The URL can be used to link to this page

2010, 09-14 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Gary Hebden, The Intersection Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: Proclamations: (1) Tobacco Free Teen Back to School Week; (2) ValleyFest PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget — Ken Thompson 2. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 08/24/2010 20852- 20894; 813100031, 81700024 $1,301,386.02 08/26/2010 20895 -20913 $154,601.59 08/30/2010 20914 -20939 $39,304.48 08/31/2010 5109 -5153 (less 5149) $4,253.00 08/31/2010 5154 -5157 $521.00 09/01/2010 20940 -20944 $49,273.13 09/03/2010 20945- 20975, 831100023, 831100034 $2,054,611.06 09/03/2010 20977 -20983 $14,933.27 GRAND TOTAL $3,618,883.55 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending August 31, 2010: $357,797.86 c. Approval of Study Session Format Council Meeting Minutes of August 17, 2010 Council Agenda 09 -14 -10 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 2 NEW BUSINESS 3. Second Reading Ordinance, CTA -07 -10 Code Text Amendment (Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone) - Christina Janssen [public comment] 4. First Reading Ordinance, Code Text Amendments (Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center Zone Districts - Lori Barlow [public comment] 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Pre - Treatment - Cary Driskell [public comment] 6. Proposed Resolution, Accepting Shoreline Inventory Report - Scott Kuhta [public comment] 7. Proposed Resolution, Water District Easement - Cary Driskell [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: Economic Development, Outside Agencies Presentations - Ken Thompson 1. Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce 2. Greater Spokane, Incorporated 3. International Trade Alliance 4. Global Trade Services PS 5. HUB Sports Center 9. Subarea Plan (SARP), City Center Report Back to Council - Scott Kuhta 10. Advance Agenda - Mayor Towey INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 11. Response to Previous Public Comments 12. Community Development Monthly Report 13. Pre -Call for Regionally Significant Projects ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 u.m. The Formal meeting formats are eg nerally held the 2n and 4 Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the l" 3rd and sometimes 5 ch Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 09 -14 -10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 14, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Public Hearing - 2011 Budget GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: A public hearing was held on August 24 regarding 2011 revenues and expenditures. A preliminary budget was prepared by the City Manager and presented to the City Council on September 7. Tonight's hearing will be the second hearing on the 2011 Budget. One additional public hearing is planned to gather input from citizens BACKGROUND: Each year staff prepares estimates of proposed revenues and expenditures for the coming year. State budget law requires we make our projections known and conduct public hearings to consider input from the public. Special mention is required of the property tax levy. The comparison below reflects the 2010, and estimated 2011 property tax levies. The tax rate is expected to be near $1.54 /thousand dollars of assessed value with an assessed value near $7.1 billion. 2010 2011 Prop. tax levy $10,799,500 $10,700,000 These 2011 estimates reflect a decrease in the dollars levied of $99,500 (1 %) below 2010. The City's actual 2011 levy may be more or less than shown. Other significant changes to the 2011 budget include a $100,000 set aside for increases in the City's share of retirement costs, broadcasting of City Council meetings ($46,000) and a $500,000 transfer from the Civic Facilities fund to be used for Street capital improvements. Total General fund expenditures are expected to be down in 2011 because of reductions in most departments brought about by a 3% reduction in the 2010 operating budget and the removal of funding in the 2011 budget for vacant positions. Total expenditures for the entire budget are expected to be down about $400,000 from the 2010 Budget. OPTIONS: State law requires this hearing on the 2011 Budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is needed at this time. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This information will be incorporated into the 2011 city budget and may be modified prior to budget adoption STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director Public Hearing Proposed 2011 Budget Spokane Valley Public Hearing September 14, 2010 9/9/2010 City Wide Budget Total is $63 million —Down from 2010 Significant decrease in capital budget Property tax levy down $100,000 Expect numbers to change as we fine -tune One additional public hearing in Sept. Significant increase in our multi -year projections in ending fund balance in 2014 9/9/2010 2 General Fund REVENUES: Sales Tax down $400,000 Property Tax down $100,000 State Shared Taxes up $200,000 (liquor ?) Fines &Forfeitures up $200,000 EXPENSES: Records Management down $200,000 City Mgr. Div. down $100,000 Building down $100,000 Development Eng. down $120,000 Centerplace down $100,000 9/9/2010 3 General Fund Changes Vacant positions dropped Broadcasting of Council added Retirement costs added Depts will save (3 %) in 2010 ($350,000) $46 $100,000 ($1,000,000) 9/9/2010 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 09 -14 -2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 08/24/2010 20852 - 20894; 813100031, 81700024 $1,301,386.02 08/26/2010 20895 -20913 $154,601.59 08/30/2010 20914 -20939 $39,304.48 08/31/2010 5109.5153 less 5149) $4,253.00 08/3 1/2010 5154 -5157 $521.00 09/01/2010 20940 -20944 $49,273.13 09/03/2010 20945- 20975, 831100023, 831100034 $2,054,611.06 09/03/2010 20977 -20983 $14,933.27 GRAND TOTAL $3,618,883.55 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/24/2010 2:40:40PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20852 8/24/2010 001873 ACME CONCRETE PAVING INC Pay App #1 42622 SPRAGUEISULLIVAN CONSTRUCT 788,882.21 Total : 788,882.21 20853 8/24/2010 001081 ALSCO July 2010 LSPOS34723 20854 8/24/2010 001816 BENTHIN & ASSOCIATES 1634 42626 1635 42627 20855 8/24/2010 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC SPO- 001948 20856 8/24/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9139394 9141253 9143159 S0044789 S004496 S0085185 20857 8/24/2010 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOC INC M08218 -19 42110 66.73 0065 ON CALL PROFESSIONAL SEI 681.00 M10166 -1 42613 20858 8/24/2010 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 231905 42555 20859 8/24/2010 001780, CLC ASSOCIATES, INC 31337 42488 20860 8/24/2010 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE- 313- ATB00810119 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 20861 8/24/2010 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST AUGUST 2010 719.12 FLOOR MATS: PRECINCT 39.52 FLOOR MATS: CITY HALL 27.21 Total : 66.73 0065 ON CALL PROFESSIONAL SEI 681.00 0088 ON CALL PROFESSIONAL SEI 620.00 Total : 1,301.00 TROUBLES WITH VOICEMAIL FORT 59.24 Total : 59.24 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 173.03 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 154.44 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 186.44 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 140.36 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 37.11 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 27.74 Total : 719.12 GEOTECH & MATERIALS TESTING 1,276.65 0065 MATERIALS TESTING SERVIC 4,860.89 Total: 6,137.54 10 -011 DESIGN ROW CIP 0063 5,416.73 Total : 5,416.73 SURVEY SERVICES FOR PROJECT 2,234.00 Total: 2,234.00 SPRAGUE/SULLIVAN PCC INTERSE 200.42 Total : 200.42 ADVERTISING: CP 37.82 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0812412010 2:40:40PM Spokane Valley Bank code: Voucher apbank Date Vendor Invoice 20861 8/24/2010 000912 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST (Continued) 20862 8/24/2010 002389 DIRECTPOS 6856 20863 8/24/2010 000106 FEDEX 7- 189 -76502 20864 8/24/2010 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 34575 20865 8/24/2010 000839 GENERAL FIRE EQUIP CO 0007817 Total : 2,843.71 42399 0110 SPRAGUE REHAB 1 - CONSTF 0022190 20866 8/24/2010 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. JULY 2010 20867 8/24/2010 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. Pay App #5 20868 8/24/2010 001635 ISS FACILITY /EVENT SERVICES 23547 CENTERPLACE POSTAGE FOR AD` 4,542.00 Total : 23571 20869 8/24/2010 000472 LAWTON PRINTING 26477 20870 8/24/2010 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW CP 8/1012010 Postage 20871 8/24/2010 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 18497 18511 18580 20872 8/24/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1236811241 525493263001 PO # Description /Account Amount Total : 37.82 REPAIR SERVICES: PARKS 117.37 Total : 117.37 SHIPPING CHARGES: LEGAL 31.77 Total : 31.77 LEGAL PUBLICATION: FINANCE 105.75 Total : 105.75 MA[NTENANCE:CP 244.91 FIRE ALARM LABOR: CP 293.49 Total : 538.40 COPIER COST 2,843.71 Total : 2,843.71 42399 0110 SPRAGUE REHAB 1 - CONSTF 29,522.97 Total : 29,522.97 EVENT SVCS: CENTERRPLACE 118.20 EVENT SVCS: CENTERRPLACE 937.08 Total: 1,055.28 PRINTING~ RECEIPT BOOKS 531.54 Total : 531.54 CENTERPLACE POSTAGE FOR AD` 4,542.00 Total : 4,542.00 CONTROLLER RACK KIT 33.35 JULY 2010: SYSTEM MAINTENANCI 6,738.75 QUARTERLY SENTINAL BILLING 1,047.00 Total : 7,819.10 OFFICE SUPPLIES: BING 701.81 OFFICE SUPPLIES:BING 96.82 Page: 2 vchlist 8/24/2010 Voucher List Page: 3 08/24/2010 2:40:40PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Total : 100.00 Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20872 8/24/2010 000652 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. (Continued) Total : 798.63 20873 8/24/2010 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER JULY 2010 STATE REMITTANCE 84 475.86 Total : 84,475.86 20874 8/24/2010 001006 OMWBE A -11 -05 POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS 100.00 Total : 100.00 20875 8/24/2010 002243 ORBITCOM 00369804 EITHERNET: AUGUST 2010 590.00 Total : 590.00 20876 8/2412010 000997 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY SR27749001 ELEVATOR SERVICE CONTRACT 1,127.50 Total: 1,127.50 20877 8/24/2010 001604 PACIFIC NW PAPER 115837 COPY PAPER 1,507.13 Total : 1,507.13 20878 8124112010 000029 PITNEY BOWES 48447288 POSTAGE REFILL 5,001.00 Total: 5,001.00 20879 8/24/2010 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. JULY 2010 42551 2010 STREET & STORMWATER MA 244,082.27 Total: 244,082.27 20880 8/24/2010 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 25913 CUSTOMER SUPPLIED SHIRTS 8.70 Total : 8.70 20881 8/24/2010 000067 SIGNS NOW 116 24483 SIGN REMOVAL: PW 704.38 116 24494 SIGNAGE 110.88 Total : 815.26 20882 8/24/2010 000172 SPOKANE CO ENGINEER VLY1007 COUNTY SERVICES 47,588.78 Total: 47,588.78 20883 8/24/2010 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 5035858 COUNTY IT SUPPORT 16,582.29 Total: 16,582.29 20884 8/24/2010 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY JULY 2010 CRIME VICTIMS COMP FUND 1,109.88 Total : 1,109.88 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 08/24/2010 2:40:40PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20885 8/24/2010 001100 SPOKANE CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE JULY 2010 NIGHTTIME SEAT BELT EMPHASIS 752.61 Total : 752.61 20886 812412010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 11001725 WATER LINE INSPECTION: TRENTI 79.36 14500054 2ND QTR 2010: EXCISE & LIQUOR - 5,382.44 51500303 JULY 2010: WORK CREW 5,982.92 Total : 11,444.72 20887 8/24/2010 000093 SPOKESMAN - REVIEW 205700 ADVERTISING 492.24 21237 YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION: PARKS & 44.25 Total : 536.49 20888 8/24/2010 000273 SRTC TS -1600 VISIUM SOFTWARE 1,141.35 Total : 1,141.35 20889 8/24/2010 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 28239 FILTERS: CP 423.86 Total: 423.86 20890 8/24/2010 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L84726 AUDITORS 310.00 Total: 310.00 20891 8/24/2010 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC 3 42590 TAYLOR ON CALL PE AND CN CON 3,520.56 Total : 3,520.56 20892 8/24/2010 000255 WFOA 8896 REGISTRATION FOR CLASS: DAN l 50.00 Total: 50.00 20893 8/24/2010 000089 XO COMMUNICATIONS 0237741022 INTERNEfIDATA LINES: JULY 2010 272.78 Total: 272.78 20894 8/24/2010 001885 ZAYO BANDWIDTH LLC AUGUST 2010 DARK FIBER LEASE 228.27 Total: 228.27 813100031 8/13/2010 001090 NORTHWEST SIGNAL SUPPLY INC. 100024539 42593 ON -CALL CONSULTING SERVICES 4,500.00 100024560 42599 TYPE NWS P -16 CABINET WIRED F 18,095.72 100024569 42593 ON -CALL CONSULTING SERVICES 2,000.00 Total: 24,595.72 Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List P age: 5 0812412010 2:40:40PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 817100024 8/17/2010 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY -08 45 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 45 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date PO # Description/Account CRY WOLF CHARGES: JULY 2010 Total Bank total Total vouchers Amount 2,159.66 2,159 -66 1,301,386.02 1,301,386.02 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/26/2010 2:21 :19PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20895 8/26/2010 000030 AVISTA August 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTF 18,722.83 August 2010 UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA 20,846.94 Total : 39,569.77 20896 8/26/2010 001611 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD Aug 26, 2010 COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT 201 10,000.00 Total : 10,000.00 20897 8/26/2010 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE June 2010 TRANSFER STATION: PW 40.95 Total : 40.95 20898 8/26/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY August 2010 PETTY CASH: 8433, 8427, 8430 2.00 August 2010 PETTY CASH: 8435, 36, 38, 39 7.50 August 2010 PETTY CASH: 6945, 46, 47 32.38 Total : 41.88 20899 8/26/2010 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC 38928 LEGAL SERVICES 15.00 Total : 15.00 20900 8/26/2010 002422 GAP WEBB CONSTRUCTION, LLC REFUND PERMIT FEE REFUND 30.00 Total : 30.00 20901 8/26/2010 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 74131 2ND QTR 2010 GRANT REIMBURSE 15,000.00 Total : 15,000.00 20902 8/26/2010 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO .July 2010 UTILITIES: PUBLIC WORKS 8,948.37 Total : 8,948.37 20903 8/26/2010 001133 PATRIOT FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 237954 ANNUAL INSPECTION OF SPRINKL 304.36 Total : 304.36 20904 8/26/2010 002193 QSCEND TECHNOLOGES, INC Balance Aug 2010 42517 WEB PAGE BALANCE OWED 6,392.00 Total : 6,392.00 20905 8/26/2010 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 3552280 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: CENTS 44,562.40 3864287 CONTRACT MAINT: DISCOVERY Pl. 5,445.40 3959733 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: PRECI 643.48 Page: 1 Vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0812612010 2:21:19PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20905 8/26/2010 000709 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. (Continued) Total : 50,651.28 20906 8/26/2010 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES Aug 2010 SPOKANE COUNTY SEWER 1,729.92 Total: 1,729.92 20907 8/26/2010 000406 SPOKANE REGIONAL CVB 2359 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMENT:, 18,736.14 Total : 18,736 -14 20908 8/26/2010 001922 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC RG 1470082 MOVIE IN THE PARK - USEAGE 348.93 Total : 348.93 20909 8/26/2010 001056 TRIPLE PLAY August 2010 42608 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 920.08 Total : 920.08 20910 8/26/2010 001444 UNITED LABORATORIES 22229 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 250.42 Total : 250.42 20911 8/26/2010 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0051660 - 1518 -5 WASTE MG MT. PW JULY 2010 1,346.28 Total : 1,346.28 20912 8/26/2010 001949 WILSON, SAYDEE Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 151.21 Total : 151.21 20913 8/26/2010 000711 WMCA TREASURER Aug 2010 WMCA FALL ACADEMY REGISTRA 125.00 Total : 125.00 19 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 154,601.59 19 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 154,601.59 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/3012010 8:27:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20914 8/30/2010 000921 A TO Z RENTALS 28197 BATTERY PW 97.40 Total : 97.40 20915 8/30/2010 001081 ALSCO LSP0841190 FLOOR MATS: CITY HALL 2721 Total : 27.21 20916 8/30/2010 000694 AVISTA UTILITIES 20425 HOME ENERGY AUDITS 87.50 Total: 87.50 20917 8/30/2010 001888 COMCAST JULY 2010 HIGH SPEED INTERNET: MAINT FA 64.90 Total: 64.90 20918 8/30/2010 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET JULY 2010 2010: FLEET FUEL BILL 2,448.36 Total : 2,448.36 20919 8/30/2010 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 293794 42571 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL 1,330.00 Total : 1,330.00 20920 8/30/2010 001717 DAVIS, JENNIFER EXPENSES EXAM REIMBURSEMENT: DAVIS 180.00 Total : 180.00 209221 8/30/2010 000106 FEDEX 7- 197 -84003 SHIPPING CHARGES: LEGAL 146.39 Total: 145.39 20922 8/30/2010 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 34641 LEGAL PUBLICATION 29,75 34685 LEGAL PUBLICATION 108.10 34686 LEGAL PUBLICATION 41.60 34687 LEGAL PUBLICATION 52,80 34688 LEGAL PUBLICATION 58.65 34689 LEGAL PUBLICATION 43.35 Total: 33425 20923 8/30/2010 001009 GOTHMANN, WILLIAM EXPENSES MILEAGE FOR JUNE - AUGUST 201 248.00 Total: 248.00 20924 8/30/2010 000265 .JACKSON, MIKE SEPTEMBER 2010 MONTHLY AUTO ALLOWANCE 400.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 08130/2010 8:27:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code: Voucher apbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20924 8/30/2010 000265 000265 JACKSON, MIKE (Continued) Total : 400.00 20925 8/30/2010 000786 K & N ELECTRIC MOTORS, INC. 0098709 42530 2010 BLANKET PO MAINTENANCE 4,212.56 Total : 4,212.56 20926 8/30/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 5286257900001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: ADMiN 170.15 528625850001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: KITCHEN SUPF 93.67 Total : 263.82 20927 8/30/2010 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 1428301 -AU10 POSTAGE METER RENTAL 236.00 Total : 236.00 20928 8/30/2010 000029 PITNEY BOWES INC 346832 POSTAGE SUPPLIES 278.77 Total . 278.77 20929 8/30/2010 000119 PLESE PRINTING 1330046946 BUSINESS CARDS 234.04 Total : 234.04 20930 8/30/2010 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 26302 REMOVE AND REPLACE SIGNS 32.61 Total : 32.61 20931 8/30/2010 000322 QWEST AUGUST 2010 AUGUST PHONE SERVICE 359,10 Total: 359.10 20932 8/30/2010 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE JULY 2010 RECORDING FEES 400.00 Total: 400.00 20933 8/30/2010 002425 SPOKANE COUNTY BAR ASSN. AUGUST 2010 BAR ASSOCIATION DUES: CARY DI 100.00 Total : 100.00 20934 8/30/2010 000311 SPRINT 326088106 -033 WAPS FOR LAPTOPS 439.89 959698810 -033 SPRINT CELL PHONES 946.68 Total : 1,386.57 20935 8/30/2010 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 8016139278 OFFICE SUPPLIES: JULY 2010 578.25 Total : 578.25 20936 8/30/2010 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L84726 AUDITORS 24,754.60 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 08/30/2010 8 . Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20936 8/30/2010 000257 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE (Continued) Total : 24,754.60 20937 8/30/2010 002423 T &T TOOLS, INC 47894 HANDY HOOKS: PW 199.00 Total : 199.00 20938 8/30/2010 000335 TIRE -RAMA 8080006667 CLUTCH: 06769D 857.23 Total : 857.23 20939 8/30/2010 000100 WABO INC. 21362 CODES:CD 48.92 Total : 48.92 26 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 39,304.48 26 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 39,304.48 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/31/2010 11 :34 :48AM Spokane Valley Sank code: Pk -ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 5109 8/39/2010 002426 AARP REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total: 210.00 5110 8/31/2010 002457 AMBITIONS OF WA REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISS[C 52.00 Total : 52.00 5111 8/39/2010 002456 ANDERSON, PAULINE REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 52,00 Total : 52.00 5112 8/31/2010 001372 BATES, NANCY REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS 52.00 Total : 52.00 5143 8/31/2010 001707 BIRDSELL, .TOLE REFUND CANCELLATION FOR VALLEY MISS 905.00 Total : 1 05.00 5194 8/31/2010 002441 BLOOM, ROBERT REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: LOUNGE W /DAI 210.00 Total: 210.00 5115 8/31/2010 002453 BRENNEMAN, CARLETIA REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 60.00 Total : 60.00 5116 8/31/2010 002447 BRIGHT, MONIQUE REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 30.00 Total: 30.00 5117 8/31/2010 002450 BROWN, MARIE REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 30.00 Total : 30.00 5118 8/31/2010 002436 CALER, BEN REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: SULLIVAN 52.00 Total: 52.00 5119 8/31/2010 002443 CLAYTON, KATHY REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOUD 210.00 Total : 210.00 5120 8/31/2010 002448 DONATHAN, REBECCA REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 30.00 Total: 30.00 5121 8/31/2010 002107 EDMO DISTRIBUTORS REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 08/31/2010 11 :34 :48AM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk -ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 5121 8/31/2010 002107 002107 EDMO DISTRIBUTORS (Continued) Total : 52.00 5122 8/31/2010 002435 ERICKSON, LISA REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEf 52.00 Total : 52.00 5123 8/31/2010 002449 FLORENCE, JENNIFER REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 30.00 Total : 30.00 5124 8/31/2010 002433 FORSTER, JENNIFER REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5125 8/31/2010 002398 FRIEDRICK, CAMILLE REFUND REFUND FEES: GREAT ROOM 610.00 Total: 610.00 5126 8/31/2010 002458 GANAS, SHARON REFUND CANCELLATION REFUND:MIRABEF 136.00 Total: 136.00 5127 8/31/2010 002439 HAMILTON, TANYA REFUND CANCELLATION REFUND: SUMMEF 200.00 Total : 200.00 5128 813112010 002455 HARBISON, ELLEN REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5129 8/31/2010 002434 HAUER, LEAH REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME/ 136.00 Total : 136.00 5130 8/31/2010 002428 INLAND EMPIRE BEEKEEPERS ASSOC REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: SULLIVAN 52.00 Total: 52.00 5131 8/31/2010 000642 INLAND NW CAMARO CLUB REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MEf 257.00 Total : 257.00 5132 8/31/2010 002445 JORDAN, JAY REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS 52.00 Total: 52.00 5133 8/31/2010 002437 KEHR, BARBARA REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total: 52.00 5134 8/31/2010 002429 KENNEDY, JIM REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 08/31/2010 11:34:48AM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk -ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 5134 8/31/2010 002429 002429 KENNEDY, JIM (Continued) Total : 52.00 5135 8/31/2010 002442 LAZURENKO, VADIM REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM, 200.00 Total : 200.00 5136 8/31/2010 002438 MCKENNY, CAROL REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU SPF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5137 8/31/2010 001504 MEYERS, CHARLIE REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS 52.00 Total : 52.00 5138 8/31/2010 002446 MIKI, SEIKO REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 30.00 Total : 30.00 5139 8/31/2010 001485 NARVRE, INC REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF 52.00 Total: 52.00 5140 8/31/2010 002452 PRANTER, DOTTIE REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 60.00 Total : 60.00 5141 8/31/2010 002432 RAPP, DAVID REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS SHEL 52.00 Total : 52.00 5142 8/31/2010 002427 ROBERTS, MEL REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU SPF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5143 8/31/2010 002430 ROBISON, NAN REFUND CANCELLATION REFUND - VALLEY 1 157.00 Total : 157.00 5144 8/31/2010 002431 SANDERS, DANETI E REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: SULLIVAN SHEI 52.00 Total: 52.00 5145 8/31/2010 001785 SIMMET, KATHI REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5146 8/31/2010 002095 SPOKANE CO 4-H REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5147 8/31/2010 002097 SPOKANE VALLEY QUILTERS GUILD REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 08/3112010 11:34:48AM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk -ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 5147 813112010 002097 002097 SPOKANE VALLEY QUILTERS GUIL] (Continued) Total : 52.00 5148 8/31/2010 002444 TRACEY, DEBRA REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU SPF 52.00 Total : 52.00 U-MHIU MID PARE-11 I ASSOC 4 .00 Total : 49.00 5150 8/31/2010 002454 VALDEZ, CORINA REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 30.00 Total : 30.00 5151 8/31/2010 002451 VAN DORN, REBECCA REFUND SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND 30.00 Total : 30.00 5152 8/31/2010 002440 WILLIAMS, TINA REFUND CANCELLATION REFUND: SUMMEF 50.00 Total : 50.00 5153 8/31/2010 000955 YMCA REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MD 257.00 Total: 257.00 45 Vouchers for bank code: pk -ref 45 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been fumished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that l am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Bank total : Total vouchers: 4,253.00 4,253.00 Page: 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/31/2010 4:27:34PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk -ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 5154 8/31/2010 002460 ROBERTS, EVA REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOUI 79.00 Total : 79.00 5155 8/31/2010 002461 SICHKAR, TIM REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 180.00 Total : 180.00 5156 8/31/2010 001529 U -HIGH BAND PARENT ASSOC REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: BROWNS 52.00 Total : 52.00 5157 8/31/2010 002459 WORLD WIDE DREAMBUILDERS REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM, 210.00 Total : 210.04 4 Vouchers for bank code : pk -ref Bank total : 521.00 4 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 521.44 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 09/01/2010 4:51:17PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20940 9/1/2010 001606 BANNER BANK 0618 AUGUST 2010: 0618 280.76 0620 AUGUST 2010: 0620 561.40 0638 AUGUST 2010: 0638 20.00 4375 AUGUST 2010: 4375 240.10 4458 AUGUST 2010: 4458 254.09 4720 AUGUST 2010: 4720 3,823.78 6527 AUGUST 2010: 6527 2,295.16 8861 AUGUST 2010: 8861 146.34 Total : 7,621.63 20941 9/1/2010 000572 CARTER, CAROL Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 48.50 Total : 48.50 20942 9/1/2010 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT August 2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES: CP 107.17 Total : 107.17 20943 9/1/2010 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC September 2010 CITY HALL RENT 37,300.83 Total : 37,300.83 20944 9/1/2010 002111 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE Sept 2010 42546 2010 LEASE ON MAINTENANCE FA 4,195.00 Total : 4,195.00 5 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 49,273.13 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 49,273.13 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that l am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: '! 09/0312010 10:32:49AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20945 9/3/2040 000921 A TO Z RENTALS 29513 RAMP 12' 53.57 Total : 53.57 20946 9/3/2010 000694 AVISTA UTILITIES 20685 STREET LIGHT RELOCATION 675.00 Total: 675.00 20947 9/3/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9145046 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 142.34 9146956 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 287.87 S0044840 LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE 244.39 Total : 674.60 20948 9/3/2010 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 231904 42543 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CINTPj 6,798.89 Total : 6,798.89 20949 9/3/2010 000571 CODE PUBLISHING CO 36345 MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE 367.92 Total : 367.92 20950 9/3/2010 001148 COLUMBIA PAINT & COATINGS 4643 -3 SUPPLIES: CP 312.30 Total : 312.30 20951 9/3/2010 001280 DEPT OF LICENSING 00003132 2ND QTR 2010: MLS CREDIT CARD 316.44 Total : 316.44 20952 9/3/2010 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE- 313- ATS00810067 STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT. 8,279.46 RE -313 ATB00810073 SIGNAL & ILLUMUNATION MAIN 3,552.41 Total : 11,831.87 20953 9/3/2010 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST AUGUST 2010 ADVERTISING: CP 242.10 Total: 242.10 20954 9/3/2010 002389 DIRECTPOS 7061 REPAIR SERVICES: PARKS 163.05 Total : 163.05 20955 9/3/2010 002382 DREVES, PATRICK AUGUST 2010 TENNIS LESSONS 640.00 Total : 640.00 20956 9/3/2010 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC 40741 LEGAL SERVICES 40.00 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List page: 2 09103/2010 10 :32 :49AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20956 9/3/2010 000999 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC (Continued) Total : 40.00 20957 9/3/2010 002296 ELECTRONIC COMMERCE LINK SEPTEMBER 2010 WASH[GHINGTON STATE YEAR BC 42.28 Total : 42.28 20958 9/3/2010 001750 FIRST TRANSIT, INC 10428269 42586 SUMMER CAMP & KINDERCAMP TF 2,070.40 Total : 2,074.40 20959 9/3/2010 000007 GRAINGER 9323581810 42528 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 22.20 Total : 22.20 20960 9/3/2010 002271 GRASSEL, BRENDA EXPENSES PARKING & MILEAGE: B. GRASSEL 12.50 Total : 1250 20961 9/3/2010 002413 HAYES, CHRISTINE EXPENSES MILEAGE: C. HAYES 31.50 Total : 31.50 20962 9/3/2010 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO SEPT 2010 SEPT 2010 LEASE PYMT 2,441.42 Total : 2,441.42 20963 9/3/2010 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 23650 EVENT SVCS: CENTERRPLACE 7,136.00 23651 EVENT SVCS: CENTERRPLACE 137.90 Total : 7,273.90 20964 9/3/2010 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 18636 DIGITAL SIGNAGE: ANNUAL SUBS( 1,600.00 Total : 1,600.00 20965 9/3/2010 002421 PLAY - CREATION, INC. 1008 -4374 SEAT STRAPS: CP 440.02 Total : 440.02 20966 9/3/2010 000153 ROLLER VALLEY 4629 42560 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 184.00 Total. 184.00 20967 9/3/2010 000189 SILVERWOOD THEME PARK INC. 24905 42561 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 1,504.59 Total : 1,504.59 20968 9/3/2010 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD AUGUST 2010 42536 2010 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 895.00 Total: 895.00 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 0910312010 10:32:49AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20969 9/3/2010 001100 SPOKANE CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE AUGUST 2010 HWY 27 CORRIDOR EMPHASIS GR 4,799.28 Total: 4,799.28 20970 9/3/2010 002254 TOWEY, TOM EXPENSES AUGUST 2010 MILEAGE: T. TOWEY 129.00 Total : 129.00 20971 9/3/2010 001464 TW TELECOM 03718587 INTERNET /DATA LILNES /PHIONE L 1,29107 Total : 1,293.07 20972 9/3/2010 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 0898152418 AIRCRAFT CARD FOR SHERIFF 43.03 6466019091 AIRCRAFT CARDS FOR STREET Mi 215.05 Total: 258.08 20973 9/3/2010 002462 WA AGGREGATES * CONCRETE ASSOC 5092 CONCRETE STRENGTH TESTING 365.00 Total: 365.00 20974 9/3/2010 000842 WM WINKLER CO INC Pay App 2 42594 0127 CDBG SIDEWALK IM PROJEC 895.36 Total: 895.36 20975 9/3/2010 002177 WYATT, ROXANNE EXPENSES POSTAGE REIMBURSEMENT: R. W 35.39 Total : 35.39 831100023 8/31/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER AUGUST 2010 AUGUST 2010 SHERIFF SERVICES 1,600,000.00 Total : 1,600,000.00 831100034 8/31/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER AUGUST 2010 AUGUST 2010 SHERIFF SERVICES 408,202.33 Total : 408,202.33 33 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 33 Vouchers in this report Bank total : 2,054,611.06 Total vouchers: 2,054,611.06 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 09/03/2010 12:56:OOPM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20977 9/3/2040 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 3820:060871 SERVICE COMPONENT FEE 32.61 Total : 32.61 20978 9/3/2010 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 August 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 944.28 Total : 944.28 20979 9/3/2010 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 August 2040 UTILITIES: PUBLIC WORKS 944.97 August 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 1,446.12 Total : 2,391.09 20980 9/3/2010 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER D I ST #3 AUG 2010 WATER CHARGES: PARKS 418.72 Total : 418.72 20981 9/3/2010 002306 TERRELL, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, Ml( 464 42587 GREENACRES PARK MASTER PLA 9,645.00 Total : 9,645.00 20982 9/3/2010 000608 WA STATE UNIVERSITY Sept 2010 CONFERENCE REG. SHANE ARLT 309.00 Total : 309.00 20983 9/3/2010 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 2784058- 2681 -1 WASTE MGMT: CENTERPLACE 733.51 2784059- 2681 -9 WASTE MGMT: PRECINCT 285.27 2784060 - 2681 -7 WASTE MGMT: MAINT FACILITY 173.79 Total : 1,192.57 7 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 14,933.27 7 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 14,933.27 Page: 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 9 -14 -10 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending August 31, 2010 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget /Financial impacts: Gross: $ 239,053.39 Benefits: $ 118,744.47 Total payroll $ 357,797.86 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington August 17, 2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson went through the draft legislative agenda, and Council made the following determination: (1) item 41 will be left on the agenda for now, especially in light of the two proposed liquor initiatives; (2) as there was funding for this last year, it was felt there would be little chance for further increases, and Council determined to change the first line to read: " Maintain Current Iflefease state funding for the 911 system and encourage additional upgrades to the system (3) Mr. Jackson explained that the Park Road property is back on the market, and said the asking price has not been determined as the property is not being actively advertised. Council elected to keep Item 43 but to add the words "or assessed value" after "seek $300,000. Items 44 and 45 will be left intact; and items 46 and 47 will be omitted, as the cap and trade appears to be stalled at the federal level, and for 47, there exists opportunities for cities to purchase fuel through the state or other arrangements. Item 48 is the cell phone registration proposed by Councilmember Gothmann, and for Item 49, Mr. Jackson said staff will contact representatives from the Food Bank to ask them to come to a meeting to explain the issue further. After brief discussion on the difference between the two liquor initiatives, it was decided that the remaining items would be left intact, and that any of these items could be revised at any time, or other issues added. In response to questions about pending legislation, Mr. Jackson said he would include such information in next week's council packet as an information item, including any financial impact we might face as a result of these initiatives. 