project shall comply with the Hydraulic Project Approval issued by the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife on September 28, 2007.
11. All other regulations or other permit conditions of approval, whether mentioned in this
permit or not, shall be the applicant's compliance responsibility.
r
12. The Substantial Development Permit in File No. SDP-01-07 is approved with conditions,
including two (2) permit expiration deadlines: r
i
k
a. A 2-year period to COMMENCE WORK ON THE PROJECT from the "effective r'
date" of the permit. WAC 173-27-090(4) defines the "effective date" (i.e. date of last action
required to approve the permit, such as Washington State Department of Ecology signature,
appeal complete and other related permits). If a"commence work" extension has been filed
(application submitted and fees paid) before the 2-year expiration date, a 1-year extension to fi.
commence the project may be granted; provided it is based on reasonable factors. See WAC 173-
27-090 (2).
b. A 5-year period to COMPLETE THE PROJECT from the "effective date" of the
permit. WAC 173-27-090(4) defines "effective date". If a"complete the project" extension has r''!"
r'
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 14
f
been filed(application and fees paid) before the 5-year expiration date, a 1-year extension to
complete the project may be granted; provided it is based on reasonable factors. See WAC 173-
k 27-090(3).
13. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-090(4), all conditions of approval must be satisfied before any
structures are allowed to be inhabited.
14. Any revisions to this Substantial Development Permit must be approved by the Shoreline
Administrator for the City of Spokane Valley Community Department and the Washington. State
Department of Ecology.
15. Prior to starting construction, the applicant shall obtain all required permits.
SPOKANE CLEAN AIR AGENCY
16. Dust emissions during demolition, construction, and excavation projects must be controlled.
This may require the use of water sprays, tarps, sprinklers or suspension of activity during certain
weather conditions.
17. Measures must be taken to avoid the deposition of dirt and mud from unpaved surfaces onto
paved surfaces. If tracking or spills occur on paved surfaces, measures must be taken immediately
to clean these surfaces.
18. Debris generated as a result of this project must be disposed of by means other than burning.
19. If objectionable odors result from this project, effective control apparatus and measures must
be taken to reduce odors to a minimum.
20. Special attention should be given to proper maintenance of diesel powered construction
equipment to reduce the impact of diesel exhaust, a suspended carcinogen.
21. A Notice of Construction and Application for Approval is required to be submitted and
approved by SCAPCA prior to the construction, installation, or establishment of an air pollution
source. This includes emergency generators rated at 500 hp (375 kW) or higher, natural gas
heating equipment units rated at 4 MMBTU/hr or higher(input), and heating equipment units
fired with other fuels (e.g. diesel) rated at 1 MMBTU/hr (input) or higher. Contact SCAPCA for
( g� ) ( p ) g
a Notice of Application.
22. A Notice of Intent must be submitted to SCAPCA prior to any demolition project or
asbestos project. An asbestos survey must be done by an AHERA accredited building inspector
prior to the demolition or renovation of buildings to determine if asbestos-containing material is
present at the site. Contact SCAPCA for a Notice of Intent application.
23. The agency strongly recommends that all traveled surfaces (i.e. ingress, egress, parking
areas, access roads, etc.) be paved and kept clean to minimize dust emissions.
RE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 15
I
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY:
1
'
24. Proper erosion and sediment control practices must be used on the construction site and
adjacent areas to prevent upland sediments from entering surface water. Local stormwater
ordinances will provide specific requirements. Also refer to the Stormwater Management Manual
for Eastern Washington. All ground disturbed by construction activities must be stabilized. When
appropriate, native vegetation typical of the site shall be used.
25. The proposed project must be consistent with all applicable goals, policies and use
regulations of the State Shoreline Management Act (RCW Chapter 90.58) and the City of
Spokane Valley Interim Shoreline Master Program.
26. Any operation that would generate a waste discharge or have the potential to impact the
quality of state waters must receive specific prior authorization from the Department of Ecology,
as provided under Chapter 90.48 RCW, Chapter 173-216 WAC, Chapter 173-220 WAC, Chapter
173-200 WAC and Chapter 173-201A WAC.
27. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the project site may be required, and should be
developed by a qualified person(s). Erosion and sediment control measures in the plan must be
implemented prior to any clearing, grading or construction. The control measures must be
effective to prevent soil from being carried into surface water by stormwater runoff Sand, silt
and soil can damage aquatic habitat and are considered pollutants. The plan must be upgraded as
necessary during the construction period.
28. The disposal of construction debris must be in such a manner that debris cannot enter the
natural stormwater drainage system or cause water quality degradation of surface waters.
Dumpsters and refuse collection containers shall be durable, corrosion resistant, nonabsorbent,
non-leaking, and have close fitting covers. If spillage or leakage does occur, the waste shall be
picked up immediately and returned to the container and the area properly cleaned.
r
r
29. The operator of a construction site that disturbs one acre or more of total land area, and 1
which has or will have a discharge of stormwater to a surface water or to a storm sewer, must
rr
apply for coverage under Department of Ecology's Baseline General Permit for Stormwater ,
Discharges Associated with Construction Activities.
30. Owners of sites where less than one (1) acre of total land area will be disturbed must also k
apply, if the construction activity is part of a larger plan of development or sale in which more
than one acre will eventually be disturbed. The discharge of stormwater from such sites without a
permit is illegal, and subject to enforcement action by the Department of Ecology. Applications
should be made at least sixty(60) days prior to commencement of construction activities.
if
AVISTA UTILITIES:
31. Avista is requesting that the bridge be designed to allow for collocation.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 16
1
I
1
j
DATED this 9th day of January, 2008
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
ii/ ° i r ..„04,•401,-
i ,
Michael C Dempsey, WSBA#8235
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The above decision is a final decision by the Hearing Examiner on the above-referenced
application for a Substantial Development Permit. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.180 (1), any person
aggrieved by the granting of the above-described permit may seek review from the Washington State
Shorelines Hearings Board by filing a petition for review within 21 calendar days of the date the
above decision was filed with the Washington State Department of Ecology, as determined by RCW
90.58.140(6).
A copy of this Decision was sent by certified mail to the applicant, the State Attorney
General's Office and the State Department of Ecology on January 9, 2008; and by regular mail to
other parties of record.
r
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is currently on file with the Office
of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West Broadway Avenue,
Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245, (509) 324-3490. The file may be inspected during normal
working hours, listed as Monday-Friday of each week, except holidays, between the hours of 8:00 0
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by
Spokane County ordinance.
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation
for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP-01-07 Page 17