2. 2011 Budget: _ Proposed Property Tax — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson explained that we are required to pass an ordinance to levy the property tax, and said this year we are in an unusual situation as we are proposing a reduction in property taxes; he said the laws are designed for things we need to do to increase the rate and the same process applies if we want to decrease the rate; he said this carne as a result of council asking to roll back the 2010 property tax, which could not be done at the time since those rates were already in place, but he said we could reduce the 2011 rate; and he said it would be down about 1% or $100,000 from 2010. Mr. Thompson said we have three public hearings scheduled for the 2011 budget, with the first set for next week. Mr. Thompson Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 1 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT also mentioned that passing such an ordinance to reduce the property tax would not limits us in the future as the law allows us to go back to highest levy since 1983. 3. 2011 Budget: Proposed Decreased Property Tax — Ken Thompson Mr. Thompson said another state law says if we want to change the property tax, it must be announced early, and we must indicate if it is increasing or decreasing by what amount and what percentage; and he said both of these ordinances will be coming back to council as we move ahead to ultimately adopt the budget for 2011. 4. Code Text Amendment, CTA 07 -10, Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone — Christina Janssen Assistant Planner Janssen and Planning Manager McCormick explained that this proposal was originally scheduled as part of a previous proposed amendment which council saw earlier; that this issue was sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing June 24, and that the Planning Commission had additional questions and the issue was brought for a second hearing July 22; and she mentioned that following the initiation of this amendment, staff received a privately initiated request for this same proposal, which will be placed on hold until this matter has been determined. Ms. Janssen showed via her PowerPoint presentation, this proposal and of changing vehicle sales from being prohibited, to requiring a conditional use permit, and she showed on the map the areas which would be affected by this proposed amendment; she further explained that a Conditional Use Pen is a Type III Application which requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and that the neighboring property owners receive notice of the hearing to give them opportunity to speak for or against the proposal and /or voice any concerns they might have with the proposal, and said the Hearing Examiner can propose additional conditions on the proposal to help mitigate any impact it would have to the proposed location; and such examples of conditions typically include increased landscaping buffers or setbacks, or height limitations. Planner Janssen said the Planning Commission's recommendation to council is to approve the amendment. Councilmember Grafos asked if instead of a conditional use permit (CUP), could this be done as an administrative decision by the Community Development Director instead of requiring a hearing. Planner Janssen responded she didn't know why not. Councilmember Grafos said the safeguards would still be there, but the conditional use permit could result in a delay of perhaps 120 to 180 days, not to mention the cost. Ms. Janssen said the application fee for a CUP is $910.00; and Planning Manager McConnick said the timeline typically is about 90 days and said a CUP is different from a rezone or subdivision which would go to the Hearing Examiner, but it could be an administrative decision, and he said that this is exactly the same language of the privately initiated text amendment provided in their application materials forward, to move forward with a CUP, understanding that some of those uses warrant a closer look and might be appropriate for the use, but would warrant additional scrutiny and opportunities for the surrounding property owners to provide public input. Councilmember Grafos asked if they would have input if this were done administratively, and Mr. McCormick said there would be no hearing and no notice to the adjacent property owners and would not go out for external review or comment. Councilmember Grafos asked if the Community Development Director would have a problem doing this administratively. Community Development Director McClung responded that it's not that she has a problem doing it, but that it was proposed this way by the applicant who initiated the private amendment, and it made it more palatable for the Planning Commission to have that extra security of having the public process for that particular use. Councilmember Dempsey expressed her concern in giving away some of Council's and Planning Commission's responsibility on these issues. Councilmember Gothmann said he is aware that the Hearing Examiner can require mitigation to make sure the use is compatible with the neighbors; and he asked if the Community Development Director has that authority as well and she indicated she does not. Councilmember Gothmann said since the Community Development Director cannot impose requirements to mitigate a use, that there would be two reasons for the CUP process: one in order to notify neighbors, and he said Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 2 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT Council has heard "loud and clear from the citizens of Spokane Valley" that "we do not want things going on in our rezones without us knowing about it," and second, the only way to provide mitigation such as additional landscaping or setbacks, is through the Hearing Examiner process, and he said he recommends the Hearing Examiner process remain. Councilmember McCaslin asked why the process would take ninety days as once the public is notified and has opportunity to testify, he said he doesn't know why that would take 90 days. Planner Janssen said it doesn't take 90 days for the Hearing Examiner decision, but there is a period of time following the application, to get on the Hearing Examiner schedule, including the required time to notice the meeting, and said the Hearing Examiner is then required to submit a decision within ten days. Councilmember McCaslin asked staff if they are inundated with requests for changes, and Ms Janssen replied they are not. Councilmember Grassel said as we go through this process and this comes back in a few weeks as a code text amendment, she asked when this might become effective, and Ms. Janssen said she believed it would be effective in September, and City Manager Jackson indicated the second reading is scheduled for September 14. Councilmember Grassel said the majority of council ran on getting through SARP and going back to commercial zoning in that district, and not really going forward with a city center, and she said council can go through with this, but that at the end of the day, "we're going through a lot of extra work that I'm not sure when we go to change the comp plan, which I'm understanding we're supposed to be doing by November, that's going to be one of the things we're bringing forward as an overall change" and said it seems so close to changing the comp plan, she said she's not sure a conditional use pen is really necessary, as the intent of going through each of these zones, is to eventually go back to business - friendly zoning, and said we are putting a lot of carts before the horse. Mayor Towey said he believes this was initiated by a citizen, and Planner Janssen confirmed that this was part of the group that council request staff examine prior to the larger comp plan change that will start happening in November, and said as staff started working on this, staff received a privately - initiated application that has been put on hold since that citizen's language is identical to this amendment proposal. Deputy City Attorney Driskell added that there is pending litigation with the person making this request, and if council considers this, it might have an impact on that pending litigation; and said that it is worth Council's time to give consideration to this issue. Councilmember McCaslin asked if this is pending litigation or if a lawsuit has been filed, and Mr. Driskell said that there is a land use petition appeal currently pending before the Spokane County Superior Court. To clarify, Planning Manager McConnick said the deadline for comp plan amendment applications is November 1, which means that is when the process starts, and that typically goes into the following spring as it also goes through staff review, Planning Commission review with study sessions and hearings, and ultimately to Council, and given the addition of looking at the Subarea Plan, that could easily go into summer of next year before all that information moves through the process. Councilmember Grassel said if this were passed in September, the citizen could file a special use penult request the next day and still wait another 90 days, which means we are into December or January, keeping in mind if the Hearing Examiner through this special permit process, allows that; or the other option would be not do require a special use permit and just give that option to the Community Development Director and he wouldn't have to wait the 90 days or file for a special use permit. Planner Janssen said if this amendment is postponed until the comprehensive plan was changed, we would be looking at some time in spring. Councilmember Grafos said if this were passed and moved to a second reading, it would probably mitigate that pending litigation; and Mr. Driskell said currently the litigation is on hold and the applicant is engaging in the use that has been requested for the change, and we entered into a stay that we are not going to pursue until there is judicial resolution, and said a hearing is slated for late September; so what Council chooses to do could have some influence on the litigation direction at that point, and said if council is looking to consider adoption of this on September 14, that will be a good target date to decide what to do, and said that can be discussed further in executive session. Councilmember McCaslin asked if council does nothing, would that have any effect on the suit; and Mr. Driskell said yes, that be believes the suit would then continue to proceed through court; and that this issue could be discussed further in executive session. City Manager Jackson asked it the property owner be able to continue as they are even Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 3 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT during the 90 -day process; and Mr. Driskell said yes, he could continue just as he does today. Mayor Towey said he favors moving this forward to a first reading and there was apparent consensus to do so. Councilmember Gothmann asked if the entire lawsuit was precipitated by a complaint from a businessperson; and Mr. Driskell said he would not guess why it was precipitated. Councilmember Gothmann asked if there was a complaint from a businessman about an adjacent businessman who was doing something illegal; and Mr. Driskell said while he thinks that is a fair statement, he requested further discussion on this, in particular the litigation, should be discussed in executive session. 5. Subarea Plan (SARP): CiIy Center — Scott Kuhta Senior Planner Kuhta said tonight's discussion is on the City Center District Zone, which is the second - to -last district zone discussion as part of the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Review; he mentioned the reported included in this council packet addresses why and how the city center was identified, that the community, through scientific and informal surveys, and Planning Commission and other meetings, in response to the question of should there be a city center, and if so where should it be; the majority of respondents said the area around the U -city mall site was the preferred place to develop a city center; staff directed the SARP planning team to look at the entire corridor and to also advise where they felt the best place for a city center would be; that the consultants looked at the Pines intersection thinking it would be a good spot but due to the difficulty in assembling properties at that area, with the available and vulnerable land, the larger area was identified as the preferred city center: it goes to Main on the north, Walnut on the west, 4th on the south, and Bowdish to the east; it was intended as the future heart of the community and a lively gathering place, and a "true center" with civic uses, retail, offices, and a wide variety of building types and uses. Mr. Kuhta said a large variety of retail, office and residential uses are permitted in the city center and said it is the most urban place as a part of the Subarea Plan, and even drive - through restaurants are permitted provided they are oriented to Sprague; and includes and permits such things as multi - family, civic, quasi- civic, and anchor stores uses. Mr. Kuhta continued his PowerPoint by giving the zone comparison with the SARP existing zoning, pre -SARP zoning, and interim zoning; he explained difference in comparing the current zoning to the previous zoning is that most retail uses are still permitted in the City Center zone including specialty food shops, restaurants, personal services and health clubs, entertainment, but that bars would require a conditional use permit, and that auto - related uses would not be permitted; office uses were previously allowed and are still allowed, and previous zoning where B -1, B -2 and B -3 did not allow ground floor residential, the City Center district zone allows ground floor residential except on the Core street, which is the main street, with the idea that would be the main retail street and you would want retail activity on the ground floor of that street; that single family residential would not be permitted in the city center zone. To clarify, Mr. Kuhta explained that the core street is not Sprague; he explained that the council at that time felt it was important to figure out what the city could do to help get the city center going; and the idea was to identify an area where this could start, staff looked at University and talked to property owners to see if properties could be assembled very easily on the east side, and it was determined that the west side would be the best place to start the city center due to the desires of the property owners and in working with the city on the available property; the idea is to have a north to south core street connecting from Sprague to a civic building; at one time the library was included on one part and the city hall would be on the east/west axis. Mr. Kuhta explained that the Library District had negotiated to purchase property for a new library, and Spokane Valley was negotiating to purchase a site for city hall; the Library sent to a public vote for a bond issue and it failed, so the Library District pulled out of the city center idea, the area was re- designed to accommodate a city hall without the library, and he showed some sketches of what the city center core street might look like; and he said the core street is subject to some special regulations. Mr. Kuhta explained that once a binding site plan is approved for the core street, city center retail is restricted to the city center core, which means that when someone comes in to create a lot, which is done through the binding site plan process, once that is in place, until there are building permits for all the retail lining that street, then city center retail would be restricted in other places; the goal was to get the city Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 4 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT center core street going; and he said there are no restrictions now, as it would only be at the time the binding site plan was approved and until those building pen were granted, and once that occurred, the retail would be restricted. Concerning nonconforming uses, Mr. Kuhta said there are not very many in this area; there are a lot of single family, and he said that will be addressed so we don't make those nonconforming like businesses like Fred's Appliances; Valley Self Storage, Globe Motors, those are considered nonconforming; and said that 36% of the existing uses in the city center zone are nonconforming; and if you remove the single family, it leaves 11% nonconforming. In regard to the site development standards, he reminded everyone that this is the most urban place; there are two different forms of the city center; one is the core where the core street would be — the most urban place lined with retail, buildings completely up to the sidewalk; and then the neighborhood with mixed uses on the ground level; setbacks would be zero in the core street which would make the buildings right up to the sidewalk just like a downtown, and on Sprague setback would be zero to ten feet, and on Appleway five to fifteen from the back of the sidewalk; and the building height ranges from one to six stories in the center core, and as you move out toward the neighborhood it goes down to four stories, and if adjacent to single family it moves down. Mr. Kuhta went over the frontage coverage and stressed this is just an idea; that the plan does not require the buildings to be built but just to give a concept of what it could look like. Sign standards were mentioned and Mr. Kuhta said free standing signs are not pennitted in the city center zone similar to neighborhood centers; the prior pennitted one sign per arterial frontage, so everything would be wall signs or roof signs; monument signs would not be permitted on the core street since it would be on the sidewalk, but monument signs would be permitted on Sprague or other streets where there is a little setback for buildings. Mr. Kuhta reminded everyone of this Thursday's community meeting, beginning at 8:00 a.m. in Council chambers. Councilmember Dempsey mentioned handicap accessibility and how handicapped people would get from a parking lot to a business. Mr. Kuhta said we would require handicap parking spots, sidewalks would be available, and parking is allowed on the interior of buildings, paths would be allowed; parking garages is another idea as the intensity of development would require structured parking like garages, and the garages would require some parking close to the elevators, and ADA compliance would be adhered to; but he said the amount of travel is likely no different from what is currently at the Valley Mall. Councilmember Grafos said once a binding site plan is on the core street, then the rest of the retail is put on hold until the core street is developed; and Mr. Kuhta confirmed it would be city center retail in the city center area. Councilmember Grafos said from Walnut Street to the west, and to Bowdish on the east, so about a three -block area, he said he went through the map under prelocated streets in the city center, and in a three -block area he counted seven new east /west streets, twelve new north/south streets, one existing street, Dartmouth which will be abandoned and relocated; he said he counted new roads, pre- existing or prelocated streets, there are 24 existing buildings, 100% of the existing buildings are nonconforming due to setbacks and coverage requirements of 70% on Sprague Avenue; and if nonconforming, a building cannot be re -built if the use is taken away if 80% of the building is destroyed; and 100% of the free standing signs are now not allowed, such as Rosauers, Banner Bank, McDonald's, Les Schwab, and said he counted about 31 uses that go away. Councilmember Dempsey said she would appreciate receiving a list of the 31 uses or 36 uses that have gone or will go away; and Mr. Grafos showed her where they are in the book on the chart on page 19. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Kuhta if the chart includes all the zoning uses on the zoning matrix; and Mr. Kuhta said he thinks not, there are all kinds of uses not listed and he is sure there are more. Mr. Kuhta said this is a re- development scenario, with the city center being the start of this; that these regulations would result in a different place than we have now. Councilmember Gothmann said he feels the very first question of Council is, does Council wish to create a place we don't have now, a place where there is a certain amount of density on a core street; or do we wish to not have this place and leave it the way it is now; he said citizens have told him they prefer to Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 5 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT create such a center, and suggested Council wait to see how Thursday's meeting goes, then come back as a Council and ask the question of do we want to create a city center; and if we do, then council should make some regulations, and said the core street is relatively undeveloped area at the moment. Councilmember Dempsey said regarding the idea of having something we didn't have before, we didn't have Discovery Playground before and now we have this wonderful enhancement to our city; and said through careful planning, we could have a similar wonderful city center. Councilmember Grassel said she feels the biggest difference is in such places as Hillyard, they had the support of all the business owners on that main corridor; but here we have trampled on property rights, and in talking to the University City owner, there was no discussion of what he wanted for that particular city center; so it is one thing to ask a community for a city center, and have a survey done; but is another thing to say to all 1300 business owners along Sprague, in order to input this plan, we're going to change all your property rights; and that's the biggest interest; we have a conflict because we have not gone to business owners and received their buy -in, she said she spent a lot of time talking with business owners, and many are not happy with the plan, which is evident in the meetings; but the request is to give them back their zoning, and to put a city center at that location might not be the right location. Councilmember Gothmann said the initial place for a city center was University east, and then the owner of the property on the southwest corner of Sprague and University said he'd like to do it; so Council talked to that owner to see if it would be feasible; and said the City of Spokane Valley would not have talked to that owner if he had not initiated the subject; further, Councilmember Gothmann said the property along the core street is owned by one or at most two people, and not owned by the thousands of property owners Councilmember Grassel keeps talking about; he agreed there are changes which could be made to the general city center; but the real question is, do we want a core area; he said he doesn't see why businesses along Sprague would object to a core area as it seems it would be bring additional business to the area. Mayor Towey said Thursday's community meeting should give council more information on whether to pursue a city center, he said he is bothered that for two years the City has tried to negotiate that particular land without a positive reaction; and said he doesn't know if it would be feasible to start negotiations again. Mr. Kuhta said regarding the negotiations, they were willing to sell us land, but it was really the jigsaw puzzle of this: who built the street, do we go to a bond vote on city hall and pay for the infrastructure; they were willing to dedicate the right -of -way if we built the streets; those are the types of issues we were talking with the land owner; and they wanted a commitment from the city but the city wasn't ready to give a commitment; and said it was trying to put all the pieces together and trying to get commitments on both sides, he said they were a willing negotiator. Mr. Kuhta said staff will have a final report of this Thursday's meeting, back to council on September 14. Mayor Towey asked how long we negotiated, and Mr. Kuhta said the property owner hired a high - quality consultant who did public /private partnerships, and we mainly worked through them, and had numerous discussions; but probably actively engaged about a year; they were involved in the process and concerned about some of the regulations; and one of the things they said was they didn't want two -story buildings as they didn't think the market was there for two -story buildings; and reiterated that they were engaged in the process. 6. Street Preservation Program — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten gave a presentation on the pavement management program; explained that the first plan was developed in 2006 and in 2008 they were in the process of updating the plan; he went over the street improvement categories of annual operation and maintenance; pavement management, and capital grant projects and again mentioned there are no current revenues for pavement management, he gave a few of the highlights of the 2007 report and briefly mentioned the pavement condition, the 2007 annual street revenues, the six -year OCI (overall condition index), and discussed in brief some of the road maintenance and rehabilitation treatment types and recommendations to the overall process to correct issues on future projects. Director Kersten discussed some of the budget aspects including the annual average need for arterials, STEP (septic tank elimination program), and said the Pavement Management Plan Update 2008 is included in council's agenda packet, along with maps to show street locations; and Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 6 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT he concluded by explaining that staff will return when we have better numbers and that the plan should be ready for review around the first of next year. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at approximately 7:45 p.m. 7. City Transportation Benefit District (TBD)— Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell said on July 6, council discussed with City Attorney Connelly, what a possible interlocal agreement might look like with other jurisdictions in the area, and said after this discussion tonight, Commissioner Mielke will give council an update on that interlocal. Mr. Driskell said one of the questions council had July 6 was, if this city were to consider a TBD on our own using a license fee, what kind of revenue could be generated. Mr. Driskell said research was gathered from the Department of Licensing to determine how many qualifying vehicles are in Spokane Valley, and using those numbers, staff used the GIS (geographic information system) to get the most accurate number possible; it appears there are approximately 60,000 qualifying vehicles that would be subject to a TBD if that was something Council chose to enact; he further explained that for every $10.00 imposed fee, $600,000 would be generated in revenue, so a $20 fee would generate $1.2 million, a $30 fee would generate $1.8 million, and $40 would be $2.4 million; and said these figures are for discussion purposes only; and he said the information is merely an outline for council showing the options as set forth in state law; that there are some options subject to voter approval and some not. Councilmember Grassel asked at what point we would get with other municipalities to determine whether to move forward, and Mr. Driskell said that Commissioner Mielke and Mr. Tortorelli will give an update, and Council can hold additional discussions at a future council meeting to come to consensus on the path to take regarding a transportation benefit district. In response to questions from Councilmember Gothmann concerning the uses of impact fees, Mr. Driskell said he has not examined that closely, but generally impact fees are only for new construction. Councilmember Grassel commented that the text states there shall be no "double dipping on impact fees" and she said if we are already requiring an industrial or commercial user to get the tab fee on those trucks, she asked if a formula exists. Mayor To`vey invited Commissioner Mielke and Mr. Joe Tortorelli to come forward to speak to this topic. Commissioner Mielke expressed thanks for the opportunity to comment tonight, he mentioned he is distributing tonight, copies of the draft interlocal agreement, and he asked Council to keep in mind that the legislature permits forming a city -only TBD, or to form a regional TBD, and he acknowledged that there are some areas in the language of the regulations concerning a regional TBD that are ambiguous and difficult to implement; and said to move forward on a regional TBD, the law requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an ordinance forming the district, and prior to the district being formalized, an interlocal agreement must be negotiated with the partnering jurisdictions, and it must be signed by jurisdictions representing at least 75% of the population as well as 60% of the jurisdictions, and what that means for Spokane County if it were to form a regional TBD, the County can reach the population threshold if Spokane County, City of Spokane, and City of Spokane Valley participate; but the second part would not be met, that of requiring 60% of the jurisdictions participating. Mr. Mielke said there are fourteen jurisdictions within Spokane County, and in rounding up, 60% is 8.4, which means nine of the jurisdictions would need to participate. Mr. Mielke said he asked local elected officials if they would like Spokane County to move forward, and said that if the County were to move forward, they would like to know if all of the jurisdictions which would benefit really wanted a regional approach and would they be willing to go on record with that decision; and said he received a lot of individual opinions but not many official positions of jurisdictions. Mr. Mielke said many local elected officials said before they give an answer on this question, they would like to see a draft interlocal agreement; and Mr. Mielke said he therefore drafted a rough draft interlocal agreement; and said he tried to insert language which reflects concerns of the majority of elected officials with whom he has spoken; in examining state laws regarding revenue streams, most require voter approval, but two do not require voter approval, one is the TBD, whether it be city only or regional, they can impose transportation impact fees on commercial Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 7 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT development; and the second is a tab fee up to $20.00 can also be implemented without a vote; and said everything else is subject to a public vote. Based on input he received, Commissioner Mielke said he made the interlocal more restrictive, and in the revenue section, it states that every revenue source regardless of how small, which goes to a TBD must go to a public vote. Also in the revenue section, Commissioner Mielke said he included that we will not impose transportation impact fees on commercial development; and said the business community, which is primarily the Chamber organizations throughout the region said they realize transportation infrastructure is one of the most basic government investments, and therefore, said they wanted a coordinated, comprehensive approach rather than having one fee now, and another fee later, and so on. Commissioner Mielke also mentioned his second handout, that of a copy of an August 12 letter addressed to Spokane Council President Shogan; that Spokane City Council has had two meetings where this topic was discussed concerning doing a city -only TBD or participate in a regional TBD; and said there was a quote in a recent newspaper article where President Shogan was quoted that he was not aware of the Board of County Commissioner's position on this topic; so the intent of the letter is to reiterate the Board's position, which has been consistent, where the Board asks either by resolution or by letter, for the local jurisdictions to indicate to the Board if the Board should move forward on a regional TBD, and to also give some feedback on the interlocal agreement; and added that he has heard from many local officials that they want to know the public's feelings on this issue. Mr. Joe Tortorelli, Secretary of the Spokane Area Good Roads Association, which is a 107 year -old organization, said they are in a coalition with Greater Spokane, Inc., Association of General Contractors, and AVISTA on examining what the public's interest is in transportation funding; he said they acquired a reputable survey firm from Portland who conducted a survey by calling 300 residents in Spokane County, a combination of inside the City and out and in and outside the unincorporated area, and said about 25 questions were asked, primarily, would the public be interested in a new tax to create funding specifically to be used for road improvements; he said this was done as a baseline to determine public sentiment as they knew the answer to a question about wanting more taxes would be no. He explained the survey asked if they would be supportive of individual cities creating their own TBDs or if it should be regional, and the results were 72% in favor of regional. He said the question was asked, do you believe they should jointly plan for transportation funding, and it came back 76% support for a regional effort. He said they asked how important are the roads, and over 90% said very important. He said another question was about the percentage make -up between maintaining the roads and new capital projects, and it came back about 50150 that they were supportive; and finally, they asked if people would be willing to accept a regional effort in order to create a funding source to support road maintenance, and it came back 57% in favor; and said they believe they need to create local funding for local projects. Mr. Tortorelli said the state passed the gas tax in the nickel package in 03, the TPA package of 9.5¢ in 05, and said we didn't quite get our share especially in the 9.5¢ or $9 billion dollars, but we are still paying that tax; and said this would be locally generated and locally spent. Mr. Tortorelli said their organizations are very supportive of this as it creates jobs and the opportunity for job growth; and he encouraged Spokane Valley to be part of the regional effort. Mr. Mielke said regarding revenue streams, that when the legislature first put together TBDs, it had in mind city -only TBDs; and they had in mind to have the City Council operating as the TBD's Board of Directors, he said Council is aware of where the road problems are as they communicate with the City's Public Works Director, so as the Board of a TBD, there would be a direct connection in allocating funds. He further explained that if a city has transportation impact fees, it must credit that amount back against whatever resources would be drawn from; he said that calculation would be easy if only one jurisdiction were involved, but the legislature said this might also work on a regional model. Mr. Mielke said for example, if there are fourteen jurisdictions fonning a regional TBD but only one has a transportation impact fee, the law said that must be credited back, but the question is, does it get credited back to all Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 8 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT fourteen jurisdictions, or only against the one; he said the law is confusing and lacks clarity; so we suggested avoiding those ambiguous areas and this interlocal will not impose transportation impact fees. Further, under this proposal, Mr. Mielke said the easiest time to develop a forinula to distribute money is when there is no money to distribute; so the formula in the interlocal is that for every dollar collected, 70% gets re- distributed to those fourteen jurisdictions to be used for whatever transportation purpose they deem appropriate; and the other 30% goes to the regional projects, such as Bridging the Valley. Mr. Mielke said this formula was based on a combination of vehicle miles traveled and population, and said if you look at just the tab fees staying in the city generated by Spokane Valley, $600,000 for every $10.00; if you wanted to generate $20 million in the region, that would equate to approximately a $45.00 tab fee, which means that the total collected for Spokane Valley would be about $2.6 to $2.8 million; but when you change the formula under the regional TBD and do the combination of vehicle miles traveled and population, the allocation to Spokane Valley is 70 %, which would equal about $2.6 to $2.8 million plus the other 30% generated which gets distributed to projects of regional significance; and said he feels there is a slightly better return with the regional TBD. Regarding the question of whether to go regional or alone, Mr. Mielke said he asks the question of how have we done in the past, and said he hasn't looked at state funds, but in just looking at the federal allocation, and using the percent of population in a TMA (Transportation Management Area), Spokane Valley represents about 19.2% of the total population; and if you look at the federal funds coming into this region, that allocation under the urban funding program would be about $913,000 annually, so over ten years, that would draw about $9.1 million to Spokane Valley; and said if you look at the past ten years in projects that have fallen within what is now Spokane Valley, and he mentioned that this City has done very well and has projects which have ranked high regarding their regional significance; he said instead of pulling $9.1 million over the course of the last ten years, the area that comprises Spokane Valley would have had about $19.3 million or about twice as much as you would if you were to go on your own without having the regional pool to draw from. Mr. Mielke mentioned that the Bridging the Valley continues to be seen as a project of regional significance; at a cost of approximately $300 million, and if all the jurisdictions do their own TBD, will other jurisdictions believe that Bridging the Valley is a Spokane Valley project and therefore one that only Spokane Valley should pay for; he said the use of the 70% funds is entirely up to Council, and the 30% might be able to be used as leverage funds for acquiring a federal grant or allocation; and he said we try to wisely use local funds for local projects, instead of exporting funds elsewhere. Councilmember Grassel asked about section 4 of the interlocal and the definition of transportation improvements, and said one of the things troubling her in supporting this is it is too broad; that the board could be formed and someone might feel a regionally significant plan is to put in light rail or do a bike plan; and said constituents she talked to are supportive of a tab fee provided it only goes to roads; and said she is leery to endorse this; she said you could include parking lanes or bike stalls on that road, but outside of that, people will have a problem supporting it as people say they currently pay gasoline tax, and utility tax, and this new tax might not even go to a road; and she said people are sick and tired of more and more taxes and fees and we never seem to prioritize our budgets to meet the needs, and she said the needs are simply to have improved roads; and she reiterated this is too broad. Mr. Mielke confirmed that the area she questioned, Section 4 on page 3 of 9 under "definition of transportation improvements" is taken completely from State law; and he said section 5 has some added crafted language to try to have it flexible but still consistent with law, and said they want to be careful as for some people, a road only means the asphalt surface and not sidewalks or curbs; but he hears from his constitutes that the kids have no place to walk to school without walking on the edge of the road, and said as they are looking to rehabilitate Harvard Road, especially in the area of Harvard and Wellesley, they know they must look at a road which includes a place for people to safely walk beside the road, or ride bikes. Mr. Mielke said one of the questions asked on the survey was, what do you believe the most important transportation issue in this community is, and Mr. Tortorelli said the number one road issue is road maintenance by far; and Mr. Mielke said the second priority is public transportation as roughly 19% of the population said that preserving our existing roads is the number one priority. Councilmember Grassel said she has no Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 9 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT objection to that but asked if Mr. Mielke is saying that the state requires language such as passenger rail and bicycle - pedestrian accommodations, or is that Mr. Mielke's own language'? Mr. Tortorelli said it comes down to a plan that is developed by the region, and as part of that region, he said Spokane Valley will have plenty of input to detennine what those projects are of regional significance. Councilmember Grassel said if she were to ask her constituents about this and tell them that this regional TBD could cost them $45 in tab fees, and since it could go to light rail or a bike path, she said those constituents will not support that; and if she tells them it will go only to preservation of roads, including maybe sidewalks and curbs, they would support that; and she said her constituents are tired of being taxed and fees not going to the projects they want the tax money to go to. Mr. Mielke said concerning section 5, he wrote the first and third paragraphs, and the second paragraph is from State Statute, and said the purpose of the first paragraph is to address that economic development is a consideration and has to benefit two or more jurisdictions; or has to be something that improves it, since they feel that WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) should be responsible for maintaining the road in its current form, and said that third paragraph addresses how people can nominate their project to be a project of regional significance. Councilmember Grassel said her input is to leave that language out if he wants this to succeed, and said she feels there is no public support for those other things; and sees the City of Spokane going one direction with their roads, said we heard tonight that we don't have funds for road preservation. Councilmember McCaslin said that page 3 of 9, third paragraph, "the parties agree that the governing body of SRTBD shall be the same as the governing board of the designated federal metropolitan planning organization (MPO) as provided" and he asked who are the referred to "they" to which Mr. Mielke responded, SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council), and that Council is comprised of elected officials and a citizen member, Jim Williams, who represents Transportation, and all remaining members are elected officials from one of the jurisdictions, including Deputy Mayor Schimmels. Councilmember McCaslin said if this council imposes a $20.00 license fee, this council would have complete control of the revenues generated; but if this council goes with the regional TBD, this council loses control, and he said he prefers to have control. Commissioner Mielke reiterated that the allocation that comes back to each jurisdictions, is fully under that jurisdiction's control; and said that he seeks input concerning this interlocal; that it can be more or less restrictive; and the goal was to exercise control to ensure that whoever makes up the governing board, which can be done with a new independent board with no less than five members including at least one elected representative from each jurisdiction; or could use an existing government entity, the existing MPO, which in this case is the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. Mr. Mielke said he tried to restrict the powers to things we are compatible with; such as not giving this separate board the power to implement a regional transportation impact fee, which is why he included the language that "every revenue source shall be subject to a public vote;" and that at no time will there be a transportation impact fee; and said it is similar to the interlocal which fonned Spokane International Airport between the City of Spokane and Spokane County. Councilmember Gothmann said that we will get more money going regionally; locally only results in $600,000 per $10.00 tab fee but regionally is $600,000 per $10.00 tab fee plus the regional percentage; and recommended that in the interlocal, there be some way to select the value of the tab fee and that the amount has to be approved by some formula by the jurisdictions, not SRTC, he also suggested another reason to go regional is that he found that Mr. Torterilli's group is ready, willing and anxious to act as a voter information source for getting this on the ballot, and for providing information, and said for jurisdictions to do it alone, they lack such a resource and he added that 72% of our citizens said we should go regional; and he suggested this council decide, that there is a Council of Governance meeting early September, and that at the first part of September, this council could have a solid answer for the Commissioners concerning whether this Council is for a regional model; with the goal of having the group make a collective decision at that September meeting; and he suggested that all the jurisdictions move toward that goal; thereby the Board of Commissioners would know as a result of that Council of Governance meeting, if there is ample support to go regionally, and Councilmember Gothmann said if there isn't enough support, this council could do local. Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 10 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT Commissioner Mielke said regarding making the detennination if jurisdictions are "in or out" he would like to know if they would like the Board to schedule a hearing to adopt an ordinance and start trying to negotiate an interlocal; and once those two things are in place, we would stop until the voters agree to a revenue source and we all get together and determine what it is our citizens are willing to accept; so the question remains, should the Board complete the first phase, that of scheduling a hearing to adopt an ordinance. Mayor Towey said the question is not whether this Council is in or out, but if this council endorses the Board of Commissioners moving this forward; that the referred to meeting is September 10, so there should be enough time for this council to discuss this and draft a letter addressing the issue. Commissioner Mielke said GSI has taken a position of supporting a comprehensive transportation solution; that the Valley Chamber is taking the issue under consideration, and the West Plains Chamber has stated in the past they support a comprehensive solution to transportation, but they have not gone back to discuss specifics of a TBD. Deputy Mayor Schimmels mentioned several projects that have an impact on this city, including the Havana Bridge, the Department of Transportation Pines /Mansfield project, the widening of 1 -90, and many other projects. Councilmember Grassel asked then if that contradicts forming a regional TBD, since all that was accomplished without a TBD, and Deputy Mayor Schimmels said we would never find the matching funds for even 25% of those projects; and Mr. Mielke said the federal government is changing its criteria for EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), DOT (Department of Transportation), and Economic Development, that they are now looking at scoring criteria based on comprehensive or coordinated approaches. Councilmember Grassel asked if Council could get a copy of the survey questions and results, and Mr. Tortorelli said he would not be able to comply with that request as it is not a public document, but rather is funded through private funds; that he can go over the questions, but cannot supply a copy of the document as it could be used against them in a campaign. Commissioner Mielke added that were Council to receive a copy, it would instantly become a public record and the people who paid for the survey want to control the information. Councilmember Grassel said she would not endorse this with the language including light rail, she said she spoke with too many people who told her they only want fees going strictly to road projects; and that there has been a great deal of discussion on light rail or bicycle plans, and she said people she talks to are fed up with that. Commissioner Mielke asked if her desire would be to also eliminate Bridging the Valley since that is not a road project, and Councilmember Grassel asked if Bridging the Valley would fall under a different category, such as freight mobility or preservation of existing infrastructure, and Mr. Mielke said that paragraph could be eliminated, but if Spokane Valley gets audited on how the funds are used, the auditor will still make sure the funds are used consistent with state law; and he asked if Ms. Grassel is suggesting to strike out the line "public transportation and passenger rail." She said she is okay with public transportation but would omit passenger rail and /or the bicycle /pedestrian accommodations, and just keep to road infrastructure that vehicles travel on. Commissioner Mielke said he understands the point with passenger rail, and said he feels she will get some "push- back" if bicycle /pedestrian accommodations are eliminated, as that is sidewalks; and she said this council just went through discussion about bicycles on sidewalks, and said she doesn't think anyone supports bikes on sidewalks; but perhaps to just state "ADA sidewalk accommodations." Councilmember Dempsey said she feels bicycle and pedestrian accommodation needs to be included with the roads, and Ms. Grassel said you might have a bicycle lane, but there is a difference between having a bicycle lane and like what Portland has done by having bicycle lanes equal to car lanes. Councilmember McCaslin asked staff to provide Council with Mr. Tortorelli's testimony since the survey document is unavailable, and Mr. Jackson said such will appear in the minutes; and he asked if the Bridging the Valley could be accomplished by interlocal agreements without a TBD; and Mr. Mielke said he thinks that could occur, but the question of funding would be an issue; that the law states a project list must be developed in order to form a TBD, and in this case, the project list is the Six -Year Transportation Plan, and Bridging the Valley is on this City's six -year plan as well as on the SRTC regional plan as SRTC puts together a Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 11 of 12 Approved by Council: DRAFT regional six -year plan; and he said sometimes unsdictions put the road maintenance plans in the six year plan and sometimes not; but he said it needs to be done to be in accordance with the state law. 8. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towey Deputy Mayor Schimmels noted that two councilmembers will be unable to attend the August 31 council meeting, and he asked for and received consensus that Council not meet August 31. 9. Information Only: The Greater Spokane, Inc. Third Quarter Report was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 10. Council Check -in — Mayor Towey Councilmember Grafos said he attended a Spokane Homebuilders meeting, along with the City Manager and Councilmember Grassel, and said he felt this was a great opportunity to start the process of a positive relationship between the Homebuilders and the City of Spokane Valley; he said this is the first of a number of meetings that the Homebuilders Organization requested to have with the City Manager and City Official, and to ask how they can help to improve the relationship between the building community and the City; he said that Mr. Jackson explained a number of steps already taken to start this process of resolving bottlenecks and delays on permits and development action, and said he feels all parties understand that we can only be successful by working together in a very positive manner. Deputy Mayor Schimmels extended an invitation to everyone to attend the Spokane Regional Transportation Committee meeting on Thursday September 9 at 1:00 p.m., and said he feels more interaction is needed between the committees. Councilmember McCaslin said that we had a meeting with the builders months ago, and we asked for their very specific complaints about the city, and again, requested the builders to provide council with those specific requests or specific problems with the City so we can attempt to resolve those issues, Mr. Jackson said that was part of the discussion and we have not received those specific complaints or comments. Councilmember Grafos said the president of that organization Joe White is ill; and they are setting up to bring those issues to the next meeting that is being scheduled. 11. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson: Mr. Jackson had no comments. There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 12 of 12 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 14, 2010 City Manager Sign -off Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading proposed ordinance - Amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) as follows: Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan -allow Vehicle Sales as a conditional use in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70B.170 -210 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September of 2007 and was effective October 28 2007. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16 2009 and became effective on October 15 2009. Following the adoption of these codes, a number of items were discovered which were incorrect, impractical, or omitted. Earlier this year, the City Council requested that staff initiate a code amendment for the above referenced item. At a June 24 2010 public hearing, the Planning Commission requested additional information on this proposed amendment which was presented at a second public hearing held on July 22n 2010. ANALYSIS: See attached Staff Report OPTIONS: Approve ordinance with or without modifications or direct staff further RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve ordinance amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.110.020 allowing vehicle sales as a conditional use in the mixed use avenue zone. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance Staff Report CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) TITLE 19.110.020, APPENDIX D ALLOWING VEHICLE SALES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE MIXED USE AVENUE ZONE; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan pursuant to Ordinance 09 -021, on the 16 day of June, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan became effective on the 15th day of October, 2009; and WHEREAS, on the 24"' day of June, 2010 and the 22n day of July, 2010, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposed amendment set forth below, and approved the same and made specific Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, as set forth in Section One of this ordinance, and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, the City issued a Determination of non - significance (DNS) for the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS at City Hall and at the main branch of the library, and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Washington state law, the City notified the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development of the proposed changes on June 10, 2010. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH BELOW: Section One: The City Council hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission set forth as follows: Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: (A) the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and (B) the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 1. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendment is consistent with this provision. Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.110.020 Page 1 of') DRAFT 2. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendment is consistent with this provision. Conclusions: The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and are consistent with appropriate goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Section Two: The Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, adopted pursuant to SVMC 19.110.020 as appendix D is hereby amended as follows: Book II — 2.2 Site Development Regulations Page 50 of 201 (1) May be free - standing building or incorporated into mixed -use building. (2) Minimum interior height for ground level retail of all types is 14 ft. from floor to ceiling for new buildings. (3) Drive - through business are permitted subject to the following criteria: (a) Drive- through facilities are permitted on sites adjacent to a principal arterial street. Access and stacking lanes serving drive- through businesses shall not be located between a building and any adjacent street, public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. (See SVMC 22.50.030 for stacking and queuing lane requirements. (b) Stacking lanes shall be physically separated from the parking lot, sidewalk, and pedestrian areas by landscaping and /or architectural element, or any combination therein. c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as parry goods, art supplies, sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale buying club retail. (e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area. (2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands. (3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (4) Convenience Stores (5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities. Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.110.020 Page 2 of 3 (6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos. (7) Funeral homes. ii) Conditional UsesPr-ehihited Us (1) Vehicle sales (2)usedvehiele sales Section Three Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section Four: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after the publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of 1 2010. Mayor, Thomas E. Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.110.020 Page 3 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION S po ne STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ..;oO Valley PLANNING COMMISSION CTA -07 -10 STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 8, 2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: July 22, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning code text amendments to the following section of the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Allow vehicles sales within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This proposal is considered a non - project action under RCW 43.21C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. STAFF PLANNER: CHRISTINA JANSSEN, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Amendment Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. BACKGROUND INFO The City Council has requested that the staff review the Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP) and propose changes based on public input. The proposed changes will be processed in one of two ways. If the amendment does not conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan (PLAN) it will be sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommended code change. If the proposed change would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, then the issue will be held until the city processes all the proposed changes to the PLAN during the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The reason for this is that the PLAN can be changed no more than once a year by state law. Prior to engaging in the zone by zone review, the City Council heard from a citizen with problems with SARP. The citizen had opened a boat sales operation in the Mixed Use Zone and had been contacted by city staff that vehicle sales are not permitted in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. The City Council directed staff to bring this issue to the Planning Commission in advance of the larger study of SARP. This item was first studied at a Public Hearing held on June 24, 2010. The Planning Commission held this item for additional information regarding consequences of splitting boat and vehicle sales into separate zoning categories. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 1 of 5 B. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: June 4, 2010 Issuance of an Detenmination of Non - Significance (DNS): June 4, 2010 End of Appeal Period for DNS: June 18, 2010 First Public Hearing June 24, 2010 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). The Planning Division issued a Detenmination of Non - Significance (DNS) on June 18, 2010, for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). No appeals have been received at the time of this report. The appeal period will close June 18, 2010. D. INTENT OF THE SPRAGUE AND APPLEWAY CORRIDORS SUBAREA PLAN (SARP) Book L Community Intent Book I sets forth what the community aspires to achieve and describes the physical outcomes that the SARP is intended to orchestrate as new investment creates change. Book I is essentially the comprehensive plan policy basis for the SARP and is considered a part of the PLAN. Book II: Development Regulations Book II is the implementation of the policy direction established in Book I and contains the Development Regulations that govern all future public and private development actions in the area covered by the SARP. Book III: City Actions Book III outlines the City's role in the redevelopment of the Sprague and Appleway corridor by identifying strategic public investments within the SARP area the implement policy direction from Book I of the SARP Prior to the adoption of SARP, a market analysis was conducted that concluded that the Sprague Appleway corridor had a surplus of commercial property. One of the strategies to address the surplus was change the commercial strip to create centers and segments. The City Center and Neighborhood Center Retail zones would serve the needs of neighborhoods within a short drive and create a dynamic pedestrian oriented city center. The segments portion would be distinguished by cohesive building types. Specifically, the Mixed Use Avenue would focus on a mix of workplace, commercial and high density residential uses. This amendment is proposed within the Mixed Use Avenue zone. The Vehicle Sales use was not included in the Mixed Use Avenue primarily because the original thinking was that by concentrating the vehicle and related sales to the Gateway Commercial areas, car and other vehicle sales would become a destination area for consumers looking for that product. The proposed amendment would allow Vehicle Sales in the Mixed Use Avenue zone with a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process, which includes a public hearing, ensures that the proposed use is compatible with the zoning and will not interfere with the use of adjacent properties. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 2 of 5 E. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC or the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. a. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. b. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The amendment to add vehicle sales to the Mixed Use Avenue zone is in conflict with the original idea of locating all vehicle sales to the Gateway area. The original draft of the SARP proposed all new vehicle sales in the Gateway area and used vehicle sales in the Mixed Use Avenue. During deliberations, the legal department advised the staff that we could not differentiate between the two. If it was allowed for new vehicles, then used vehicles also have to be permitted. The Planning Commission recommended that the vehicle sales be removed from the Mixed Use Avenue zone. By requiring a conditional use permit, the public will have the opportunity to comment on any proposal and the staff can recommend conditions to mitigate any aesthetic impacts. Following the June 24 2010 Public Hearing, at the request of the Planning Commission, staff requested an interpretation from the legal department regarding separating they types of vehicles sold in a specific location or zone; i.e. could boat sales be allowed while still prohibiting passenger vehicle sales. The City Attorney advised that a city may, in its development code, distinguish between types of vehicles, i.e. cars and boats, if there is a reasonable basis for the distinction and subsequent restriction on use. Additionally, the Planning Commission had requested research on the definition of both vehicles and recreational vehicles in surrounding jurisdictions. The results of the research are outlined in the table below: Jurisdiction Vehicle /Motor Vehicle Recreational Vehicle City of Spokane Valley - Uniform No definition A vehicular -type built on a single Development Code (UDC) chassis designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use, with our without motor power including, but not limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers and self - propelled motor homes. City of Spokane Vehicles that have their own motive A vehicle which is: 1) built on a power and that are used for the single chassis 2) four hundred square transportation of people or goods on feet or less when measured at the streets. Motor vehicles include: a) largest horizontal projection 3) Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 3 of 5 "None of the above codes provide a definition for boats or watercraft of any kind. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (UDC) separates vehicle sales and boat sales. Outside of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor, vehicle sales are allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial and Light Industrial zones. Boat sales are allowed in the Community Commercial and Regional Commercial zones. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will expand the uses within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA- 07 -10. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 4 of 5 motorcycles b) passenger vehicles c) designed to be self - propelled or trucks, and d) recreational vehicles permanently towable by a light duty with motive power. truck; and 4) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel or seasonal use. Spokane County An item which is designed to A vehicular type portable structure transport objects, merchandise, other without permanent foundation articles, or persons from one point to primarily designed as temporary another whether the item (vehicle) is living quarters for recreational, operable or inoperable. Does not camping, or travel use, with or include manufactured or mobile without motor power and occupied in homes any one place for a period not exceeding 30 days. This includes, but is not limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers, and self propelled motor homes. Liberty Lake Same as Spokane County Same as Spokane County Cheney No definition No definition Millwood No definition No definition City of Coeur d'Alene, ID No definition Means a motor home, travel trailer, truck camper, or camping trailer, with or without motive power, designed for human habitation for recreational or emergency occupancy, with a living area less than two hundred twenty (220) square feet, excluding built in equipment such as wardrobes, closets, cabinets, kitchen units or fixtures, bath and toilet rooms. City of Post Falls, ID No definition No definition "None of the above codes provide a definition for boats or watercraft of any kind. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (UDC) separates vehicle sales and boat sales. Outside of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor, vehicle sales are allowed in the Corridor Mixed Use, Community Commercial, Regional Commercial and Light Industrial zones. Boat sales are allowed in the Community Commercial and Regional Commercial zones. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will expand the uses within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA- 07 -10. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 4 of 5 V. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150) when recommending changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Background: A. The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16 2009 and became effective on October 15 2009. C. Chapter 19.30.040 SVMC allows code text amendments to be submitted at any time. D. Following the adoption of the code a number of items were found to be either incorrect, impractical, or omitted. E. The Planning Commission held public hearings on June 24 ", 2010 and July 22 ad 2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: 1. Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Allow vehicles sales with the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to the conditional use permit requirements. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: (A) the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and (B) the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 1. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the community image and economic vitality. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendment is consistent with this provision. 2. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendment is consistent with this provision. Conclusions: The proposed amendment meets the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and are consistent with appropriate goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of the proposed amendment to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Staff Report to Planning Commission CTA -07 -10 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 14, 2010 City Manager Sign -off Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First reading proposed ordinance — Amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) as follows: Chapter 2.0.1 (Applicability). Add language that exempts accessory structures from meeting frontage coverage requirements, minimum height requirements, or maximum setbacks, but requires the accessory structure to meet architectural standards on existing developed sites. Chapter 2.1.5 Gateway Commercial Avenue Zone. Modify the table to allow restricted office uses, that include accounting, insurance, legal services, and other uses deemed by the Community Development Director to be complementary to auto sales (Table section 2.2.2. Building Use); modify the maximum front street setback along Sprague Avenue from 30' up to 100' (Table section 2.2.7 Front Street Setback); and eliminate the minimum percentage coverage requirement (Table section 2.2.12 Frontage Coverage). Chapter 2.1.6 Gateway Commercial Center Zone. Modify the table to allow restricted office uses, that include accounting, insurance, legal services, and other uses deemed by the Community Development Director to be complementary to auto sales (Table section 2.2.2. Building Use). Section 2.2.2(f) Gateway Commercial Center Retail (Building Use). Add language that exempts vehicle sales uses from maximum front street setback and lot frontage coverage requirements, and clarify that gas stations are exempt from those same requirements. Section 2.6.1(2)(7) Standards (Signage Regulations). Modify the language to increase the area allowed for Wall Signs from 15% up to 25% of the wall area and clarify that the sign area is allowed per wall. Section 2.6.2(3) Standards (Wall Signs). Retain the language that limits wall sign placement to the area below the 2nd floor. Section 2.6.2(6) Standards (Freestanding Signs). Modify the language to allow freestanding signs on sites other than those along Sprague Avenue, and allow dual frontage lots to have a maximum of one free - standing sign per street frontage. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040- Development Regulation Text Amendments PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Study Session conducted September 8, 2010 BACKGROUND: See RCA from September 7, 2010 attached. The Council conducted a study session on September 7, 2010 and discussed the amendments. During the discussion the Council indicated a preference to reject the Planning Commission's recommendation to retain the language that limits wall sign location to areas below the 2nd floor. The proposed ordinance reflects the Planning Commission's recommendation to retain the current language regarding wall sign placement. Council may direct alternative language to be incorporated into the subsequent draft. OPTIONS: 1. Approve the proposed amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission; 2. Modify the proposal by rejecting the Planning Commission's recommendation to retain the language in section 2.6.2(3) regarding wall sign location and identify any other changes the Council deems appropriate; 3. Reject the proposed amendments; 4. Refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to advance the ordinance amending the Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center District zones, to a second reading. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: RCA September 7, 2010 Proposed Ordinance CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) TITLE 19.110.020 APPENDIX D: SECTIONS 2.0.1, APPLICABILITY; 2.1.5 GATEWAY COMMERCIAL AVENUE DISTRICT ZONE TABLE 2.2. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; 2.1.6 GATEWAY COMMERCIAL CENTER DISTRICT ZONE TABLE 2.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; 2.2.2.1(E) GATEWAY COMMERCIAL AVENUE RETAIL PERMITTED USES; 2.6.1.(2) SIGN REGULATIONS STANDARDS; AND 2.6.2 (6) FREESTANDING SIGN STANDARDS; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16 2009 and became effective on October 15 2009; and WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Book 1 of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan, and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, the city issued a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) for the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS at City Hall, and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, the City provided a copy of the proposed amendment to Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) initiating a 60 day comment period pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS, the amended ordinance as set forth bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare and protection of the environment; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received information, public testimony and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on August 26, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission deliberated on August 26, 2010; the Planning Commission provided a recommendation, and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2010, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2010, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH BELOW: Section One The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan shall be amended as follows: Book II — Development Regulations Page 13 of 123 2.0.1. APPLICABILITY 1) City Center District Zone. These regulations shall apply to: a) New construction. Ordinance 10- Page 1 of 5 DRAFT b) Additions greater than 20% of the building floor area. c) Exterior Improvements ( "facelifts'') costing more than 20% of the assessed or appraised value of the building and land. Such exterior regulations shall conform to the architectural regulations contained in Section 2.5. 2) All Other District Zones. These regulations shall apply to: a) New construction. b) Exterior Improvements ( "facelifts ") costing more than 20% of the assessed or appraised value of the building and land. Such exterior improvements shall conform to the architectural regulations contained in Section 2.5. 3) New Construction. New construction is defined as an entirely new structure or the reconstruction, remodel, rehabilitation or expansion of a building costing more than 50% of the assessed or appraised value of the existing structure and land. 4) Existing Buildings and Completed Applications. Nothing contained in this section shall require any change to an existing building or structure for which a building permit has been previously issued or applied for in the Community Development Department, and the application is deemed complete prior to the effective date of this Subarea Plan. 5) Ownership /Tenant Changes. Changes in property ownership or tenants of existing uses shall likewise require no change in any existing building or structure. 6) Limitations on Required Improvements. Where improvements and additions are made to existing buildings, requirements for renovation or enlargements apply only to net new floor area. Improvements and additions to existing buildings that increase non - conformities are not permitted. If regulations to be applied to net new floor area are not specified in this Subarea Plan, then the Community Development Director /Designee shall determine which regulations shall apply. Accessory strictures proposed on developed sites shall not be required to meet frontage coverage requirements, minimum height requirements, or maximum setbacks. Accessory structures shall meet all applicable architectural standards in section 2.5.2 Height Massing Composition. 7) Non - conforming uses shall be regulated by Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19.20.060, with the exception that the lawful use of land at the time of passage of this code may be continued unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 24 consecutive months. 8) Development regulations established in this Plan are specified as either Standards or Guidelines. Standards address those aspects of development that are essential to achieve the goals of the Subarea Plan. They include specifications for site development and building design, such as permitted land uses, building height and setbacks. Conformance with standards is mandatory. Such provisions are indicated by use of the words "shall ", "must ", or "is /is not permitted." Guidelines provide guidance for new development in terns of aesthetics and other considerations such as district character or design details. They're intended to direct building and site design in a way that results in the continuity of the valued character of the City of Spokane Valley. Whereas conformance with the Standards is mandatory, conformance with the Guidelines is recommended. Provisions that fall into this category are Ordinance 10- Page 2 of 5 DRAFT indicated by the use of words "should," "may" or "are encouraged to." In various cases, the Guidelines provide a choice of treatments that will achieve the desired effect. Section Two The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan shall be amended as follows: Book H, Section 2.1.5 Gateway Commercial Avenue District Zone, page 24 of 123, Table 2.2. Site Development Standards of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto. Section Three The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan shall be amended as follows: Book II — Section 2.1.6 Gateway Commercial Center District Zone, page 25 of 123, Table 2.2 Site Development Standards of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan as depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto. Section Four The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan section 2.2.2.1(e)shall be amended as follows: e) Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail i) Permitted Uses: (1) Vehicle Sales and Services, including automobiles, recreational vehicles, boats, motor sports vehicles, etc. (Vehicle Sales are exempt from 2.2.7 Front Street Setback Regulations and 2.2.12 Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (2) Vehicle repair, body and glass shops. (3) Vehicle parts and accessories. (4) Gas stations. (Gas station 13�e are exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (5) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants (6) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following: (a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as parry goods, art supplies, sporting goods, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores. (b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage, including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies, vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc. (c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art services, etc. (d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse -scale buying club retail. ii) Prohibited Uses: (1) Full service restaurants Section Five The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan section 2.6.1(2)shall be amended as follows: 2) STANDARDS 1) Sign types shall be permitted according to District Zone, as indicated in the Signage Regulations Chart Figure 2.6. Ordinance 10- Page 3 of 5 DRAFT 2) In the event that a sign falls under more than one sign definition found within this Section, the more restrictive sign regulations shall apply. 3) Temporary Signs not listed in this section shall be permitted in the Plan Area per the requirements of the SVMC Title 22.110.050. 4) "Prohibited Signs," noted in the SVMC Title 22.110.020 are not permitted, unless expressly indicated for specific sign types and district zones indicated in this section. 5) "Permit Required" noted in the SVMC Title 22.110.030 indicates requirements for sign permits. Unless otherwise noted, a sign permit is required for all types listed in this section. 6) Sign Area Calculation: unless otherwise noted, sign areas for single and multiple -sided signs shall be calculated as described in the SVMC Sign Regulations Section 22.110.100, items 2, 3 and 4. 7) Sign Area Maximum — Building Mounted Signs: (a) The total square footage of building mounted signs permitted in any Subarea Plan zone district shall not exceed 4425% of the wall area per wall Tenant spaces shall be calculated individually. Building mounted signs to be calculated include, Wall Signs, Roof Signs, Awning Valance Signs, Above Awning Signs, Above Canopy Signs, Canopy Fascia Signs, Recessed Entry Signs and Window Signs. See Section 2.6.2 for maximum size standards for individual signs. 8) Signs shall not display animation unless otherwise noted, except standard barber poles and time and temperature signs. 9) Animated signs are pennitted as follows: (a) In the Gateway Commercial Center and Gateway Commercial Avenue Zones. (b) Anywhere along Sprague Avenue EXCEPT in City Center District Zone (animated signs are prohibited in the City Center District Zone). 10) Non - animated electronic signs are permitted in all district zones, including scrolling "alpha- numeric" signs, time and temperature signs. 11) Commercial messages which identify, advertise, or attract attention to a business, product, service, or event or activity sold, existing, or offered elsewhere than upon the same property where the sign is displayed are expressly prohibited. 12) All issues not specifically addressed herein shall be addressed pursuant to the SVMC Title 22.110 Sign Regulations. 13) In the event of a conflict between this Section and any other City code, the provisions of this Section shall apply. 14) Monument and freestanding signs shall not obscure any fire fighting appliance, including but not limited to fire hydrants, fire connections, etc. 15) Signs shall not obstruct the clear view triangle or points of ingress /egress. 16) Billboards shall be regulated by Section 22.110.130 SVMC, EXCEPT that relocated billboards are prohibited within the City Center District Zone. Further, in all other zones within the Subarea Plan billboards may be constructed only on Sprague Avenue. Section Six The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan section 2.6.2(6) shall be amended as follows: 6) Freestanding Signs Freestanding Signs are permanently mounted signs not attached to a building, in which signs are constructed on or are affixed to the ground by columns, poles, or similar structural components. a) Standards i) Freestanding Signs shall only be permitted aleiit Spfagtiil for non - residential uses with a dedicated ground floor entrance, within permitted District Zones indicated on the Signage Regulation Chart 2.6. ii) The maximum number of Freestanding Signs per parcel is one (1) per street frontage iii) The maximum height of a Freestanding Sign for permitted District Zones shall be as follows: Ordinance 10- Page 4 of 5 (1) Mixed Use Avenue: 20 feet. (2) Gateway Commercial Avenue: 30 feet (single business) or 40 feet (multi- business complex). (3) Gateway Commercial Center: 30 feet (single business) or 40 feet (multibusiness complex) or 50 feet (parcels abutting I -90). iv) The maximum area of a Freestanding Sign for permitted District Zones shall be as follows: (1) Mixed Use Avenue: 100 square feet. (2) Gateway Commercial Avenue: 100 square feet. (3) Gateway Commercial Center: 100 square feet (single business) or 250 square feet (multi- business complex, or parcels abutting I -90). Where three (3) or more businesses agree to share a single sign structure, an additional 20 percent of sign area shall be allowed up to a maximum of 250 square feet. v) Sign location: Freestanding Signs with structural supports less than two (2) feet in width, with copy area placed at a height of seven (7) feet or more above grade, may be located at the property line, outside of the clear view triangle (SVMC 22.70). Freestanding signs with structural supports of more than two (2) feet shall be set back not less than ten (10) feet from the front property line or border easement. vii) Signs shall be landscaped per SVMC 22.70. viii) A single unornamented pole support design topped by a can sign typical of a commercial strip shall not be used. Section Seven All other provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section Eight Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrases of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section Nine Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after the publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of 1 2010. Mayor, Thomas E. Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10- Page 5 of 5 Exhibit A Book II, Section 2.1.5 Development Regulations, page 24 of 123 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan 'enxnitted: These elements are allowed by right unless otherwise specified in ,inuted: These fiontages nnay only be applied to access lobbies for upper floor uses that are different from the round floor use xegmrea: n nese are xequuea elements or an new aevenopmera as unm.carea. * : Convnua ity centers, senior centers, teen centers, childcare facilities, and educational *: Lunuted to office uses that are supportive of auto sales and services which mclude: accownting, ursnumrce, legal services, mxl other into sales support office rues as detemmned by the chrector. 2.2. Site Development Standards Category/ Sprague Apple -ay Other Ave. Blvd. Streets 2.2.1.Building Orientation to Streets and Public Open Spaces required required or not required required required required 2.2.2.Building Use required 1 Retail - -- - -- - -- a City Center Retail - -- - -- - -- b Neighborhood Center Retail - -- - -- - -- c Mixed -Use Avenue Retail - -- - -- - -- d Corner Store Retail - -- - -- - -- e Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail penuitted pennitted pennitted Gateway Commercial Center Retail - -- - -- - -- 2 Civic uasi -Civic & Cultural pennitted - pennitted - pennitted - 3) Office — i estnced - ** — restricted - ** restricted - 4 Light Industrial pennitted perraitted perraitted 5) Lodging (w /common entry) - -- - -- - -- 6) Live -Work - -- - -- - -- 7) Residential a) Multi- Family w/ Common Entry - -- - -- - -- b Attached Sin le- Family W Individual - -- - -- - -- c Detached Single-Family Housing - -- - -- - -- 2.2.3.Building Height minimum height 1 floor/ 1 flood 20 ft 1 flood 20 ft nuaximum height 3 floorsi 42 ft ILA 3 floors/ 42 ft 3 floors/ 4'_ ft 2.2.4.Relation to Single Family Homes required or not applicable N/A NIA NIA 2.2.5.Public Frontage Improvements required or not required required required not required 2.2.6.Private Frontage 1) Shopfront permitted pennitted permitted 2) Corner Entry pennitted permitted permitted 3) Arcade - -- - -- 4) Grand Portico - -- - -- 5) Forecourt - -- - -- 6) Grand Entry permitted pennitted pennitted 7) Common Lobby Entity - -- - -- - -- S) Stoop - -- - -- 9) Porch 10) Front Door 11) Parking Structure Entry pennitted pennitted pennitted 12) Vehicle Display: Option 1 permitted permitted - -- 13) Vehicle Display: Option 2 pennitted - -- - -- 74) Edge Treatment Fenced - -- pennitted pennitted 13) Edge Treatment: Terraced pemritted perritted perritted 14) Edge Treatinent: Flush ennitted ennitted ennitted 2.2.7.Front Street Setback minimum / maximum Oft / 30-100 ft . 15 ft / no nras 10 ft / no nras 2.2.3.Side Street Setback minimum / mas;mu n 10 ft/no nras 10 ft /no nrax 10 ft, no max 2.2.9.Side Yard Setback minimum ly/ living space miindows 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft minimm u Wout living space rrindoe °s 5ft 5ft 5 ft 2.2.10.Rear Yard Setback minimum setback loft 10 ft 10 ft 2.2.11.Alley Setback minimum setback 5 ft 5 ft 5 fl 2.2.12.Fronta a Coverage minimum percentage covered 340, no min nonrin. no min. 2.2.13.Build -to- Corner required or not required not reruired not reruned notreruhed 2.2.14.Maximum Building Length 2.3. Street and Open Space Standards 2.3.1.Street Standards Sprague Appleway Other Ave. Blvd. Streets I 1) Street Provision required required required 2) Pre - Located Street required required required 3) Maximum Block Size s acres 5 saes 5 acres 4) Street Configuration required required required 5) Street Type b) Wrapped - Ground Level pennitted pennitted permitted a Core Street - -- - -- - -- b) City Street perritted e) Underground Parking_ permitted pennitted c) Neighborhood Street 2.4.2.Parking Standards see section 242. (1) Neighborhood Green Street e) Service Street --- --- pennitted t) Alley g) Passage - -- - -- - -- 2.3.2.Open Space Standards —_ see section 2.3.3 2.4. Parking Standards Sprague Appleway Other Ave. Blvd. Streets 2.4.1.Parking Types 1) Surface Parking_ a) Front lot permitted permitted b) Side lot pennitted permitted pennitted c) Rear lot pennitted pennitted pennitted 2) Parking Structure a) Exposed pennitted pennitted pennitted b) Wrapped - Ground Level pennitted pennitted permitted c) Wrapped- All Levels perritted permitted permitted d) Partially Submerged Podium permitted permitted perritted e) Underground Parking_ permitted permitted perritted 2.4.2.Parking Standards see section 242. 2.5. Architectural Standards Sprague Ave. Appleway Other Blvd. Streets 2.6. Signage Standards Sprague Appleway Other Ave. Blvd. Streets Exhibit B Book II, Section 2.1.6 Development Regulations, page 25 of 123 Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan I Pernutted (J Ground Moor Unly Kegtured: '1 hese me Required elements of all new development as indicated. ed: These elements are allowed by right unless otherwise specified in * : Conununity centers, senior centers, teen centers, childcare facilities, and 2.2.2. Building Use educational facilities are not permitted. [:These frontages may only be applied to access lobbies for upper floor uses that are different from the ": Limited to office uses that are supportive of auto sales and services floor use which include: accounting, insurance, legal services, and other auto sales Street /Street Category Sprague Ave. Appleway Other Blvd. Streets 2.2.1.Building Orientation to Streets and Public Open Spaces 4 Light Industrial - -- required or not required required required regrured 2.2.2.Building Use permitted permitted 1 - -- - -- - -- tailCenter permitted permitted permitted �Icigh Retail - -- - -- - -- nue Retail - -- - -- - -- a\ (`nnnan Ctnrn R. - -- - -- - -- & Cultural 3) Office restricted - ** reA eted - ** uicted - ** 4 Light Industrial - -- - -- - -- 5 Lodging (w/common entr pennitted permitted permitted 6 Live -Work - -- - -- - -- 7) Residential permitted permitted permitted a) Multi - Family w/ Common Entry - -- - -- - -- b) Attached Single - Family w/ Individual Entry - -- - -- - -- c) Detached Single - Family Housing - -- - -- - -- 2.2.3.Building Height - -- minimum height 1 floor/ 20 ft 1 floors '011 1 floor/ 20 ft maximum height 3 floors/ 42 ft 3 floor 4 -^ it 3 floors42 ft 2.2.4.Relation to Single Family Homes - -- required or not applicable NLS N/A N1A 2.2.5.Public Frontage Improvements - -- reardre I or not 'e lotted —nured renuired .t,emrired 2) Corner Entry permitted permitted permitted 3) Arcade - -- - -- - -- 4) Grand Portico - -- - -- - -- 5) Forecourt - -- - -- - -- 6) Grand Entry permitted permitted permitted 7) Common Lobby Entry - -- - -- - -- 8) Stoop - -- - -- - -- 9) Porch - -- - -- - -- 10) Front Door - -- - -- - -- 11) Parking Structure Entry permitted permitted permitted 12) Vehicle Display: Option 1 - -- - -- - -- 13) Vehicle Display: Option - -- - -- - -- 14) Edge Treatment: Fenced - -- permitted permitted 13) Edge Treatment: Terraced permitted permitted Pei'.itted 14) Edge Treatment: Flush meimitted meimitted uennitterl 2.3. Street and 2.3.1:8treet Standards Sprague Appleway O ther 1) Street Provision required vquired required 2) Pre - Located Street required required required 3) Maximum Block Size 5 acres 5 acres 5 acres 4) Street Configuration required required required 5) Street Type b) Wrapped - Ground Level permitted permitted permitted a Core Street - -- - -- - -- b) City Street permitted - -- permitted c) Neighborhood Street - -- I - -- - -- d) Neighborhood Green Street - -- - -- - -- e) Service Street < fl - -- permitted f) Alley - -- - -- - -- g) Passage 2.3.2.Open Space Standards --- --- --- ace section 2.3.3 O ther 2.4. Parking Standards Sprague Appleway Ave. Blvd. Streets 2.4.1.Parking Types 1) Surface Parking Other Streets Ott /nomav a) Front lot - -- permitted pennitted b) Side lot permitted pennitted permitted c) Rear lot permitted permitted permitted 2) Parking Structure ®� a) Exposed permitted permitted permitted b) Wrapped - Ground Level permitted permitted permitted c) Wrapped - All Levels I permitted I perinitied permitted d) Partially Submerged Podiu permitted permitted permitted e) Underground Parking pennitted permitted pennitted 2.4.2.Parking Standards _ see section 2 -4 2.5. Architectural Sprague Standards Ave. Appleway Blvd. Other Streets Ott /nomav 2.2. 8.Side Street Setback minimum / maximum Com 0 ft hro may Ott ' no mal Streetwall Increment ® ®� minimum w/ living space windows loll loll 10 ft 2.6. Signage Standards Sprague Ave. Appleway Blvd. Other Streets 5 ft 72.10.Rear Yard Setback minimum /maximum Oft /loft I 51t /nom— Ott /nomav 2.2. 8.Side Street Setback minimum / maximum 0 ft / 20 ft 0 ft hro may Ott ' no mal 2.2.9.Side Yard Setback minimum w/ living space windows loll loll 10 ft minimumw /out living space windows 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 72.10.Rear Yard Setback minimum setback 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 2.2.11.Alley Setback mi' nmm setback 5ft 5ft < fl 2.2.12. Fronta a Covera e minimum percentage covered a no nwr. no nrur. Page 45 of 201 � " T "� "PC' Department of Community Development 6 Lle Planning Division A r City Council 1St Reading of Ordinance September 14th, 2 010 File # CTA -06 -10 Text Amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan l0.ne CITYHALL@SPOK,' Department of Community Development Lle Planning Division a g Background April 2010 — Council Directed Staff to review the Subarea plan Zone by Zone Overview by Council May 18 Property Owner Public Meeting May 20 Council Report Issues and Concerns Summary June 8 Refer to Planning Commission for Recommendation August 26 Proposed Amendments are a result of this process, based on comments received, and Council direction - CITYHAIl[W3POK' Department of Community Development rn - M I ONA vaile Planning Division Text Amendmen) Summary Gateway Commercial venue Gateway Commercial Center All SARP zones that allow wall or pole signs and accessory Modify the Maximum Setbacks Modify Minimum Building Frontage Coverage Requirement Allow limited office uses to GCA & GCC zones Exempt vehicle sales from max. front set back and minimum building coverage reg's Incr °CcLLo 25 % 6. Allow Wall signs above the 1 St floor - 7. ' Incre or dual f ronta ge lots d allow on any street 8 Clarify regula ions applicable to Accessory Structures IIIIIIII I structures C ITY H A I I, rn 0.0 Department of Community Development vailev Planning Division Sub Area District one Mar) �� t CI L i 1! E !Nh Niz— Nbmil I NL.— Nw.b tj P ni—red. ;E 31d rn - " "� "P Department of Community Development ,'alle Planning Division r s Amendment .. Maximum Setback EL Gateway Commercial Avenue iffi 2.1.5. Gateway Commercial Avenue District Zone 2.2. Site Development Stan treet / Street Category Sprague Appleway Other Ave. I Blvd. I Streets 2 .2.7.Front Street Setback minimum / maximum Oft /100 ft 5ft/no 10ft/no max I max rim �..� O f � i w h a .e e x e e OP Nwpma Modify Regulations to increase the maximum setback requirement from 30' up to 100' in the Gateway Commercial Avenue I llf CITYHALL[W3PO�K,-. n� ,�lle �rO ose � Department of Community Development Planning Division Amendment Minimum Buildin uirement � "00 rn • �' " A"PG' Department of Community Development 'alle Planning Division fro o sm Amendment - Vehicle Sales Setback &Coverage ,j IL Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail SA R P 2.2.2.(1)(e)(i) Permitted Uses: (1) Vehicle Sales and Services, including automobiles, recreational vehicles, boats, motor sports vehicles, etc. (Vehicle Sales are exempt from 2.2.7 Front Street Setback Regulations and 2.2.12 Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (2) Vehicle repair, body and glass shops. (3) Vehicle parts and accessories. (4) Gas stations. (Gas station y hw are exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.) (5) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants (6) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following...... ii) Prohibited Uses: Modify Regulations to exempt vehicle sales use from the maximum front setback and minimum frontage coverage requirement in the Building Use Regulations and clarify that Gas Stations are exempt (1) Full service restaurants Prcmoseol Amendment and Floor Only Required: These are Required elements of all new Expand uses allowed in development as indicated. rwise * : Community cent childcare facilities, and the G CA and G C C educ ci sties are not permitted. : Limited to office uses that are zones to include limited supportive of auto sales and services which office uses that are 'bi for include: accounting, insurance, legal complementary to auto services, and other auto sales support offic as determined b the director. sales ateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center 2.2. Site Development treet / Street Category District Zones Sprague Ave. Appleway Blvd. Other Streets .2.2.Building Use Retail - -- a) City Center Retail - -- - -- - -- b) Neighborhood Center Retail - -- - -- - -- c) Mixed -Use Avenue Retail - -- - -- - -- d) Corner Store Retail - -- - -- - -- e) Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail permitted permitted permitted f) Gateway Commercial Center Retail Civic, Quasi- Civic, & Cultural office ) Light Industrial ) Lodging (w /common entry) - -- rMitted - * restricted * * - permitted - * restricted * * permitted - -- - -- per e - restricted - -- Live -Work - -- - -- - -- Residential a) Multi- Family w/ Common Entry - -- - -- - -- I kk�.ne " "� "P Department of Community Development i Plannin g Division . Proposed Amendment — Accessory Structures 1) City Center District Zone.... . 2) All Other District Zones.... 3) New Construction.... 4) Existing Buildings and Completed Applications...... 5) Ownership /Tenant Changes.... 6) Limitations on Required Improvements. Where improvements and additions are made to exis buildings, requirements for renovation or enlargements apply only to net new floor area. Improve- ments and additions to existing buildings that increase non - conformities are not permitted. If regulations to be applied to net new floor area are not specified in this Subarea Plan, then the Community Development Director /Designee shall determine which regulations shall apply. Accessory structures proposed on developed sites shall not be required to meet frontage coverage requirements, minimum height requirements, or maximum setbacks. Accessory structures shall meet all applicable architectural standards in section 2.5.2 pp ,, Ej Clarify that accessory structures on developed sites are not required to meet maximum front setback requirements or minimum frontage coverage requirements; architectural standards do Height Massing and Composition apply 7) Non - conforming uses shall be regulated by Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19.20.060, with the exception that the lawful use of land at the time of passage of this code may be continued unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 24 consecutive months. rn .• " "� "P Department of Community Development -&,Olga ,'alle Planning Division 'YOaosed Amendment W1 rreestanding Sign Limits L a) Standards i) Freestanding Signs shall only be permitted for non - residential uses with a dedicated ground floor entrance, within permitted District Zones indicated on the Signage Regulation Chart 2.6. ii) The maximum number of Freestanding Signs per parcel is one (1) per street frontage. iii) The maximum height of a Freestanding Sign for permitted District Zones shall be as follows: Ei Increase the number of pole signs allowed on lots with dual frontage and allow on parcels regardless of whether or not it has Sprague frontage bane " " A "PC' Department of Community Development r n_ s f -" „� ll - Plannin g Division Proposeo[ A mendment � a S M A SARP 2.6.1(2) Standards 6 M F ,L-.., Increase wall 7> aign Area iviaximum — Building Mounted signage area from Signs: (a) The total square footage of building mounted signs permitted in any Subarea Plan zone district S hall not exceed X25% of the wall area. SARP 2.6.2(3) Wall Signs a) Standards .. tZ 7 11 !V • confi IL V aii signs: 15% up to 25% of wall area and eliminate limits on wall lor- ation j rn .• t ' T ' "" Department of Community Development '►alle Planning Division Recommendations andOptions Planning Commission Recommendation Approve all amendments except wall sign location; PC recommended to deny the proposal to eliminate text that limits wall signs to areas below the 2nd floor. Options Approve proposed amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission Modify the proposed amendments to eliminate section 2.6.2(3)which limits signs to areas below the 2nd floor and include other modifications deemed appropriated by the Council Deny the proposed Amendments Refer back to the Planning Commission � rn • ' @SPCK, Department of Community Development vau Planning Division Recommended Act Move to advance the ordinance to a second reading with modifications deemed agpropriate by the Council CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 14, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting SVMC 22.160 - Industrial pre- treatment standards GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 39.34; 40 CFR §403.8; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA- 002447 -3 (April 1, 2000) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Information only June 1, 2010; administrative report August 24, 2010. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley (COSV) does not itself provide sewer service to its citizenry, and instead receives such services primarily from Spokane County. The City of Spokane also provides sewer service to a small section of Yardley for a small number of industrial users immediately along the border between the two cities. (See Attachment 1, map of City of Spokane treatment area in COSV.) If the City does not enter into an interlocal with the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane has advised that they will not be able to accept any sewer effluent from COSV as it would violate the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Spokane County and the City of Spokane recently executed an interlocal agreement between themselves in which they adopted similar industrial pre- treatment sewer standards, and acknowledged mutual rights and obligations. That agreement includes most of COSV, except for the small area in Yardley. Under that interlocal, Spokane County has administrative responsibility to ensure that all industrial users discharging into the sewer system have pre- treated their waste to at least a minimum level before releasing it to the system. The wastewater treatment facility is located in the City of Spokane along the Spokane River near Riverside State Park. One of the requirements of the proposed interlocal agreement is that the City would be required to adopt by reference a wastewater pretreatment code. Staff recommends adopting Spokane County's code, which is substantially identical to the City of Spokane's. This would preclude a situation where there are two different standards in our City, however small the difference. Spokane County and the City of Spokane are both in agreement that adoption of Spokane County's standards is appropriate under these circumstances. The City Council will need to adopt Code provisions adopting a treatment standard (by reference). The proposed treatment standards are Spokane County's, SCC 8.03A, which are on file with the City Clerk, but are not included in the packet due to their size. Additionally, the proposed interlocal agreement, attached for Council's reference, is included as Attachment 2, and will be brought forward as a separate action item on September 28, 2010. It is subject to change before presentation on September 28, 2010, when the second reading of this Ordinance is scheduled to be occur. OPTIONS: Advance to a second reading with or without amendments; request staff to make changes to proposed Ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we advance Ordinance Adopting SVMC 22.160 - Industrial pre- treatment standards, to a second reading. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: It will depend if there are enforcement actions. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1) Map of City of Spokane sewer treatment area in Spokane Valley 2) Proposed interlocal agreement with City of Spokane CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10-*** AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING NEW SECTION OF SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) 22.160, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE SPOKANE COUNTY CODE 8.03A - PRETREATMENT, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) does not itself provide sewer service to its citizenry, and instead receives such services primarily from Spokane County except for a small section of Yardley where it receives such services from the City of Spokane; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane is not the primary provider of sewer service to Spokane Valley, and at this time Spokane County does not have its own wastewater treatment facility; and WHEREAS, pursuant to a separate Wastewater Management agreement between Spokane County and the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane interceptor sewer system and wastewater treatment plant accepts flows from Spokane County at this time, including flows collected by Spokane County from Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, as a requirement of providing public sewer service or accepting wastewater flows, the City of Spokane and Spokane County must ensure that a local pretreatment regulatory program, as required by federal and state laws and regulations, including 40 CFR §403.8, is established and enforced in accord with said federal and state requirements; and WHEREAS, without such a pretreatment program, the City of Spokane and Spokane County sewer utilities would be obliged to terminate service to the City of Spokane Valley residents and businesses, and would not be able to except wastewater flows originating from Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane and Spokane County have each adopted parallel pretreatment ordinances in coordination with each other, modeled after state and federal pretreatment requirements; and WHEREAS, for convenience and efficiency, and in the interest of uniformity, the City of Spokane Valley seeks to adopt the Spokane County pretreatment standards; and WHEREAS, Spokane County and the City of Spokane do not have the local government police power authority to establish a pretreatment regulatory program inside the city limits of the City of Spokane Valley, that authority resides in the Spokane Valley City Council. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Ordinance 10- SVMC 22.160, PRETREATMENT Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to ensure the establishment of wastewater pretreatment standards within Spokane Valley, as required by state and federal law. Section 2. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 22.160 as follows: 22.160.010 Wastewater Pretreatment Standards. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020 and 35A.12.140, Spokane County Code Chapter 8.03A, as adopted or amended, is hereby adopted by reference as the wastewater pretreatment standards for the City of Spokane Valley. The city clerk is to maintain a copy of SCC 8.03A. Section 3 Remainder of SVMC Title 22 Unchan,, - The remaining provisions of SVMC Title 22 are unchanged by this amendment. Section 4 . Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective five days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Adopted this day of , 2010 City of Spokane Valley Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10- SVMC 22.160, PRETREATMENT Page 2 of 2 9/8/10 draft Spokane Valley Pretreatment Program Agreement between the Cities of Spokane Valley and Spokane 1. RECITALS A. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a local pretreatment regulatory program within the City of Spokane Valley, WA, as required by federal and state law, including but not limited to 40 CFR 403.8 and provisions referenced in 1 C below for areas served by the City of Spokane in the City of Spokane Valley (see 1 B). The program under this Agreement may hereafter be referenced as the "SV Pretreatment Program ". B. The City of Spokane Valley does not provide public sewer utility /wastewater collection service. Such service is provided by Spokane County, except for a small area on the northwest edge of Spokane Valley (Yardley), and a smaller area on the southwest edge of Spokane Valley. Those areas are within the City of Spokane sewer utility service area. The SV Pretreatment Program and this Agreement applies only to the City of Spokane sewer utility service area in Spokane Valley, as now or hereafter configured. For convenience, such areas are also referenced herein as the "Yardley area ". Areas within the Spokane County sewer utility service area are handled by separate arrangement with Spokane County. The specific boundaries of the City of Spokane service area are set forth in Exhibit A, Map of "City of Spokane Wastewater Service Area Within the City of Spokane Valley ". C. Under additional regulatory requirements, generators of biosolids from the POTW are required to comply with 40 CFR, Part 503 — Biosolids Rule, governing the use and disposal of municipal sewage sludge, and relevant State statutes. "POTW" stands for "Publicly Owned Treatment Works" and refers to any publicly owned sewer utility facility or treatment plant. 2. PARTIES: IMPLEMENTATION OF SV PRETREATMENT PROGRAM A. Spokane Valley hereby adopts and /or agrees to adopt or do any actions needed to support the SV Pretreatment Program, and as necessary or convenient for the City of Spokane to perform any functions under this Agreement. Such actions include but are not limited to adoption of applicable provisions of Spokane County's pretreatment ordinance, SCC chapter 8.03A, and all applicable and related regulatory requirements. An exception to the adoption for the Yardley area is that all references to the County Prosecutor's office shall be modified to be the Spokane City Attorney's Office, consistent with section 4 below. SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 2of6 B. The City of Spokane agrees to enforce and implement the SV Pretreatment Program. 3. SV PRETREATMENT PROGRAM ENFORCEMENT EXPENSES A. Except where otherwise specified and to the extent permitted by law, the parties intend that the City of Spokane shall fund any SV Pretreatment Program expenses through permit fees, fines, penalties, and /or other fees or expenses as may be adopted by the City of Spokane. Upon request, the City of Spokane shall provide any reports or information reasonably requested by the City of Spokane Valley with respect to such fees or charges. If it appears there are any unfunded program enforcement costs, the City of Spokane reserves the right to present the same to the City of Spokane Valley and the parties agree to review this issue for a mutually fair resolution. B. Nothing in this Agreement affects any sewer utility operational authority or ratemaking authority of the City of Spokane for its utility operations or customer relationships. The City of Spokane retains full power and authority to operate and manage its sewer utility within its service area in the City of Spokane Valley. 4. COURT ACTIONS A. As needed to enforce the SV Pretreatment Program, the City of Spokane Valley appoints the Spokane City Attorney's office as special deputy for the City of Spokane Valley to sign pleadings on Spokane Valley's behalf to prosecute and enforce any legal or law enforcement actions, including obtaining search warrants or other court action. The parties mutually waive any conflict of interest in connection with these arrangements, PROVIDED, at any time, upon request of either the City Attorney of Spokane or the City Attorney of Spokane Valley, the Spokane City Attorney's office will withdraw from representation of the City of Spokane Valley and the City Attorney of Spokane Valley shall then assume all functions within the scope of the withdrawal regarding the SV Pretreatment Program. Further, to that extent, each party shall be solely and separately responsible for its individual actions. B. The parties agree to execute any further agreements necessary to preserve and protect the attorney client, attorney investigation or work product, and /or confidentiality protections relating to their respective needs and functions under the Agreement, to the extent permitted by the Washington State Public Records Act or other applicable laws. C. The City of Spokane Valley agrees to pay for or provide program enforcement costs, including court, court clerk, jail, hearings examiner, or 2 of 6 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 3 of 6 other civil or criminal law enforcement to support the SV Pretreatment Program. The City of Spokane Valley reserves the right to review and approve any billings from the City of Spokane. In the event of a dispute, Spokane Valley reserves the right to take control and responsibility for a case as provided in 4A for future costs, and the parties agree to submit the question of accrued costs to arbitration under RCW 7.04A. 5. EMERGENCY ACTION: CITY NPDES PERMIT HOLDER A. The City of Spokane may take emergency action whenever it deems necessary to stop or prevent any discharge which presents, or may present, an imminent danger to the health or welfare of humans, which reasonably appears to threaten the environment, or which threatens to cause interference, pass through, or sludge contamination as these terms are understood in the pretreatment program. The City of Spokane may provide notice to an Industrial User or other affected party prior to taking action, but reserves the right to act without notice or opportunity to respond when deemed reasonably necessary by the City of Spokane. The City of Spokane may advise all parties subject to regulation under the Spokane Valley Pretreatment Program that it is a designated agent of the City of Spokane Valley for purposes of enforcement. All records may be subject to inspection at any time by the City of Spokane Valley, upon reasonable arrangements and notice, subject also to the provisions of SCC 8.03A.0701 respecting requests for confidentiality. B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the parties understand that the City of Spokane is the holder of a federal wastewater discharge ( NPDES) permit which applies to all wastewater flowing directly or indirectly into the City of Spokane sewer system and treatment plant. The City of Spokane reserves the right to take whatever actions necessary to avoid and /or correct any NPDES permit violations or other adverse federal or state regulatory agency action, and the parties agree to work together in good faith to accomplish this result. 6. ADDITIONAL A. If any term of this Agreement is held to be invalid in any judicial action, the remaining terms of this Agreement will be unaffected. B. The parties will review and revise this Agreement to ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act (42 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) and the rules and regulations (see 40 CFR Part 403) issued thereunder, as necessary, but at least every five (5) years on a date to be determined by the parties. 7. INDEMNIFICATION 3 of 6 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 4 of 6 A. The City of Spokane Valley shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Spokane and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the City of Spokane Valley, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of the performance of this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the City of Spokane, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the City of Spokane and the City of Spokane Valley and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the City of Spokane Valley shall satisfy the same." B. The City of Spokane shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Spokane Valley and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the City of Spokane, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of the performance of this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Spokane shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against the City of Spokane Valley, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the City of Spokane Valley and the City of Spokane and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the City of Spokane shall satisfy the same." C. If the comparative negligence of the parties and their officers and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the Parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion. D. Where an officer or employee of a party is acting under the direction and control of the other party, the party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity and /or omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other party's officer or employee's negligence. E. Each party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. F. The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of claims 4of6 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 5 of 6 made by the indemnitor's employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. 8. RCW 39.34.030 (3) and (4) ELEMENTS: A. Duration This Agreement expires in five (5) years, but shall be deemed automatically renewed for additional five (5) year terms thereafter, not to exceed a total period of twenty five (25) years. In addition, either party may terminate this Agreement in its sole discretion upon one hundred eighty (180) days written notice. Renewal does not affect any right of termination for breach or as otherwise agreed. B. Precise Organization Each party functions under its existing structures. No additional organizational structures are created. C. Purpose The purpose is stated in section 1 A. D. Budget and Financing These are addressed above, principally in sections 3 and 4. E. Termination Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, each party retains control of its property. No joint property or jointly held assets or funds are contemplated. F. Administration Each party administers its own functions under this Agreement. EFFECTIVE DATE: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: 5 of 6 SPOKANE VALLEY PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Page 6of6 Office of the City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE Authorized Representative By: Print name and Title ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney 8 4-2-13 10 6of6 CITY OF SPOKANE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Bp1ntlary uses SERVICE AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY +�u000 - soawrevu�EVCmuM�s CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 14, 2010 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shoreline Master Program Update — Resolution Accepting Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.58 and WAC 173 -26 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Management Program (SMP) Update process commenced in late summer, 2009. Shoreline Management Programs include the following major components: - Inventory and Shoreline Characterization - Environmental Designations - Goal, Policies and Regulations - Cumulative Impacts - Shoreline Restoration Due to the complexity of Shoreline Management Programs, the Planning Commission and City Council will review the individual SMP components at public hearings over the next year. Once formally "accepted" by City Council resolution, the components will be compiled into a final Public Hearing Draft. This Public Hearing Draft SMP document will be the subject of final public hearings with the entire process for local adoption anticipated to reach completion in 2011. The first component of the SMP update is the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization report. URS Corporation was contracted to assist the City with the update. URS and City Staff worked collaboratively to acquire relevant baseline data used for the shoreline inventory. This data includes GIS maps, reports, input from local experts and direct field observations from an ecologist and an engineer working to document the natural resources and the condition of the built environment along the shorelines. Further information was gathered during two public Open Houses in November, 2009 and February, 2010. On March 2, 2010, a Joint Planning Commission /City Council Study Session was conducted where the SMP Update Team presented the Technical Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Comments received from Technical Review Group, which largely consists of government agencies, tribes and technical experts, is incorporated into the attached Public Review Draft. On April 22, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Draft Shoreline Inventory Report. The Commission did not receive any comments at the hearing. Representatives from the Department of Ecology were present and answered a few questions about the Shoreline Management Act. The Commission recommends that the Council formally accept the report by resolution. On May 4, 2010, the City Council received the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation to accept the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Council requested that the City's shoreline consultants attend the next meeting to respond to questions concerning the inventory work, sources cited in the report and conclusions. Council also directed staff to prepare a draft resolution. On May 11, 2010, City Council considered a resolution accepting the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. At that meeting, the City's Shoreline Consultants, John Patrouch and Noah Herlocker, responded to Council's questions about the inventory data sources. At the meeting, Council received a letter from F.J. Dullanty, attorney for Centennial Properties, requesting that the Council delay acceptance of the Inventory Report to allow time for their consultant to conduct an analysis of their properties. Council decided to allow time for Centennial Properties to conduct their own analysis. Staff received a draft Shoreline Assessment report prepared by Bill Towey for Centennial Properties. The City's SMP Update team reviewed the report and met with Centennial Properties representatives to discuss the findings. A final draft was submitted in August and is attached for Council's review. The SMP Update team recommends that the Centennial Properties Shoreline Assessment be attached as an appendix to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the resolution formally accepting the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $150,000 Budgeted STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, AICP — Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Public Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (Please use this report in place of the report submitted last spring) 2. Centennial Properties Shoreline Assessment 3. Resolution Rf� September 7, 2010 Mr. Scott Kuhta City of Spokane Valley 1.1707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Re: Draft Inventory and Characterization Report Public Review Draft - September 7, 2010 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update URS Proiect No. 36310035 Dear Mr. Kuhta: An electronic copy of the amended Draft Inventory and Characterization Report has been emaiied for your use. The major changes include addressing the additional information received from Ecology and Fish and Wildlife dated 4/19110 and 4122110 respectively. This draft also includes as a separate appendix the Shoreline Assessment prepared for Centennial Properties. The copy of the report contains only the main text and Appendices E and G, which contain new information. At this time, URS appears to have addressed all the comments received from the agencies and the public and consider that this document provides the City a complete Inventory and Characterization Report. After council review, URS will address any remaining comments from the City and prepare the final document. Please contact me at 944 -3819 with any questions or comments concerning this plan. Sincerely, URS C ORPORAT10 John C. Patrouch, PE URS Project Manager URS Corporation 920 North Argonne Road, Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99212 -2722 Tel: 509.928.4413 Fax: 509.928.4415 MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Scott Kuhta City of Spokane Valley FROM: John Patrouch, PE DATE: September 7, 2010 FILE: 36310035 SUBJECT: Inventory and Characterization Report, Public Review Draft, Amended September 7, 2010 In the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, the following changes were made: • "Amended September 7, 2010" was added to the cover page and the date was changed to September 7, 2010. • The date in the header was changed from April 5, 2010 to September 7, 2010. • On page iii of the Table of Contents, "Appendix G: Centennial Property Management — Shoreline Assessment" was added to the list of Appendices. • Appendix E was revised to include the two additional comment emails from WDFW and Ecology. • Appendix G containing the Centennial Properties report was added. • On page 12 of the April 5, 2010 draft, the paragraph that reads: "The Priority Habitats & Species (PHS) database is maintained by the WDFW in order to document and manage rare or imperiled species and regionally significant habitats, such as important wildlife migration corridors. Regionally significant PHS mapping includes a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats and species. In Spokane County, this includes many different amphibians, songbirds, raptors, neotropical migrants, and mammals that are dependent upon shoreline or riparian/wetland habitats. Some of these species are on the current federal and /or state threatened, endangered, and sensitive species lists." Now reads in the amended September 7, 2010 on page 12 as: "Priority species require protective measure for their survival due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and /or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority species include State Endangered, threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate species; animal aggregations (e.g., heron colonies, bat colonies) considered vulnerable; and species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Priority habitats are habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type (e.g., shrub- steppe) or dominant plant species )e.g., juniper savannah), a described successional stage (e.g., old- growth forest), or a specific habitat feature (e.g., cliffs). URS Corporation 920 North Argonne Road, Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99212 -2722 Tel: 509.928.4413 Fax: 509.928.4415 URS MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 4 There are 20 habitat types, 152 vertebrate species, 41 invertebrate species, and 10 species groups currently in the PHS List. These constitute about 17 percent of Washington's approximately 1,000 vertebrate species and a fraction of the state's invertebrate fauna. Regionally significant PHS mapping includes a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats and species. In Spokane County, this includes many different amphibians, songbirds, raptors, neotropical migrants, and mammals that are dependent upon shoreline or riparian/wetland habitats. Some of these species are on the current federal and /or state threatened, endangered, and sensitive species lists." The title of Table 3 -2 was changed from "WDFW Priority Species Listed in Spokane County" to "WDFW Priority Species Distribution in Spokane County." • On page 14 of the April 5, 2010 draft, the paragraph that reads: "Interior redband trout occur as both non - anadromous (resident) and anadromous (steelhead) forins (Small et al, 2007). Since the installation of dams on the Spokane River in the 1900s, the anadromous forms have been eliminated from the river system. In 2007 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife perfonned genetic DNA testing to investigate the genetic structure of the resident rainbow trout population. This study was done to determine the influence of past fish stocking efforts on the native population. The genetic inventory showed little hybridization between hatchery (coastal origin, O. in. irideus) stocks of rainbow trout and redband trout in the Spokane River drainage indicating a virtually pure population of Columbia River redband trout in the Spokane River (Small et al. 2007). However, redband trout populations have been degraded by urbanization, which has resulted in increased stream temperatures, hydraulic modifications, and lowered dissolved oxygen. Poaching and predation by smallmouth bass introduced from Lake Coeur d'Alene have also reduced populations as has the hydraulic regime of the river where flows needed for spawning can be reduced at the Avista Corporation's Post Falls dam to fill Lake Coeur d'Alene. For these reasons, interior redband trout have become a focal species within the Spokane River. Avista Corporation's new FERC operating license provides for higher minimum river flows and also establishes a regime for spawning flows. Additional fishery studies are undenvay and it is anticipated that adaptive management techniques will be used to protect the resident fisheries. Protection of core areas critical to native stock persistence and restoration of productive habitats will be necessary to ensure the full expression of phenotypic and genotypic diversity in interior redband trout (Thurow, et. al. 2007) Now reads in the amended September 7, 2010 on page 14 as: "Interior redband trout occur as both non - anadromous (resident) and anadromous (steelhead) forms (Small et al, 2007). Since the installation of dams on the Spokane River in the 1900s, the anadromous forms have been eliminated from the river system. In 2007 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife performed genetic DNA testing to investigate the genetic structure of the resident rainbow trout population. This study was done to determine the influence of past fish stocking efforts on the native population. The genetic inventory showed little hybridization between hatchery (coastal origin, O. m. irideus) stocks of rainbow trout and redband trout in the Spokane River drainage D 41� J-i MEMORANDUM Page 3 of 4 indicating a virtually pure population of Columbia River redband trout in the Spokane River (Small et al. 2007). However, redband trout populations have been degraded by urbanization, which has resulted in increased stream temperatures, hydraulic modifications, and lowered dissolved oxygen. Additionally, it appears that peak flows are occurring earlier in the year and combined with reduction of flows at Post Falls Dam, an increase in stranding of the redds is occurring. Poaching and predation by smallmouth bass introduced from Lake Coeur d'Alene have also reduced populations as has the hydraulic regime of the river where flows needed for spawning can be reduced at the Avista Corporation's Post Falls dam to fill Lake Coeur d'Alene. For these reasons, interior redband trout have become a focal species within the Spokane River. Avista Corporation's new FERC operating license provides for higher minimum river flows and also establishes a regime for spawning flows. Additional fishery studies are underway and it is anticipated that adaptive management techniques will be used to protect the resident fisheries. Protection of core areas critical to native stock persistence and restoration of productive habitats will be necessary to ensure the full expression of phenotypic and genotypic diversity in interior redband trout (Thurow, et. al. 2007)." • On page 17 of the April 5, 2010 draft, the paragraph that reads: "Spokane County, as part of the work being done on the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)57 work, is evaluating restoration of wetlands within Saltese Flats. The primary intent of this work is to retain water in Saltese Flats and, by doing so, increase infiltration into the aquifer during the summer months. The evaluation includes using reclaimed water from the proposed Spokane County treatment plant to supplement the hydrological regime. Additional studies are planned, and if the county wetland restoration project is implemented Shelley Lake may have a different flow regime than it does now." Now reads in the amended September 7, 2010 on page 18 as: "Spokane County, as part of the work being done on the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)57 work, is evaluating restoration of wetlands within Saltese Flats. The primary intent of this work is to retain water in Saltese Flats and, by doing so, increase infiltration into the aquifer during the summer months. The evaluation includes using reclaimed water from the proposed Spokane County treatment plant and the Liberty Lake treatment plant to supplement the hydrological regime. Additional studies are planned, and if the county wetland restoration project is implemented Shelley Lake may have a different flow regime than it does now. • On page 26 of the April 5, 2010 draft, the paragraph that reads: "Within the City, the entire Spokane River and adjacent riparian corridor are currently mapped as "Urban/Natural Open Space." Based on conversations with WDFW, this mapping category has been redesignated as "Riparian Habitat Area." See Section 3.2, Biological Resources for further information regarding the Priority Habitats & Species database." Now reads in the amended September 7, 2010 on page 26 as: URS MEMORANDUM Page 4 of 4 "Within the City, the entire Spokane River and adjacent riparian corridor are classified as "Riparian Habitat Area." See Section 3.2, Biological Resources for further information regarding the Priority Habitats & Species database. • On page 69 of the April 5, 2010 draft, the paragraph that reads: "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. Additionally, the City is likely to expand access to the shoreline areas per the goals of the SMA and public input received thus far." Now reads in the amended September 7, 2010 on page 69 as: "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. Additionally, the City is likely to expand access to the shoreline areas per the goals of the SMA and public input received thus far. Proper planning for increased access to identify appropriate areas and methods of access will be important to protect the shoreline ecosystem." CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 September 7, 2010 [P UBLIC RE VIE W DRAFT] [Amended September 7, 2010] CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT [P UBLIC RE VIE W DRAFT] [Amended September 7, 2010] City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11707 East Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Prepared by 920 North Argonne Rd. Spokane, Washington 99212 in association with Jiro Kolva Associates and Michael Folsom City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS iv .................................................................................... ............................... 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ ..............................1 1.1 PURPOSE AND GOALS OF THE INVENTORY & CHARACTERIZATION REPORT ................... ..............................1 1.2 SMA JURISDICTION WITHIN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ......................................... ..............................2 2.11 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................5 2.1 INITIAL DATA COLLECTION AND GAP ANALYSIS ............................................................ ..............................5 4.2 SHELLEY LAKE .............................................................................................................. .............................25 2.2 FIELD INVENTORY .......................................................................................................... ..............................6 2.2.1 Vegetation Survey Protocol ...................................................................................... ............................... 7 2.3 ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED DATA .................................................................................... ..............................7 Spokane River Study Segment 1- Eastern City Limits to Flora Road ..................... ............................... 3.0 REGIONAL CHARACTERIZATION .......................................................................... ..............................9 SR -1 Land Use Summary .......................... ............................... - .... ..... ..................... - ......................... - ............ 3.1 SPOKANE VALLEY - RATHDRUM PRAIRIE AQUIFER .......................................................... ..............................9 SR -1 Physical and Biological Characterization .................................................................. ............................... 3.2 SPOKANE RIVER ............................................................................................................. .............................10 SR -1 Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation ............................... 3.3 SHELLEY LAKE .............................................................................................................. .............................17 Spokane River Study Segment 2 —Flora Road to Trent Avenue ............................. ............................... 3.4 GRAVEL PITS ................................................................................................................. .............................18 SR -2 Land Use Summary ................................................................................................... ............................... 3.5 REGIONAL PROCESSES, STRESSORS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT .............. .............................18 SR -2 Physical and Biological Characterization .................................................................. ............................... 4.0 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ .............................22 4.1 SPOKANE RIVER ............................................................................................................. .............................22 4.2 SHELLEY LAKE .............................................................................................................. .............................25 4.3 PARK ROAD AND SULLIVAN ROAD GRAVEL PITS .......................................................... .............................25 5.0 LOCAL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................. .............................26 5.1 SPOKANE RIVER ............................................................................................................. .............................26 5.1.1 Spokane River Study Segment 1- Eastern City Limits to Flora Road ..................... ............................... 30 5.1.1.1 SR -1 Land Use Summary .......................... ............................... - .... ..... ..................... - ......................... - ............ 31 5.1.12 SR -1 Physical and Biological Characterization .................................................................. ............................... 34 5.1.1.3 SR -1 Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation ............................... 36 5.1.2 Spokane River Study Segment 2 —Flora Road to Trent Avenue ............................. ............................... 38 5.12.1 SR -2 Land Use Summary ................................................................................................... ............................... 38 5.122 SR -2 Physical and Biological Characterization .................................................................. ............................... 42 5.12.3 SR -2 Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation ............................... 44 5.1.3 Spokane River Study Segment 3- Trent Avenue to Millwood Town Limits ............... .............................45 5.1.3.1 SR -3 Land Use Summary ................................................................................................... ............................... 46 5.1.32 SR -3 Physical and Biological Characterization .................................................................. ............................... 48 5.1.3.3 SR -3 Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation ............................... 50 5.1.4 Segment 4- Millwood City Limits to Spokane City Limits ....................................... ............................... 51 5.1.4.1 SR- 4 Land Use Summary .................................................................................................. ............................... 52 5.142 SR -4 Physical, Biological, and Archeological Characterization ......................................... ............................... 53 5.14.3 SR -4 Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation ............................... 54 5.2 SHELLEY LAKE .............................................................................................................. .............................55 5.2.1 Land Use Summary ................................................................................................... .............................55 52.1.1 Shelley Lake Physical and Biological Characterization ...................................................... ............................... 57 52.12 Shelley Lake Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation .................. 59 5.3 PARK ROAD AND SULLIVAN ROAD GRAVEL PITS .......................................................... .............................61 5.3.1 Park Road Pit ........................................................................................................... .............................62 5.3.1.1 Park Road Pit Land Use Summary ...................................................................................... ............................... 62 5.3.12 Park Road Pit Physical and Biological Characterization ..................................................... ............................... 63 53.1.3 Park Road Pit Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation ................. 64 5.3.2 Sullivan Road Pit .................................................................................................... ............................... 64 5.32.1 Sullivan Road Pit Land Use Summary ................................................................................ ............................... 64 5.322 Sullivan Road Pit Physical and Biological Characterization ............................................... ............................... 65 5.32.3 Sullivan Road Pit Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation........... 66 Mij City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 6.0 SHORELINE USE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... .............................67 6.1 CURRENT SHORELINE USE ............................................................................................. .............................67 6.2 PROJECTED SHORELINE USE .......................................................................................... .............................68 6 .3 POTENTIAL CONFLICTS .................................................................................................. .............................70 6.4 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. .............................71 64.1 Recommendations for the Spokane River ................................................................ ............................... 72 64.2 Shelley Lake .............................................................................................................. .............................74 64.3 Gravel Pits .............................................................................................................. ............................... 75 7 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................. .............................76 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ .............................77 FIGURES* Figure 1 -1: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Areas Figure 3 -1: Spokane River and the SVRP Aquifer Figure 4 -3 Shelley Lake Drainage Basin Figure 5 -1: City of Spokane Valley Spokane River Study Segments Figure 5 -2: Spokane River Study Segment 1 Figure 5 -3: Spokane River Study Segment 2 Figure 5 -4: Spokane River Study Segment 3 Figure 5 -5: Spokane River Study Segment 4 Figure 5 -6: Overview of Shelley Lake *Note that additional maps are provided in Appendix F (Map Portfolio) TABLES Table 1 -1: Shoreline Master Program Jurisdiction Table 3 -1: Spokane WSO Airport, Washington (457938) Table 3 -2: WDFW Priority Species Listed in Spokane County Table 3 -3: Summary of Ecosystem -Wide Processed Analysis Table 5 -1: Plant Association Use Analysis Table 5 -2 Land Use SR -1 Table 5 -3: Zoning SR -1 Table 5 -4: Built Environment SR -1 Table 5 -5: Habitat Analysis SR -1 Table 5 -6: Summary of Ecological Issues SR -1 Table 5 -7: Land User SR -2 Table 5 -8: Zoning SR -2 Table 5 -9: Built Environment SR -2 Table 5 -10: Habitat Analysis SR -2 Table 5 -11: Summary of Ecological Issues SR -2 Table 5 -12: Land Use — SR -3 Table 5 -13: Zoning SR -3 Table 5 -14: Built Environment SR -3 Table 5 -15: Habitat Analysis SR -3 Table 5 -16: Summary of Ecological Issues SR -3 Table 5 -17: Land Use SR -4 Table 5 -18: Zoning SR -4 Table 5 -19: Built Environment SR -4 Table 5 -20: Summary of Ecological Issues SR -4 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Table 5 -21: Land Use Shelley Lake Table 5 -22: Zoning Shelley Lake Table 5 -23: Built Environment Shelley Lake Table 5 -24: Shelley Lake Water Quality Data Table 5 -25: Summary of Ecological Issues Shelley Lake APPENDICES Appendix A: Data Inventory List Appendix B: Spokane River Inventory Data Tables Appendix C: Vegetation Inventory Appendix D: Wildlife and Bird Information Appendix E Technical Review Group Comments Appendix F: Map Portfolio Appendix G: Centennial Property Management — Shoreline Assessment UM iii City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] LIST OF ACRONYMS BNSF Burlington Northern-Santa Fe cfs cubic feet per second COSV City of Spokane Valley SRCT Spokane River SRCT DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DO dissolved oxygen Ecology State of Washington Department of Ecology EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GIs Geographical Information System HED Hydroelectric Dam HOA Homeowners' Association LWD large woody debris MSL mean sea level NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark pH Measure of acidity or alkalinity of a solution PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PFC Proper functioning condition PHS Priority Habitat and Species QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RCW Revised Code of Washington RHA Riparian habitat areas RM River Mile ROW Right -of -Way SCCD Spokane County Conservation District SMA The State of Washington Shoreline Management Act SNIP shoreline master programs SRHD Spokane Regional Health District SVRP Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prairie TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USGS United States Geological Survey USTs underground storage tanks WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDOH Washington Department of Health WRIA Water Resources Inventory Area WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WTP Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 1.0 INTRODUCTION The State of Washington Shoreline Management Act (SMA), adopted in 1972, includes guidelines, goals, and policies to protect ecological function, foster reasonable use, and maintain the public right of navigation for shorelines of the State. Shorelines of the State include marine shores, shorelines of streams with a mean annual flow greater than 20 cubic feet per second (cfs), and the shorelines of water bodies greater than 20 acres. In order to implement the SMA, local jurisdictions containing Shorelines of the State are required to prepare a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and review and update them every seven years (RCW 90.58.080 (4). For communities in Spokane County, the SMP update is required by December 1, 2013. The next review and update will be required in 2020. In 2003, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) adopted new SMP guidelines (WAC 173 -26) that outline a "comprehensive process to prepare or amend shoreline master programs" in accordance with the SMA (RCW 90.58). The State considers shorelines as among the most valuable and fragile of the state's natural resources, and their appropriate utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation is important. Many ecological functions of river and stream corridors depend both on continuity and connectivity along the length of the shoreline, and on the conditions of the surrounding lands on either side of the river channel. Environmental degradation such as loss of vegetation or alteration of runoff quality and quantity along the corridor resulting from incremental development can impair ecological functions. Improper or ineffective shoreline planning and regulation can result in shoreline areas that are inhospitable for priority fish and wildlife species and increase susceptibly to flooding, droughts, landslides, and channel changes. These conditions can threaten human health, safety, and property. Section 8.5 of the City's July 2008 Comprehensive Plan, "Shoreline Master Program," references use of the 1975 Spokane County Shoreline Master Program as the City's interim SMP. The Comprehensive Plan states that "It is the intent of the City to prepare a shoreline master plan consistent with applicable state law (RCW 90.58) and the adopted policies in this Plan as part of the implementation of the comprehensive plan." This inventory and characterization report is part of the City of Spokane Valley's SMP update. It establishes the baseline for "no net loss" of ecological conditions, provides supporting infonnation for development of environmental designations, and identifies degraded areas and opportunities for protection. This information provides the background for the required Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Restoration Plan and the development of shoreline regulations. 1.1 Purpose and Goals of the Inventory & Characterization Report This Shoreline Inventory and Characterization report meets the requirements of WAC 173 -26 -201 (3) (c) and (d) and generally follows the requirements of Chapter 7 — Inventory and Characterization of the draft SMP Handbook, dated August 26, 2009. The following provides a summary of the information included with this report. Goals of the Inventory • Summarize regional context • Identify and map areas influencing SMA shorelines • Identify management issues of concern • Map shoreline physical, biological and cultural features • Determine river study segment boundaries • Detail indicators of ecological function by reach • Summarize ecological functions and uses 0 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] • Summarize shoreline characterization • Summarize and map protection /restoration opportunities Purpose of the Characterization • characterize ecological functions including biodiversity, native plant and animal community integrity, etc., so as to achieve a "meaningful" understanding of shoreline ecological functions; • identify elements of natural character, shoreline habitats and ecosystems and related attributes which should not be disturbed, damaged or destroyed because they can't be restored or replicated within the time horizon of the SMP (10 -12 years); • identify opportunities for restoration of shoreline resources and ecological function; • characterize reasonably foreseeable uses and developments in the shorelines as the basis for assessing potential cumulative impacts. 1.2 SMA Jurisdiction within the City of Spokane Valley Shorelines of Statewide Significance and Shorelines of the State fall within the jurisdiction of the SMA. Shorelines of Statewide Significance are described in RCW 90.58.030. For rivers east of the Cascade Mountain Range crest, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance is defined as "those natural rivers or segments thereof where the mean annual flow is two hundred cubic feet per second (cfs) or more; or the portion of the rivers downstream from the first three hundred square miles of drainage area, whichever is less." The Spokane River is designated a Shoreline of Statewide Significance (WAC 173 -18 -360). The SMA directs local governments to manage shoreline uses along Shorelines of Statewide Significance (Spokane River) in the following order of preference: • Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; • Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; • Result in long -term over short-term benefit; • Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; • Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; • Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; and • Provide for any other element deemed appropriate or necessary as defined by the SMA (RCW 90.58.020; WAC 173 -26 -250). Shorelines of the State include all streams or rivers having a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or greater and waterbodies greater than 20 acres in size. Shorelines of the State within the City of Spokane Valley include the Spokane River, Shelley Lake, and the Park Road and Sullivan Road Gravel Pits. The general state policies for Shorelines of the State are to protect ecological functions while fostering reasonable utilization and maintaining the public right of navigation. The SMA provides the following policy goals: • The utilization of shorelines for economically productive uses that are particularly dependent on shoreline location or use. • The utilization of shorelines and the waters they encompass for public access and recreation. • Protection and restoration of the ecological functions of shoreline natural resources. • Protection of the public right of navigation and corollary uses of waters of the state. • The protection and restoration of buildings and sites having historical, cultural, and educational use. • Planning for public facilities and utilities correlated with other shoreline uses. • Prevention and minimization of flood damages. TDC City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] • Recognize and protect private property rights. • Preferential accommodation of single family uses. • Coordination of shoreline management with other relevant local, state, and federal programs. Shorelines included in this analysis include the portions of the Spokane River that are located within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. This includes shorelines from the eastern City boundary (River Mile [RM] 91) to the western City boundary (RM 81.5), excluding the area within the Town of Millwood (RM 82.1 to RM 83.4), which is intending to adopt Spokane County's SNIP. City shorelines also include the shorelines of Shelley Lake and the shorelines within the Park Road and the Sullivan Road Gravel Pits owned by Central Premix. Figure 1 -1 shows the shorelines within the City at the time the inventory was completed (2009). Continuing gravel extraction operations are expected to increase the open water area at the Sullivan Road Pit. The shoreline jurisdiction for the Spokane River is based on evidence of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determined by field observations that were used in conjunction with high quality aerial photography to digitize an approximate OHWM. The OHWM was then offset 200 -feet landward to determine the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Existing GIS data layers for wetlands and critical areas were then evaluated to identify associated wetlands and to determine if the shoreline jurisdiction would be extended to include any critical areas (fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas). Upstream of Flora Road, at approximate RM 89.1 and 89.6 the FEMA 100 year flood plain is located outside the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction on portions of the north bank and upstream of Barker Road on the south bank. The three areas were reviewed and in part based on local knowledge of the river system and evidence of woody debris on the shore, it was decided that these areas were not frequently flooded and, so, were not included in the SNIP jurisdiction. As the shoreline jurisdiction is relative to the OHWM boundary, this SNIP development effort is based on an OHWM that is considered fairly accurate but not exact. Development proposals working near the identified shoreline jurisdiction are advised to delineate and survey the OHWM for permitting purposes. The OHWM is identified by examining the bed and banks of the water along the shore to determine where action of the water has created a distinct mark upon the soil with respect to upland vegetation. The SNIP boundary would then be based on the best available survey information and, so, may change from the boundaries shown herein where surveyed OHWM data is available. The OHWM and proposed shoreline jurisdiction from the 2009 inventory for the City of Spokane Valley is included in Appendix F, Map Portfolio. Table 1 -1 includes physical data from the shoreline jurisdiction. Shorelines include both the open water portion of a water body and its adjacent `shorelands'. Shorelands encompass the area 200 -feet horizontally landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of a Water of the State. Shorelands are areas that contain resources such as riparian vegetation and floodplains, which are important to the protection of the waterway. The shoreline jurisdiction can extend beyond the 200 -foot limit if floodways and associated wetlands are present (RCW 90.58.030(2)(f)). A recent legal decision (Samuel's Furniture, Jaffa Holdings, and City of Ferndale vs. Ecology (Washington Court of Appeals Division I, 105 Wn. App. at 290), has indicated that readily available Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodways are not sufficient to define SMP jurisdiction. The shoreline jurisdiction must extend to the landward edge of associated wetlands that are defined as wetlands that physically extend into the shoreline jurisdiction, or wetlands that are functionally related to the shoreline jurisdiction through surface water connection and /or other factors such as wildlife habitat. All critical areas (as defined in the Growth Management Act (GMA)) within SNIP jurisdiction shall be managed with the comprehensively updated SNIP after it is approved by the Department of Ecology and becomes part of the statewide Shoreline Master Program. This was clarified 0 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] in March 2010 by the legislature in its most recent amendments to the SMA and GMA (EHB 1653, March 18, 2010). Table 1 -1 Shoreline Master Program Jurisdiction t Shoreline Length = linear measurement following the center of the river. 2 Based on City GIS database and field investigations. 3 The SMA boundary for the Sullivan Road Pit overlaps with the SMA boundary for the Spokane River. The land area provided for the Sullivan Road Pit does not include the overlap area. Legend City of Spokane Valley City Limds Shoreline Master Program Areas Note: Aerial imagery source is iUSDA. NAIP 20 G4 r i Spokane River ; dark Road fit Shelley Lake K w Figure i -1: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Areas I 1 I Mites UM UM 4 Shoreline Water within Shorelands Wetlands Total Area within Water Lengths within SMA within SMA Shoreline Buffer (miles) SMA (acres) (acres) (acres) 2 (acres) Spokane River 7.96 205 121 0 326 Shelley Lake 0.92 20.9 13.2 2.3 36.4 Park Road Pit 1.70 58 36 0 94 Sullivan Road Pit' L81 25 30 0 55 t Shoreline Length = linear measurement following the center of the river. 2 Based on City GIS database and field investigations. 3 The SMA boundary for the Sullivan Road Pit overlaps with the SMA boundary for the Spokane River. The land area provided for the Sullivan Road Pit does not include the overlap area. Legend City of Spokane Valley City Limds Shoreline Master Program Areas Note: Aerial imagery source is iUSDA. NAIP 20 G4 r i Spokane River ; dark Road fit Shelley Lake K w Figure i -1: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Areas I 1 I Mites UM UM 4 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 2.0 METHODOLOGY URS and the City worked collaboratively to acquire relevant baseline data for the purpose of establishing an inventory of available shoreline reference material (shoreline inventory). This included geospatial /GIS data, reports, and input from local experts. In conjunction with the inventory effort, URS and City worked to determine additional data that could benefit the SMP update process (gap analysis). This resulted in a field inventory of shoreline areas under the jurisdiction of SMA. During the field inventory, existing data was verified and augmented with direct observations from an ecologist and an engineer working to document natural resources and the condition of the built environment, respectively. To augment the shoreline inventory, URS and the City requested input from a Technical Review Group (TRG) and the public. Meetings were held with TRG representatives at the beginning of the SMP update project and their input was solicited during and after the shoreline inventory effort. Public input was gathered through personal interaction during the field inventory and at an open house held at City Hall on November 5, 2009 and February 4, 2010. The TRG is comprised of state and local agencies that have information related to the City Shorelines. The TRG committee includes the following agencies: • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, • Washington Department of Ecology, • Washington Department of Natural Resources, • Washington State Parks and Recreation • City of Spokane Valley Parks Department • Spokane County Conservation District • Spokane County Division of Utilities/Water Resources • Spokane Tribe • Coeur d'Alene Tribe The gathered information was analyzed through review of existing reports, aerial photography, and geospatial assessment using GIS software. The following description of the shoreline inventory and characterization methods is presented. 2.1 Initial Data Collection and Gap Analysis WAC 173- 26- 201(3)(c) addresses the requirements of a shoreline inventory conducted for a new or amended SMP. The rule specifies that the local government collect the following information provided it is relevant and reasonably available: • Shoreline, adjacent land use patterns, transportation and utility facilities: • Extent of existing structures, • Impervious surfaces, • Vegetation and shoreline modifications, • Water- oriented uses. • Critical areas: • Wetlands, • Aquifer recharge areas, • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, o Geologically hazardous areas. • Frequently flooded areas. • Degraded areas and sites with ecological restoration potential. • Areas of special interest: 0 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] • Priority habitats, • Developing or redeveloping harbors and waterfronts, • Previously identified toxic or hazardous material clean-up sites, • Dredged material disposal sites, • Eroding shorelines. • Conditions and regulations in shoreland and adjacent areas that affect shorelines: o Surface water management, o Land use regulations. • Existing and potential shoreline public access sites: • Public access sites, • Public rights -of -way, • Utility corridors. • Channel migration zones and floodplains. • Data gaps. • Land use changes relative to cumulative impacts. • Archaeological and historic resources. To support the acquisition, review, and processing of the above data, URS developed a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that outlined a process for locating and reviewing relevant data sources, determining the adequacy of previously collected data, and collecting new data. URS was able to collect most of the data identified above via geospatial (GIS) sources, input from local agencies, input from local experts, and existing reports. After reviewing reports, base maps created from existing data, and speaking with local agencies and experts, URS identified several areas where additional fieldwork was needed. The additional fieldwork needed included a precise demarcation of the OHWM, information on the vegetation communities present, areas affected by noxious weeds, areas of high wildlife use, areas suitable for restoration or preservation, and an inventory of the built environment. A summary of the documentation reviewed and the additional fieldwork needed is included in Appendix A of this report. 2.2 Field Inventory To address the identified data gaps, verify existing infonmation, and familiarize the team with the City's shorelines, URS and the City prepared for and conducted a field inventory. This included the following steps: • Prepare a safe work plan (URS) • Prepare a fieldwork plan (URS) • Create map books for use during field data collection (COSV) • Complete field reconnaissance activities to fill data gaps (URS) • Prepare working digital maps of field- collected data (URS & COSV) Inventory elements not adequately addressed in existing data resources were identified for field data collection. Two teams were assigned to data collection. The first team focused on Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) identifiers, unique shoreline features, wetlands, riparian vegetation, upland vegetation, and shoreline habitat. The second team focused on the built environment, including eroded banks, shore protection such as bank armoring, combined sewer outfalls, shoreline infrastructure likely to require significant redevelopment, hard engineering structures affecting fluvial stream dynamics, and other 0 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] elements that may affect shoreline planning. Field data was digitized and imported into the existing project geodatabase. Digitized data met the specifications required by the City and Ecology. 2.2.1 Vegetation Survey Protocol Existing riparian vegetation conditions are a key factor in the evaluation of proper management actions for shoreline areas. Riparian vegetation characteristics indicate what types of wildlife are likely to use the shoreline areas. These characteristics also indicate the quality of riparian corridors for the migration of wildlife through the city. Wildlife often use riparian corridors because they provide cover, food, and water. Proper documentation of the riparian vegetation was conducted to inform the SNIP update but also to set a benchmark for the future evaluation of "no net loss of shoreline ecological function." URS and Mike Folsom, PhD, a local wetland specialist and a professor of geography at Eastern Washington University, developed a vegetation monitoring protocol to quantify and classify the various types of vegetation communities, or plant associations, within the shoreline areas. The goals of the inventory were to document the dominant vegetation according to species name, percent cover, floodplain position, and native /introduced status. The Spokane River and Shelley Lake were examined on foot and from the water, but the gravel pits could not be examined in the field and are inventoried from aerial photograph examination only. The shoreline vegetation was classified into distinct stands, each with a characteristic dominant vegetation structure and species mix (plant association). Each stand was given an identifying letter, A through W and was described on a field data sheet at a representative site or "data point." Each data point was given an identifying number. Each stand was documented with least one data point; larger stands have as many as five data points. Photographs were taken at each data point. The stands identified in this task essentially follow the plant associations described by Crawford (2003) and elaborated as plant associations in the Spokane County PFC Assessment (2005); however the Crawford study did not include the Spokane River drainage so it does not include all of the stand types encountered in this inventory. Three fluvial /floodplain positions were documented at each data point along the shoreline. This information was recorded to classify how much of the vegetation is frequently flooded, how much is water dependent/transitional, and how much upland is within the shoreline zone that is otherwise indistinguishable from adjacent upland areas. The three floodplain zones are described as follows: zone A- the frequently flooded lower elevation nearest the water, zone B- the riparian transition area, and zone C- the adjacent upland. 2.3 Analysis of Collected Data Documents and geographical information system (GIS) data were selected for review from the comprehensive list of resources that addressed specific inventory elements. A review of each significant resource was completed and relevant data was summarized in the following sections. Spatial (GIS) data was clipped by river study segment and analyzed based on relative cover within that study segment, where appropriate. For example, the amount of impervious area is characterized by study segment to highlight differences in land use patterns and potential stormwater issues along the river, Shelley Lake, and the gravel pits. This analysis generally highlighted trends specific to each study segment, which were then summarized in Section 5. Data analysis included an interpretation of findings with regard to historic conditions and disturbances as well as regional processes to determine which shoreline factors are controllable at the local level and which are the result of a historic alteration or regional process that are not under local control. For example, dams are a historic alteration beyond the control of reach - specific planning. The Rathdrum 0 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] aquifer depth, flow rate, and other characteristics are also beyond the control of reach - specific planning. However, a wetland, noxious weed population, recreational access need, or wildlife habitat areas are relevant to reach - specific planning. The combination of existing data reviewed and summarized herein, together with additional data collected through field inventory and review of historic reference materials, adequately addressed each inventory element. 0 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 3.0 REGIONAL CHARACTERIZATION Identifying ecosystem -wide processes that affect the shoreline is part of the comprehensive process of amending a shoreline master program. WAC 176- 26- 201(3)(c)(1) defines the processes that must be identified and assessed to determine their relationship to ecological functions present within the SMP jurisdiction. WAC 176- 26- 201(3)(c)(1)(II) defines the scope of identification and assessment to be used. It states: "This characterization of ecosystem -wide processes and the impact upon the functions of specific habitats and human health and safety objectives may be of a generalized nature." The following elements are provided to meet the requirements of WAC 176- 26- 201(3)(c)(1). 3.1 Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer All Shorelines of the State within the City of Spokane Valley are located within and influenced hydrologically by the Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie (SVRP) Aquifer. From the source of the Spokane River at Lake Coeur d'Alene to its confluence with Latah Creek west of the City, there are no permanent tributaries providing input to the river system. There is considerable interaction, however, between the aquifer and the river. The aquifer begins in Idaho between Spirit Lake and the south end of Lake Pend Oreille. The aquifer flows south until it reaches the middle of the Rathdrum Prairie, where it turns west and flows through the Spokane Valley. Most of the flow turns north near the City of Spokane and flows through the Hillyard Trough discharging into the Little Spokane River. The EPA designated the aquifer as a "Sole Source Aquifer" in 1978 meaning that it is the sole or principal source of drinking water for an area. The aquifer was the second in the nation to receive this designation, providing the framework to develop special management practices by local jurisdictions. The highly permeable gravels of the Spokane Valley make the aquifer highly susceptible to contamination from the surface and much effort has been put into developing regulations and other mechanisms to protect the area's water supply. The Spokane River is the only watercourse over the aquifer that remains on the surface for an extended distance. This provides for interaction between the Spokane River and the SVRP aquifer. The section of the Spokane River between Lake Coeur d'Alene and Flora Road is a losing reach, discharging water to the aquifer. Between Flora Road and the Greene Street Bridge the river is a gaining reach where the aquifer discharges to the Spokane River. During the summer months, much of the water in the Spokane River downstream of Flora Road is discharged from the aquifer. It is estimated that due to the river - aquifer exchange between the Idaho - Washington border and the Sullivan Road Bridge, stream flow losses of about 100 cfs occur during low -flow conditions and about 570 cfs during high -flow conditions. Between the Trent and Greene Street Bridges, stream flow gains range from 260 cfs in November to 450 cfs in July (Gearhart 2001). These gains and losses affect stream flow, water temperature, and water quality. On an annual basis, the Spokane River accounts for 48 percent of the SVRP aquifer recharge (the Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas — 2009 Update, City of Spokane, 2009). Shelley Lake does not appear to be a surface manifestation of the SVRP Aquifer. According to conversations with Ecology staff, the bottom of Shelley Lake is perched above the level of the aquifer. Exfiltration from the lake bottom does discharge to the aquifer. The Park Road and the Sullivan Road gravel pits have been excavated deep enough to intersect the aquifer, extending approximately 150 feet into the aquifer. Current mining operations are closely regulated in order to avoid contamination. The DNR approved reclamation plans address potential contamination by providing for limited public access and protection through use as conservation and wildlife habitat areas when mining operations cease and the pits are reclaimed. 0 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 3.2 Spokane River The Spokane River begins at Coeur D'Alene Lake, Idaho and flows west to Spokane where it turns north and then west to its confluence with the Columbia River. The majority of the river bed is comprised of large cobbles, boulders, and bedrock. The stream channel was formed during the Pleistocene catastrophic glacial outburst floods and has not been significantly altered because the permeable character of the surrounding landscape does not promote surface drainage (USGS 2002). The drainage basin or watershed east of Spokane is about 4,200- square miles, and includes the Coeur d'Alene, St. Joe, and St. Manes Rivers. Flows vary seasonally reaching over 25,000 cfs in the spring to less than 1,000 cfs during the summer, (USGS gauge 12422500). The highest recorded daily mean flow was 49,000 cfs and the lowest was 50 cfs. Six dams are located on the Spokane River. Post Falls Dam downstream from Coeur d'Alene Lake located in Idaho, controls Spokane River flows for approximately six months during the summer and fall when flows are less than 5,000 cfs. Figure 3 -1 shows the Spokane River drainage basin. Legend , Upper Spokane River Suhhasin {USGS} • f City of Spokane Valley City Limits O Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Spokane River Aquifer Exchange: Mtspa"M �I > Highly Gaining Reach C== Gaining Reach _ Losing Reach No Interchange ffYY r Colbert - RrhdQ °i WASHINGTON ID 0 F ad `aC i w�rY Fibk- fall. I /'�prcharele I A0010 .lji 4 Jok a 4ppQRunlry Sl 1 � ' m�rxay p y si 4 - Coeur O'Aiene h H :ignrs _ Lake Msd. °I N Figure 3 -1. Spokane River and the SVRP Aquifer ta,,e h , City of Spokane Valley DTI 8 Miles Ims Table 3 -1 provides meteorological data from the weather station at the Spokane Airport for the 1/1/1890 to 12/31/2005 period of record. Spokane Valley is slightly wetter and warmer than at the airport, which is located on the high plateau west of Spokane. Table 3 -1 SPOKANE WSO AIRPORT. WASHINGTON (457938) 10 Jan I Feb Mar I Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov I Dec Annual Avg Max. 33.0 39.1 48.2 58.2 67.0 74.3 83.9 82.7 72.4 59.2 42.9 34.7 58.0 Temp. (F) Avg Min. 21.7 25.1 30.5 36.5 43.7 50.1 55.8 54.6 46.6 37.6 29.9 24.3 38.0 Temp. (F) Average Total 1.99 1.54 1.39 1.11 1.42 1.20 0.55 0.63 0.80 1.17 2.08 2.20 16.08 Preci . (in.) 10 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Land use within the basin includes mining in the upper reaches of the Coeur d'Alene River watershed; forest and related forestry practices along the St Joe River; agriculture and grazing activity throughout the region; and urbanization along much of the length of the Spokane River. The Spokane River has only a few tributaries. Streams that flow north or south into the Spokane Valley generally drain into the gravels that form the SVRP Sole Source Aquifer before reaching the river. The Spokane River corridor is developed with a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational land uses. The majority of the shoreline is easily accessible and dispersed use is relatively intense due to adjacent residential development and the Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT). Transportation and major utility corridors are generally located away from the river but both do cross the river at a number of locations. Large areas of the shoreline are publicly owned and managed, primarily by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. According to the Spokane County Conservation District's Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment, prepared in 2005, the Spokane River is hydrologically stable. It is moderately to highly - entrenched, with little floodplain development. The shorelines of the Spokane River are characterized by small to medium -sized gravel banks with a few small sandy beaches. The Upper Spokane has moderate to well- vegetated river banks, containing a variety of native and non - native plant species. The PFC assessment generally rates the ecological condition of the Upper Spokane River as fair to good. Geology and Soils The geology of the Upper Spokane River study area is dominated by late Pleistocene glacial outburst flood gravels that comprise the Spokane Valley. The river flows in a shallow incised inner valley within the wider valley floor. These flood gravels constitute the matrix of the SVRP Aquifer. According to the NRCS soil maps, the majority of the soils within the shoreline jurisdiction are Garrison gravelly loam and Garrison very stony loam, similar to much of the rest of the valley soils. These are gravelly, medium texture somewhat excessively drained soils with a typical topsoil depth of between 0 and 15 inches. The ability to retain water is low ranging between 0.08 to 0.16 inches per inch of soil. The NRCS rates the stony loam as difficult to establish vegetation on with a fairly easy rating for the gravelly loam. Neither soil is considered highly erosive. Vegetation Within the shoreland area (200 feet from the river's edge) there are generally three distinct, linear bands of vegetation. These include a thin band of frequently wetted, willow- dominated shrubs and herbs along the immediate edge of the river. Above this is generally a strip of riparian shrub or forest habitat along the river banks. The dominant riparian trees are black cottonwood and ponderosa pine. The most common riparian shrubs include willows, serviceberry, black hawthorn, and common chokecherry. Above the river banks, the riparian vegetation generally transitions to a band of upland vegetation that is not distinct from vegetation beyond the shoreland areas. Upland areas generally consist of Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir with grasses and shrubs. Upland areas include remnant patches of the historic Rathdrum prairie, which is now characterized by bluegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, balsam root, buckwheat, and other native herbs. Much of the remnant prairie vegetation is heavily disturbed and the majority has been replaced by quackgrass, tall oatgrass, and /or spotted knapweed. Time 11 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Biological Resources All undeveloped shoreline habitat areas along the Spokane River in Spokane Valley are important to local fish and wildlife. The Spokane River and the non - developed areas adjacent to the shoreline provide open space and habitat for wildlife. Important wildlife communities found along the Spokane River include bats, neotropical birds, aquatic mammals and waterfowl according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Wildlife observed during the Spokane County Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) study (SCCD 2005) included red- winged blackbirds, mallards, common mergansers, dipper, Canada geese, mourning doves, gold finch, magpies, red - tailed hawks, coyote, and beaver activity. Residents along the river have reported seeing bald eagles, osprey, pheasant, deer, moose, rabbits, beaver, mink, river otters, and many seasonal and year -round bird populations. Many of the wildlife populations appear to be declining according to undocumented resident sightings. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife publishes a Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) List. The PHS List is a catalog of habitats and species considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective measure for their survival due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and /or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority species include State Endangered, threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate species; animal aggregations (e.g., heron colonies, bat colonies) considered vulnerable; and species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Priority habitats are habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type (e.g., shrub- steppe) or dominant plant species )e.g., juniper savannah), a described successional stage (e.g., old - growth forest), or a specific habitat feature (e.g., cliffs). There are 20 habitat types, 152 vertebrate species, 41 invertebrate species, and 10 species groups currently in the PHS List. These constitute about 17 percent of Washington's approximately 1,000 vertebrate species and a fraction of the state's invertebrate fauna. Regionally significant PHS mapping includes a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats and species. In Spokane County, this includes many different amphibians, songbirds, raptors, neotropical migrants, and mammals that are dependent upon shoreline or riparian/wetland habitats. Some of these species are on the current federal and/or state threatened, endangered, and sensitive species lists. Table 3 -2: WDFW Priority Species Distribution in Spokane County Life Form Species Fish Kokanee Rainbow Trout/ Steelhead/ Inland Redband Trout Westslope Cutthroat Amphibian Columbia Spotted Frog Northern Leopard Frog Western Toad Birds American White Pelican Western grebe V i� 12 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Life Form Species E WA breeding concentrations of Grebes, Cormorants E WA breeding: Terns Great Blue Heron Cavity- nesting ducks: Wood Duck, Barrow's Goldeneye, Common Goldeneye, Bufflehead, Hooded Tundra Swan Waterfowl Concentrations Bald Eagle Golden Eagle Merlin Northern Goshawk Peregrine Falcon Prairie Falcon Dusky Grouse Sandhill Crane Upland Sandpiper E WA breeding occurrences of: Phalaropes, Stilts and Avocets Yellow - billed Cuckoo Burrowing Owl Flammulated Owl Vaux's Swift Black- backed Woodpecker Lewis' Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker White - headed Woodpecker Sage Thrasher Mammals Merriam's Shrew Preble's Shrew Roosting Concentrations of: Big -brown Bat, Myotis bats, Pallid Bat Townsend's Big -eared Bat White - tailed Jackrabbit Marten Wolverine Moose Northwest White - tailed Deer 13 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Life Form Species Elk Rocky Mountain Mule Deer Invertebrates Giant Columbia River Limpet Great Columbia River Spire Snail California Floater Silver- bordered Fritillary The Spokane River contains fisheries and spawning areas that are important for maintaining and protecting unique or locally significant populations including interior redband trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish. Other species found in the river include, brown trout, suckers, and smallmouth bass. The smallmouth bass have reportedly entered the river system from Coeur d'Alene Lake and are considered to be damaging the cold -water salmonid fishery. Spawning areas for redband were identified in the 2003 Avista studies at Sullivan Road and the SRCT Bridge. The gaining reach of the river below Sullivan Bridge is considered critically important for the survival of salmonids in the river system. Interior redband trout occur as both non - anadromous (resident) and anadromous (steelhead) forms (Small et al, 2007). Since the installation of dams on the Spokane River in the 1900s, the anadromous fonns have been eliminated from the river system. In 2007 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife performed genetic DNA testing to investigate the genetic structure of the resident rainbow trout population. This study was done to determine the influence of past fish stocking efforts on the native population. The genetic inventory showed little hybridization between hatchery (coastal origin, O. m. irideus) stocks of rainbow trout and redband trout in the Spokane River drainage indicating a virtually pure population of Columbia River redband trout in the Spokane River (Small et al. 2007). However, redband trout populations have been degraded by urbanization, which has resulted in increased stream temperatures, hydraulic modifications, and lowered dissolved oxygen. Additionally, it appears that peak flows are occurring earlier in the year and combined with reduction of flows at Post Falls Dam, an increase in stranding of the redds is occurring. Poaching and predation by smallmouth bass introduced from Lake Coeur d'Alene have also reduced populations as has the hydraulic regime of the river where flows needed for spawning can be reduced at the Avista Corporation's Post Falls dam to fill Lake Coeur d'Alene. For these reasons, interior redband trout have become a focal species within the Spokane River. Avista Corporation's new FERC operating license provides for higher minimum river flows and also establishes a regime for spawning flows. Additional fishery studies are underway and it is anticipated that adaptive management techniques will be used to protect the resident fisheries. Protection of core areas critical to native stock persistence and restoration of productive habitats will be necessary to ensure the full expression of phenotypic and genotypic diversity in interior redband trout (Thurow, et. al. 2007) The "Baseline Study to Determine the Water Quality and the Primary and Secondary Producers of the Spokane River" was published in 1984 (DOE Publication 84 -e06). This study provided baseline information prior to the construction of the Liberty Lake Treatment Plant. It does not appear that any formal work was done on algae and macroinvertebrate populations since. The study indicated that macroinvertebrate populations were dominated by insects of the orders of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Trichoptera (caddisfly), and Diptera. The report noted that species diversity was low possibly as a result of high zinc concentrations in the river. Plant associations provide unique food and cover values for different species. The Upper Spokane River generally runs from east to west From Idaho to its confluence with Latah (Hangman) Creek. Because the south- facing river banks receive more afternoon sun, this results in different microclimates and associated TDC 14 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] plant associations on each side of the river. Deciduous riparian communities are similar along the frequently flooded portions of both banks but, above this, the north side of the river tends to contain more dry - tolerant vegetation than the southern side. The south side of the river retains moisture somewhat better and vegetation is typically somewhat denser providing better cover for wildlife and birds. Some of the most beneficial riparian plant associations for a wide variety of fish and wildlife in the region include those containing: • Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides); • Common chokecherry (Prunus virginiana); • Common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus); • Water birch (Betula occidentalis); • Various willows (Salix spp.); • Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii); • Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa); • Ponderosa pine ( Pius ponderosa); • Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifoha). Adjacent to the riparian corridor is the Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prairie, which is characterized by xeric (dry- tolerant) bunchgrass grasslands with scattered shrubs. The prairie has been almost entirely converted from native to non - native vegetation. The meeting point of the riparian and prairie vegetation communities provides unique habitat for species that use the riparian corridor for cover, nesting, or roosting and the prairie habitat for hunting /foraging. Additionally, various plants benefit from the partial shade provided along the edge of the riparian corridor, which can result in a higher diversity of plants within the upland portions of the shoreline zone relative to surrounding upland areas. Water Quality Water quality in the Spokane River is a result of natural influences such as the aquifer interchange as well as upstream influences such as mining and logging, point source effluents, combined sewer overflows, and stormwater inputs associated with roads and urbanization activities. The Spokane River is on the State of Washington Impaired Waters list, or Federal 303(d) list, for total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and 2,3,7,8 TCDD (dioxin). These contaminant listings are limited to portions of the river below Kaiser Aluminum and both listings are associated with accumulation in fish tissue. Additional parameters included on the 305(b) list include temperature, pH, lead, and zinc. The primary stressors affecting regional water quality include: • Metals contamination from mining activities in the upper watershed; • PCB contamination from industry; • Municipal wastewater from upstream dischargers; • Non -point source contributions including septic tank effluent and urban stormwater runoff. The Spokane River also has issues with dissolved oxygen due to low summer flows in various reaches and excessive nutrients (phosphorus) within the river. Through collaboration with local governments, public interest groups, and NPEDS /Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality permit holders along the river, the Washington Department of Ecology has established a Water Quality Managed Implementation Plan for dissolved oxygen (2006). This plan concentrates on ways to reduce the amount of phosphorus concentrations in the river. The WRIA 55/57 instream flow work group is also collaborating on instream flow recommendations for the entire Spokane River. These recommendations will be based on recent studies, studies completed in 2004, and studies conducted in association with the Avista FERC re- licensing process (Ecology 2008). Metal Contamination Sediments in much of the Upper Spokane River are contaminated with metals from mining and milling activities in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. Spokane River sediments have high concentrations of arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn). Metal concentrations in the river water generally increase during high spring flows (USGS 1998). Metal contamination impacts public use of the river and its shorelines. The Washington Department of Health (WDOH) and the Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) have issued an advisory to reduce recreational exposure to shoreline sediments along portions of V i� 15 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] the River within the study area (Barker Road and Flora Road access points) due to the presence of arsenic and lead at concentrations that pose a human health risk. The Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are involved in developing cleanup plans to establish formal public recreational access sites free of contamination. Future development of shoreline recreational access sites should be coordinated with ongoing efforts to remove or sequester contaminants so that neither public access, nor human or environmental health is compromised. PCB Contamination Sediments and fish tissue found within the study area contain PCBs. PCBs are a group of man-made chemicals historically used as insulating fluids or coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment. They have also been used in hydraulic oils, fluorescent lights, inks, carbonless paper, and other uses. Manufacture of PCBs stopped in the U.S. in 1977 (Ecology 2005). There is currently an advisory issued by the WDOH and the SRHD to avoid consumption of fish in specific reaches of the Spokane River, including some within the City of Spokane valley due to elevated PCB levels. Ecology is in the process of cleaning up historical sources and developing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocation for PCBs in the Spokane River. Kaiser Aluminum at Trentwood and the Industrial Park were historical sources of PCB contamination in the river. In 2006 capping of PCB sediments behind Upriver Dam, and cleanup of contaminated sediments at Donkey Island occurred. Municipal Wastewater Municipal discharges from Liberty Lake, Hayden, Post Falls, and Coeur d'Alene add nutrients and other pollutants to the river. The major impact to the river at this time is the phosphorous loading coming from both point and non -point sources. Phosphorous is the limiting nutrient in the river and promotes algae growth and low dissolved oxygen. Kaiser Aluminum and Inland Empire Paper also discharge to the Spokane River. Non -Point Sources Non -point sources impacting water quality include lawn maintenance and septic systems. There are efforts underway to promote decreased use of lawn fertilizers in order to reduce nutrients in urban runoff. The Spokane County sewering of Spokane Valley is almost complete with the Greenacres area scheduled to be sewered in 2010 and 2011. Urbanization results in increased impervious cover, resulting in increased stormwater runoff and generation of pollutants. Within the Spokane/Rathdrum Valley, stormwater runoff is typically discharged into bio- infiltration (208) swales and drywells and has little direct impact on the river or shoreline. Land Use, Transportation, and Utility Corridors Land Use, Urbanization, and Population Growth There is increasing interest in development along the shoreline and adjacent areas. Within the City, major developments recently constructed or proposed near the Spokane River include the development of residential housing upstream of the Barker Road Bridge (Riverwalk PUD); the Hanson Development and Centennial Properties land located between Flora and Sullivan Roads; Mirabeau Point; and Coyote Rocks. Other large areas along the shorelines that are undeveloped include the north bank upstream of Flora Road and almost the entire north bank downstream of Sullivan Road, including the Kaiser Aluminum property. Much of the immediate shoreline is owned by Washington State Parks with private ownership near the 200 foot shoreline boundary. Shoreline development has the potential to alter public open space, vegetation, and views, resulting in increased need for utility and transportation services and urban runoff Transportation and Utilities Transportation and utility corridors are generally located away from the immediate shoreline. Exceptions to this include the AT &T communication line located in the SRCT right of way and a short segment of Union Pacific 16 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] track located on the shoreline downstream of Barker Road. Utilities and road and railroad bridges cross the river at various points within the study area. Transportation and utility corridors intersecting the shoreline area have impacts on the shoreline during construction, operation, and maintenance. As a result of traffic, roads and bridges generate noise and pollutants and require periodic maintenance; they also result in disruption of the natural environment. In an urban setting, with appropriate design and location, roads and bridges can provide a means to limit significant adverse enviromnental impacts while providing needed transportation and utility functions. Utilities located in the shoreline include water, sanitary sewer, storm drains, natural gas, and electric and other transmission and distribution lines. Recreation The majority of the Spokane River is easily accessible. Dispersed use is relatively intense due to adjacent residential development and the SRCT. Common recreational shoreline uses include jogging /walking and sightseeing, biking, picnicking, and swimming according to the Avista Recreation Facility Inventory and User Surveys Report, April 2004. Other common uses include angling, birding, and canoeing /kayaking. During warm weather the Spokane River from Harvard Road to Plante's Ferry is heavily used for float trips. The Barker Road Bridge is one of the most used Spokane River access point for float trips. According to discussions with local anglers, angling use of the river has decreased in recent years due to a reduction in fish populations. An exception to this is angling use below Sullivan Road is still quite high during the summer when cold water species migrate to this location. 3.3 Shelley Lake The following information has been acquired from the 2009 Saltese Flats Wetland Restoration project, the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the development, the Shelley Lake Homeowners Association (HOA), SCCD, WDFW, Spokane County, Ecology, local residents familiar with the lake's history and a site visit performed by URS in September 2009. Figure 3 -2 shows the Shelley Lake area. 17 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Shelley Lake is a discharge point for surface water from the Saltese Flats drainage basin. The Saltese Flats drainage basin covers approximately 14,000 acres and includes Washington's Mica Peak and Saltese Flats (PBS &J, 2009). The entire drainage basin is within Washington State. Saltese Flats includes land that functions as a wetland and also land that was historically a lake /wetland system that has been drained and used for agriculture and ranching. Recent residential land development has occurred in the Saltese area. Drainage from Saltese Flats flows to Saltese Creek and then to Shelley Lake. Shelley Lake has no outlet and water in the lake evaporates and infiltrates into the SVRP aquifer. Water flow in Saltese Creek is seasonal and Shelley Lake's water level fluctuates approximate sixteen feet through the year. In 1948, heavy rains and melting snow caused flooding in Saltese Flats and Shelley Lake. Spokane County excavated an overflow path to the Steen Road gravel pit. At that time it was reported that the gravel pit discharged the water as fast as it flowed into it (PBS &J, 2009). This diversionary drainage channel remains to route springtime flood waters into the Steen Road gravel pit. Shelley Lake water levels had, until the past few years, been maintained during the summer by pumping from an onsite well. This practice has been discontinued due to water rights issues with the well (PBS &J, 2009). Spokane County, as part of the work being done on the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)57 work, is evaluating restoration of wetlands within Saltese Flats. The primary intent of this work is to retain water in Saltese Flats and, by doing so, increase infiltration into the aquifer during the summer months. The evaluation includes using reclaimed water from the proposed Spokane County treatment plant and the Liberty Lake treatment plant to supplement the hydrological regime. Additional studies are planned, and if the county wetland restoration project is implemented Shelley Lake may have a different flow regime than it does now. 3.4 Gravel Pits Of the many gravel pit operations located within the City, two meet the definition of a surface water area of the State, per WAC 173 -20, because they contain greater than 20 acres of open water. These include the Sullivan Road and Park Road Gravel Pits. The location of these gravel pits is shown on Figure 1 -1. These pits are isolated excavations that have exposed the SVRP aquifer in the process of excavating gravel deposits. The shorelines have been created by industry and are not the result of natural regional processes. Regional influences are a combination of economic drivers (gravel needs) and the Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prairie geological and soil characteristics described above. Both gravel pits included in the shoreline jurisdiction have approved reclamation plans that require slope stabilization, planting of vegetation and a final use as a wildlife habitat and conservation area. As reported by the Audubon Society the gravel pits are heavily used by waterfowl. 3.5 Regional Processes, Stressors and Opportunities for Improvement Per WAC 173 -26- 020 -12, Ecosystem wide processes "... are the suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of erosion, transport, delivery, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological functions." Understanding what ecosystem wide processes are at play helps shoreline planners understand how shorelines function within the context of regional forces. The following table provides a summary of regional processes, including human - induced processes, which affect the functions provided by shorelines within the City. 18 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Table 3 -3: Analysis of Ecosystem -Wide Processes Process (Applicable Issues Condition Stressors Recommendations Waters) (General) Erosion (Spokane River) Sediment/gravel Fair- erosion is largely High flows, Bioengineering to support fluvial (bedload) transport, diminished by BED flow HEDs, lack of processes that redirect river energy Impacts to controls and a stable gravel feeder away from areas where erosion infrastructure channel form„ including bluffs could threaten public natural bank armoring. infrastructure. Plant vegetation on Erosion is limited to coarse, loose sediments on banks. specific locations. Low erosion has resulted in gravel & sediment "starved" reaches that are noted as a limiting factor affecting trout production. Flooding (Spokane Infrastructure and Good- flooding limited by Channel Restrict development in 100 -year River) property damage natural lake outlet and confinement, floodplain. Increase flood storage clue to inappropriate incised channel, rarely natural episodic where available to offset periodic development, water floods outside of existing rain -on -snow flood damage. quality channel events Solarization & Aquifer Warm water Poor in river above Low flows, Plant shade - producing vegetation Interchange (all waters) temperature is a Sullivan Road due to low losing river along bare shoreline areas. Focus factor in the reduced summer flows and being a reach to aquifer, on southern exposures that receive survival of juvenile "losing reach." Below areas of minimal more solar input. Work with native trout Sullivan Road is a riparian cover Avista to ensure proper water populations. "gaining reach" and river releases during summer months Warmer water also temps are colder due to supports the non- aquifer recharge. native smallmouth bass that compete All SMP waters, including with the native fish the river at the west end of in the river. town, provide unfrozen habitat for wintering waterfowl in most years. Vegetation Growth (all Habitat, visual Good (trees and shrubs) Non - native and Preserve high quality riparian waters) aesthetics, invasive weeds, forest corridors, restore forest in thermoregulation, Poor (herbs) development, gaps, Increase riparian buffer shoreline land conversion width where too thin, control stabilization, spread of non - native vegetation, nutrients, support support native vegetation for local plant restoration projects. Vi ! 19 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Process (Applicable Issues Condition Stressors Recommendations Waters) (General) Water Quality Nutrient, sediment, Poor- 303(d)- listed for Mining in upper Work with regional governments Degradation (All waters) and toxicant loading fecal coliform, DO, watershed, to forward watershed temperature, PCBs, and CSOs, point implementation plan. Includes zinc source pollution, control of stormwater, point source non -point pollution, and discouraging use of source pollution, products that contain elements stormwater harmful to water quality. Fish & Wildlife In- stream habitat Fish: Good habitat HEDs limiting Work with Avista to maintain migration, foraging, and quality, riparian structure but poor habitat fish migration minimum flow in Spokane River, rearing (all waters) buffer quality and condition due to high and disrupting allow woody debris in river, also widths, conflicting water temperatures and riparian see recommendations for water shoreline uses. low summer flows. corridors, lack quality, vegetation growth, and of LWD in solarization above. Lack of Wildlife: generally good streams, water connectivity with vegetation cover along quality, upland areas. shorelines allows development, east/west migration recreation through the City. Recreation (Spokane Fishing, boating, Fair -Good Limited Access, Provide parking and access to River, Shelley Lake) walking, biking, etc. HEDs, specific locations along the river incompatible with high recreation use, ecological goals encourage recreation that is (wildlife /fish sensitive to shoreline habitats habitat (discourage motorboats, atvs, etc.). protection priorities). Industrial development Tax revenue, Fair- limited to specific Conflictina Create a reserve of water - (Spokane River) employment industrial -zoned portions shoreline goals dependent industrial -zoned land to of the river and priorities support future growth. Place in (water quality, areas with least conflict to sensitive recreation and ecological habitats, public preservation /or enhancement. access, etc.) Residential Development Habitat losses Fair -Good: State park land Danger tree Ensure that activities authorized including loss of generally provides a removal, private within shorelands evaluate direct, open space, loss of buffer between residential boat ramps & indirect, and cumulative impacts to riparian vegetation, development and the docks, shoreline riparian and instream habitat. and loss of habitat river; however, in areas armoring, trails, connectivity where the park land is riparian impacts, Support WDFW's efforts to reduce absent, the shorelines are & poaching poaching on the Spokane River susceptible to habitat (out of season angling, illegal use degradation. of bait/barbs, and keeping "release only" fish). 20 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Process (Applicable Waters) Issues Condition Stressors Recommendations (General) Instream Flows Maintaining Poor- summertime base I ED flow Participate in Instream work sufficient flow flows are insufficient to controls, ' Groups currently working to volumes to support maintain cool water Attempts to establish instream flows for the resident fish temperatures. Portions of maintain high Spokane River. The west end of a the river dry out during water elevations long, losing reach (where river the summer resulting in during summer water infiltrates into the aquifer fish passage barriers. for recreation resulting in lower river volume) and lakefront comes into the east end of the Citv. development on This area is a summertime fish Coeur D'Alene migration barrier that should Lake highlighted in the efforts to establish instream flows. V i 21 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 4.0 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS To the extent practicable, the historic conditions of shoreline areas in Spokane Valley were researched to provide the following summary information. Historic conditions relate to several aspects of shoreline management, from protecting historic resources to establishing restoration targets. 4.1 Spokane River Historic Flow Regime Prior to the construction of the Post Falls hydroelectric dam (HED) in 1906 on the Spokane River, river flows were controlled by the water levels in Coeur d'Alene Lake at the natural outlet in Coeur d'Alene. Modeling done by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. in June 2003, as part of Avista's hydroelectric dam relicensing effort, provided an estimate of the historic flow regime for the Spokane River. Modeling results indicate that the effect of the Post Falls HED on river discharge is minimal during the months of December to April. However, generally between mid June and mid September the lake is held at an artificially high elevation, reducing discharge from the Post Falls HED relative to historic flow conditions. According to the simulation, this has resulted in decreasing average monthly summer river flows, measured at the Post Falls USGS gauge by approximately 1,200 cfs. According to the model regulated flows measured at Post Falls are 2040 cfs and 680 cfs while unregulated flows are 3480 cfs and 1290 cfs for July and August, respectively. In the fall, flows increase over natural conditions by approximately 1,000 cfs due to drawdown of the lake. According to the studies done during the Avista FERC relicensing, the influence of current operations at the Post Falls HED on water quality is considered minimal. The modeling shows similar influences for the regulated and unregulated flows for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. A slightly higher river temperature is attributed mainly to increased temperatures in the lake for the current HED operations. (HDR, 2005 Spokane River Hydroelectric Project — Current Operations Water Quality Report). The current operation of the darn does have an impact on fisheries, mostly attributed to reduction of river flows during spawning during low snowpack years and for in -river river recreation, where the minimum flow for boating is considered 1350 cfs. Historic Vegetation Current plant associations along the banks of the Spokane River are predominantly native and are likely similar to historic vegetation conditions in the shrub and tree strata, minus the increased frequency of non native woody vegetation, such as box elder (Acer negundo), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and black locust (Robinia pseudo - acacia). The herbaceous stratum is the area most affected by settlement. The majority of the native herbaceous vegetation has been converted to non native and /or invasive herbaceous vegetation in both grassland areas and beneath forest /shrub canopies. The SVRP was presumably bunchgrass grassland during pre - settlement times, although its native vegetation is little studied and not well understood. The historic prairie is 5 -15 miles wide and extends northeast from Spokane for approximately 50 miles. Nearly all of the historic prairie vegetation has been converted to agriculture, residential, or urban uses. One small remnant of native herb -rich SVRP grassland was found in 1990 during an endangered plant survey associated with a pipeline project (Taylor et al. 1990). This small remnant was used to estimate native vegetation of the SVRP by Lichthardt and Moseley (1997). Lichthardt and Moseley (1997) characterize the native SVRP plant association as Rough fescue (Festuca scabrella) and Idaho fescue (F. idahoensis) co- dominating a community that includes a high diversity of forbs. The SVRP is similar to the Palouse Prairie of northern Idaho. The prominence of F. scabrella is TDC 22 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] one of the main differences between the SVRP and the Palouse Prairie. Also, shrubs appear to have been less common in the SVRP than in the Palouse Prairie. Other characteristic plants found in the SVRP association include Koelaria (Koelaria cristata), sticky geranium (Geranium viscosissimum), and graceful cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis). Cultural Heritage and Settlement The 57- square mile Spokane Valley is a lowland plain that contains many cultural and historic sites. The aboriginal territory of the Upper Spokane and the Coeur d'Alene tribes included the Spokane River within the City of Spokane Valley. Tribal culture was deeply rooted in the river as it provided a bountiful source of food. The Spokane River once teemed with salmon and other native fish, while the riparian areas provided game, berries, and edible plants. The history of pioneer settlement in the Spokane Valley predates that of the City of Spokane. The first permanent settler in the Spokane Valley was Antoine Plante in 1849. The French Canadian trapper maintained a Hudson's Bay Company trading post near the Spokane River at what is now known as Plante's Ferry. The United States government commissioned Captain John Mullan to survey and construct a road in 1859. The Mullan Road was the most important road along the Spokane Valley shorelines providing access across the River at Plante's Ferry and then later at the community of Spokane Bridge, located near the Idaho State line. There is reference to Schneblys Bridge constructed in 1867 across the river that appears to have been located immediately downstream of the current Sullivan Road Bridge at the Daschenboeb cabin. Both are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Northern Pacific Railroad began laying tracks through the Spokane Valley in 1881. The first railroad bridge across the river near Trent was constructed in 1890. Remnants of the foundation remain. The International Portland Cement Company constructed the cement plant across from Plante's Ferry in 1910. According to the documentation, the cement plant covered much of the area with cement dust when in operation. The plant was shut down in the early 1970s. The agricultural history of Spokane Valley began in 1895 with the first attempts to supply irrigation from the nearby lakes. In 1899, the Spokane Valley Land and Water Company built a canal from Liberty Lake to irrigate the Greenacres area with water from Liberty Lake. The Spokane Canal company built a canal in 1905 to irrigate Otis Orchards with water from Newman Lake. Sometime between 1910 and 1925 the Spokane Valley Irrigation District constructed a canal to divert water from the river for irrigation near the state line. The Modern Irrigation and Land Company was the first to utilize the aquifer to irrigate the township of Opportunity in 1905. Within 20 years 30,000 acres of dry land had been converted to farmland. The population of the Spokane Valley increased from 1,000 in 1900 to nearly 10,000 in 1922 due to the availability of irrigated land. The Spokane Valley was chosen in 1942 as a site for an inland naval supply depot. The Naval Supply Depot opened in 1944 and is now the Spokane Industrial Park. The U.S. government also constructed an aluminum plant in Spokane Valley to support the war effort. The Trentwood Aluminum Rolling Mill opened in 1942 with 450 employees. The aluminum plant facilities included a pump station to provide river water for cooling, a wastewater treatment facility, and a river discharge. In the 1920s, Inland Empire Paper Company acquired most of the land along the river corridor from the Argonne Bridge to the Idaho state line. In 1979, Spokane County Parks proposed a bicycle /pedestrian pathway along the river. This idea was nurtured by the Parks and Recreation Committee of the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce in 1984 as they explored recreational opportunities along the river. In 1986, they proposed a 10 -1/2 mile trail to be built in conjunction with the Washington Centennial in TDC 23 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 1989. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission traded other Spokane County land holdings to Inland Empire Paper for their valley riverfront property. The Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT) was constructed on part of these properties. A review of the historic documentation indicates that shoreline use of the Spokane River did not play a large role in the development of the Spokane Valley. Transportation and utility systems did not need to follow the river corridor. Early land development is generally associated with irrigation from surrounding lakes and from the Spokane Valley Farms Canal that diverted water from the Spokane River at Post Falls, and later with pumping from the Spokane -Rathdrum Aquifer. Wastewater from residential developments were typically treated and disposed of by individual septic systems. Within the City of Spokane Valley limits the Industrial Park and Kaiser Aluminum discharged wastewater to the river starting in the 1940's. Wastewater from the Industrial Park is now conveyed to Spokane's wastewater treatment plant. Historic Shoreline Alterations The most significant affect on the Spokane River's flow regime was the construction of six hydroelectric dams (HEDs). The HEDs have had an effect on historical fish migration. The most upstream of the six dams is the Post Falls HED (River Mile [RM] 102). This HED is located in Idaho approximately nine miles downstream of the Spokane River source at Coeur d'Alene Lake. Downstream from the City of Spokane Valley is the City of Spokane's Upriver HED located at RM 80.2. Following this are Avista's Upper Falls HED (RM 74.2), Monroe Street HED (RM 74), Nine Mile HED (RM 58), and Long Lake HED (RM 34). The City of Spokane Valley is most affected by the Post Falls HED, which regulates flow into the City, and the Upriver HED, which creates slack water at the City's west end, in the Orchard Avenue area. The shorelines have also been altered by several bridge crossings, parks development, and industrial, residential, and commercial developments. Much of this development is outside of the immediate shoreline area but has altered the prairie adjacent to the shoreline. Bridges in the City include, from east to west, the Barker Road Bridge, Sullivan Road Bridge, the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern railroad bridges, and Trent Avenue Bridge. Kaiser Aluminum has a water right for process water and a discharge under an NPDES permit. One of the larger recent impacts to the shoreline is the SRCT, providing a continuous paved recreation corridor through most of the City east of Millwood. The trail was constructed along existing primitive roads where they existed and through areas of relatively untouched upland and riparian vegetation where there were no roads. Approximately 30 acres of intact native plant associations, including intact patches of native Rathdrum Prairie were lost in the Spokane Valley for the construction of the trail. The SRCT has increased recreational activities along the shoreline but has introduced noxious weeds and areas of shoreline erosion. Downstream of Barker Road portions of the trail have been damaged by high water and have required shoreline alterations to minimize damage to the trail during high water events. Trail maintenance includes activities associated with shoreline erosion, occasional asphalt patching, and use of herbicides for weed control. Residential development has had an impact within the shoreline jurisdiction but only a fairly minor impact on the immediate shorelines, with the exception of the shoreline area west of Millwood. In this area the shoreline has been almost completely converted to residential landscaping, including docks and concrete bulkheads at the shoreline for some properties. Commercial development has mostly affected the shoreline areas near the Spokane Valley Mall with the construction of stonnwater treatment basins within the shoreline jurisdiction just south of SRCT. 24 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 4.2 Shelley Lake Shelley Lake is named for John Francis Shelley, who homesteaded the area in 1881. In the late 1950's the Rice family purchased a portion of the property, including the lake. The property was used for cattle grazing and a meat packing operation. According to the 1994 EIS most of the native vegetation near the lake had been destroyed by cattle grazing and the water quality in the lake was poor. When the Rice family owned the lake ice skating and miniature hydroplane races occurred. The property was sold for residential development and in the 1990's the 1st Addition of Shelley Lake Estates, a single family residential development, was constructed. The 5th Addition is currently being constructed. Historic modifications made to the shorelines are difficult to determine since there is little information available on historical shoreline conditions. A 1914 photo contained in the History of the Spokane Valley by Florence Boutwell, 2003 shows a few buildings near the lake with very little shoreline vegetation. Recent modifications include residential development, the asphalt paved trail around the perimeter of the lake, and the culvert crossing for the trail at the inlet end of the lake. In addition to the shoreline modifications along the lake, a gravel access road and related fill material have been constructed along the west side of a wetland area around Saltese Creek near the confluence of the creek and the lake. The Shelley Lake HOA has been working to establish native vegetation around the perimeter of the lake with mixed success. High lake levels are controlled by a constructed channel located upstream of the lake that directs excess flows to the Steen Road pit. 4.3 Park Road and Sullivan Road Gravel Pits The Garrison series of soils that underlay the Spokane Valley are ideal for sand and gravel mining. There are a number of gravel pits in the Spokane Valley, some of which have reached the end of their extraction life. The Park Road and the Sullivan Road pits have both grown in area to the point of exceeding 20 acres and are now under SMP jurisdiction. Both gravel pits are currently owned by Central Pre -Mix. Much of the information contained in this section was provided by the mine operator pen application, reclamation/closure plan, and conversations with Central Pre -Mix. The exposure of the SVRP aquifer by mining activities brought the gravel pits under the jurisdiction of the Spokane County Shoreline Program's "Shoreline Management Act of 1971." This required that a substantial development and conditional use permit be obtained. Conditions of this permit require a Hydraulic Project Approval permit and a water quality standards modification permit. It also binds the owner to preservation of archaeological sites, and enforces the reclamation plan. Initially the pits were supposed to be backfilled with clean fill. In 1989 Ecology prohibited backfilling with anything other than clean and natural material. This led to a revision of reclamation plans. The reclamation plans now leave the pits as lakes and provides for plantings and irrigation to provide areas for wildlife and bird habitat. Based on information from the local chapter of the Audubon Society the vacated gravel pits provide superb habitat for a variety of water fowl. Vi ! 25 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 5.0 LOCAL CHARACTERIZATION This section provides a detailed characterization of the land use, physical, biological, and ecological shoreline characteristics within the City. The primary sources of information for the following characterization include the Spokane County Proper Functioning Condition Stream Inventory & Assessment Report (SCCD 2005), Avista HED relicensing studies, direct observation by URS, consultation with state resource agencies, and input from the Technical Review Group. 5.1 Spokane River Detailed analysis was conducted for four separate study segments along the Spokane River through the City. However, the following information is relative to all portions of the Spokane River: Rare Plants The Washington Natural Heritage Program, which tracks the location and status of rare plants, has no current rare plant records within the City's shoreline areas. This was confinned by a rare plant survey that was conducted through the City's shoreline areas in 2003 for the Avista Dam Relicensing studies, which found no rare plants documented in the City ( Parametrix 2003a). Fish No federally - listed Threatened or Endangered fish species are present within the Spokane River. However, Red -band trout are a Washington State Priority Species (WDFW 2010) listed within the river system. The location of trout spawning areas (redds) varies by river reach but, in general trout spawn in clean, small to medium gravels at river margins and riffle crests. The Spokane River contains the following fish species: Rainbow trout, brown trout, cutthroat trout, northern pikeminnow, mountain whitefish, small -mouth bass, and large -scale sucker fish, Redside shiner, and sculpin species (SCCD 2005, Parametrix 2003b). The river channel is characterized by diverse channel morphology and different fish species exploit different habitats. Temperature and dissolved oxygen also strongly affect the distribution of different species in the river. Of local importance is the fact that the majority of redband trout captured during a stock status of redband trout in the upper Spokane River were found in the lower 5 km of the study area, which spanned from Idaho to Plante's Ferry Park. This is attributed to the cold water thermal refugia available within the City, generally west of Flora Road. Priority Habitats & Species Within the City, the entire Spokane River and adjacent riparian corridor are classified as "Riparian Habitat Area." See Section 3.2, Biological Resources for further information regarding the Priority Habitats & Species database. Critical Areas Within the City, the entire Spokane River corridor contains the following critical areas: • Fish habitat conservation area (within OHWM of river) • Riparian habitat areas (areas within up to 250 feet from the OHWM) • Critical aquifer recharge area (entire river segment) • Special flood hazard area (100 -year floodplain) Soils The Garrison soil series is the dominant soil type throughout the river's shorelines within the City of Spokane Valley. This association occurs on both sides of the Spokane River throughout the City. The topography is nearly level to gently sloping. The Garrison soils are nearly black, are gravelly and medium textured, and are somewhat excessively drained. Garrison soil phases within the City include: Garrison very stony loam (0 to 20% slopes), and Garrison gravelly loam (0 to 5% slopes). Garrison very stony loam is reported by the NRCS as not being a good soil to establish vegetation in. Vi ! 26 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] A portion of this river also contains the Riverwash soil series. This soil type is found in low -lying terraces along perennial and intermittent streams. It consists of gravel, cobbles, and stones with very little fines. Riverwash provides stream substrate and functions to limit channel migration. Cultural /Historic Resources The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) maintains a state- wide database of previously- recorded cultural resource sites, historic register properties, and completed inventories. The locations of the cultural resource sites (e.g., archaeological sites) are managed as restricted access information. The locations of historic register properties (e.g., buildings and structures listed on the state or national register) are non - restricted information. A records search was conducted at Olympia in July 2009, and updated via the online DAHP Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database, in November 2009. This restricted - access, searchable GIS database depicts locations of: previously - recorded archaeological sites, cultural resource surveys conducted after 1995, historic register properties, and cemeteries. Recorded sites are noted throughout the Spokane River Corridor within the City. The greatest density of recorded sites is located between the Sullivan Bridge and the SRCT Bridge in SR -2 and SR -3. However, the entire river corridor is considered to have a high probability for the presence of historic and cultural resources. Sediment Transport In part due to the Post Falls HED, the lack of tributaries, and the gravelly soils, the river is sediment starved east of the Trent Street Bridge. Sedimentation is reliant on active bank erosion, which is minor within the City due to the gravelly soils which provide a degree of natural armoring. West of the Trent Street Bridge the flow rate is greatly reduced by the hydraulic impoundment of the Upriver Dam, located just west of the City. Sediment carried downstream by rapid flows begins to settle out near the Trent Street Bridge. The river bed near the west end of the City is covered with a layer of fines that will continue to accrete. Vegetation and Wildlife Natural areas and north /south- oriented wildlife migration corridors including Beacon Hill, Plante's Ferry, and Antoine Peak exist east and west of the City. These areas provide some connection to the river for wildlife that resides to the north. Due to urbanization of the valley it has become more difficult for wildlife to move between natural areas. Within the City, migration corridors occur primarily west and east along the vegetated riparian corridor of the Spokane River. In conversations with WDFW, enhancement of the riparian corridor was noted as the best way to improve the ecological baseline. Improvement to the vegetated river corridor would provide cover and food for wildlife. URS and Mike Folsom, an independent consulting ecologist and professor at Eastern Washington University, conducted a detailed inventory of the existing plant associations within the City's shoreline areas to augment the near -shore work done by SCCD in 2005. Table 5 -1 identifies the relationship of the observed plant associations with the fish and wildlife that use them. This table is referenced in the following subsections of this chapter to indicate potential wildlife use within the shoreline study areas. TDC 27 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Table 5 -1 Plant Association Use Analysis Plant Association Plant Association Wildlife Use Analysis Abbreviation • PIPO /AMAL 0 Ponderosa pine /serviceberry 0 Fair food value for ungulates, good food value for upland birds and small (Pines ponderosa/Amalanchier alnifolia) mammals • PIPO /CRDO 0 Ponderosa pineiblack hawthorn 0 Fair -good cover value for all fish and wildlife (P. ponderosa /Crataegus douglasii) 0 Good shade potential, good shoreline stabilization, good source material for in- PIPO /SAEX . Ponderosa pine /coyote willow stream wood. (P. ponderosa/ Salix exigua) 0 Important habitat for upland birds • PIPO /JUOC 0 Ponderosa pine/ western juniper (P. ponderosa /Juniperus occidentahs.) • POBA/PRVI 0 Black cottonwood /common chokecherry 0 Poor -fair food value for ungulates, good food value for upland birds and small (Populus balsamifera/Prunus virginiana) mammals, • POBA /CRDO 0 Black cottonwoodiblack hawthorn 0 Good cover value for all fish and wildlife, (P. balsamifera/ C. douglasii) 0 Good shade potential, good shoreline stabilization, good source material for in- POBA /PREM 0 Black cottonwood/bitter cherry stream wood. (P. balsamifer /P. emarginata) 0 Strong invertebrate production; supports fisheries • POBA / Salix 0 Black cottonwood/ willows (P. 0 Poor food value for ungulates and waterfowl, good food value for upland birds balsamifera/Salix spp.) and small mammals, • POBA 0 Black cottonwood (no understory) 0 Fair -good cover value for all fish and wildlife Good shade potential, good shoreline stabilization, good source material for in- stream wood. Non - Native Grassland Non - native grassland with scattered 0 Poor -fair food value for ungulates, fair food value for neotropical songbirds, serviceberry and black hawthore. Dominant good food value for raptors, no food value for fish or waterfowl grasses are tall oatgrass (Arrhenatherum 0 Poor to no cover value for fish and macrofauna elatius) and /or quackrass (Agropyron repens) Fair cover value for neotropical songbirds and small mammals • Good shoreline stabilization TIRS 28 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Plant Association Plant Association Wildlife Use Analysis Abbreviation Native bunchgrass Bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria 0 Poor -fair food value for native ungulates, fair food value for neotropical prairie spicata) and fescue (Festuca sp.) with songbirds, good food value for raptors, no food value for fish or waterfowl balsamroot (Balsamorhizza sp.) and 0 Poor to no cover value for fish and macrofauna buckwheat (Eriogonum sp.) 0 Fair cover value for neotropical songbirds and small mammals • Good shoreline stabilization • Remnant habitat important for protecting local heterogeneity in herbaceous stratum, which may have value to various bird species. SAEX Coyote Willow (Salix exigua) 0 Fair food value for native ungulates, good food value for upland birds and small mammals, fair food value for waterfowl • Fair to good cover value for ungulates, good cover value for upland birds, waterfowl, and small mammals • Good shoreline stabilization and buffer against erosive hydraulic forces • Moderate shade potential • PHLE/RHGL Mock orange- smooth sumac • Not reported in literature but likely to provide fair to good food value and fair to (Philadelphus Lewisii /Rhus glabra) good cover value for ungulates, small mammals, and upland birds • CRDO -AMAL- Black hawthorne, serviceberry, mallow nin- 0 Likely to provide poor to fair cover and food values for waterfowl and fish PHMA bark (Crataegus douglasii /A. 0 These shrub habitats correlate with areas of notably high songbird use during alnifolia/Physocarpus malvaceus) field surveys. The Audubon society noted these habitats as "high value bird habitat." Note: Estimates based on values for similar shrub species in Kovalchik, 2004. PSME /PREM Douglas firibitter cherry 0 Good food value for upland game birds, fair food value for native ungulates and (Pseudotsuga menziesii/Prunus emarginata) small mammals, and poor food value for waterfowl and small nongame birds. • Good cover value for ungulates, upland birds, and mammals • Poor cover value for waterfowl • Good shade potential, good shoreline stabilization, good source material for in- stream wood. IRS 29 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Spokane River Study Segments The Spokane River was divided into four distinct study segments based on unique factors including surrounding land uses, ecological characteristics, aquifer characteristics (gaining vs. losing), hydraulics, and substrate characteristics. The unique characteristics within each study area provide the basis for assigning environmental designations that are used for planning purposes. Figure 5 -1 below provides an overview of the four river segments. River segment 1 is contains primarily residential land uses and the river recharges the aquifer in this segment resulting in low summer flows, warmer water, and relatively rapid streamflow. River segment 2 contains commercial and primarily industrial land uses. At the confluence of Segments 1 and 2 the river becomes a gaining reach as the aquifer begins to flow back into the river resulting in deeper and cooler water. River segment 3 contains rapidly developing shoreline areas and open space. Stream flow becomes slower and deeper in Segment 3. River segment 4 is completely developed residential area. The river is a slow, deep slack water in this segment due to the Upriver HED. 5.1.1 Spokane River Study Segment 1- Eastern City Limits to Flora Road Spokane River Study Segment 1 (SR -1) includes both sides of the River between the eastern city limits (RM 91.0) and Flora Road (RM 89.1) to the west. Segment 1 is approximately 1.9 miles long and includes a total area of 88.4 acres of shoreland area within the SNIP jurisdiction. This portion of the river is characterized by low to medium density residential land uses, a losing aquifer, and relatively fast, shallow river flows. The stream bed is primarily composed of cobble and large gravels in long riffles with few pools. 30 5.1.1.1 SR -1 Land Use Summary The City Comprehensive Plan provides land use and zoning designations. The primary land use in this segment is Park /Open space. Much of the public land is owned and managed by the Washington State Parks Commission and includes open, undeveloped land primarily on the north bank and the SRCT along the south bank. Most of this land was acquired by the State from Inland Empire Paper when the SRCT was developed. The second largest land use is Low Density Residential. This river segment includes residential development both upstream and downstream of Barker Road. The north bank upstream of Barker Road includes manufactured home lots. The area immediately adjacent to the river is owned by State Parks. There is evidence that parts of the public shoreline have been altered by the homeowners in this development. On the south bank is the Riverwalk PUD development constructed in 1998. The River Rose Mobile Home Park is located on the north bank immediately downstream of the Barker Road Bridge. Some shoreline alteration has occurred to provide residents access to the river, however, the manager of the mobile home park has said that they have a policy to not allow improvements along river by the homeowners. Along the south side of the river is the Greenacres neighborhood. This area was originally platted into 1 and 2 -acre lots in 1904 as the Greenacres Irrigation District. Subsequent development has increased the lot density and the current zoning along the river is now R -2 allowing for 10,000 square foot lots or 4.3 houses per acre. There is the potential for additional development in the Greenacres area. 31 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Tables 5 -2 and 5 -3 show the existing land use and zoning designations within this reach. Table 5 -2: Land Use SR -1 Land Use Area (acres) Percent of Total Railroad ROW 2.4 2.7 Heavy Industrial 2.0 2.3 Low Density Residential 32.1 3 6. 3 Park/Open 51.9 58.7 Table 5 -3: Zoning SR -1 Zoning Area ) (acres of Total Railroad ROW 2.4 2.7 I -2 2.0 23 R -2 (10,000 sflots) 11.9 13.5 R4 (6,000 sf lots) 20.2 22.8 Park/Open 1 51.9 58.7 Table 5 -4 provides a summary of the built structures and impervious surfaces. This provides an estimate of the existing development intensity within this reach. Table 5 -4: Built Environment SR -1 Features Area (acres) Percent of Total Rooftops 3.8 43 Pavement 2.3 2.6 Gravel Surfacing 3.1 3.5 Total Impervious 9.2 10.4 Recreational Use and Access Recreational use areas and access locations are shown on Figure 5 of the attached map portfolio (Appendix F). The SRCT is located along the south bank providing almost unlimited public access to the south shoreline. The SRCT provides a physical separation buffer between the Spokane River and adjacent residential land uses. The north bank is owned and managed by State Parks. Public land on the north bank is typically a fairly narrow strip between the OHWM and residential lots. Access and use of the public land on the north bank around the Barker Road Bridge is somewhat difficult since much of it is perceived as private property. Formal public access to the SRCT and the shorelines include the SRCT parking lot at Barker Road (south bank) and the Barker Road River Access (north bank). This is one of the most popular river access points on the Spokane River. Additional access points are provided in the Riverwalk development for residents and another public access is located on City property at Montgomery Street. A locked vehicle gate and unlocked man gate are present at Montgomery Street. This access has been designated as an official river access point during the construction of the Barker Road Bridge. Two signs with this designation have been posted along the shoreline for people using the river. Access consists of a graded slope, which allows authorized vehicles, including the launching of emergency vehicles, access to the shoreline. Another formal access point has been provided to the SRCT at Flora Road. This access point is paved from the end of Flora Road, providing handicapped access. There is no formal parking lot at this location, but vehicles do park along the road, away from the shoreline. 32 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] The land use is predominately residential along the south bank and many residences have developed informal paths leading to the SRCT. There are four formal access points (wooden steps) along the SRCT leading down the river. Downstream of the River Rose Mobile Home Park and the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, much of the property is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). It is zoned heavy industrial and in the early 1990's portions were used to extract gravels for re- paving of I -90. This area appears to be the largest publicly owned property adjacent to the SNIP boundary. Access to the north bank is generally from Flora Road. A network of old roads and informal trails exist in this area that is widely used by day hikers and anglers. Transportation The Barker Road Bridge crosses the river within this river segment. The Barker Road Bridge is being reconstructed at this time (2009 -2010) and will provide vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Parking on the bridge for boaters using the Barker Road River Access is planned. The SRCT discussed previously provides recreation and pedestrian and bicycle transportation between many parts of the City. The Union Pacific Railroad is located within the shoreline jurisdiction near the Greenacres Gypsum Plant. It is planned to relocate the Union Pacific tracks during the "Bridging the Valley" project away from the river sometime in the future. A private residential collector street within the River Rose Mobile Home Park lies within the shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline Modifications The major shoreline modifications within the SR -1 shoreline jurisdiction include residential development, the Barker Road Bridge, the Union Pacific ROW fill, and the SRCT. Residential development has converted much of the upland prairie into housing and lawns. Many informal trail and access points have been created. Impervious surfaces, lawn care products, septic systems, and other activities associated with residential development provide input of pollutants into the river. Remnants of previous residents were noted during the field inventory along the south bank, typically as rock foundations and lilac bushes. A concrete pad with a corrugated metal pipe (CMP) standpipe was observed along the SRCT just downstream of Barker Road. Its use is unknown. The Barker Road Bridge is being replaced and is scheduled to be completed in 2010. The new bridge has reduced the number of bridge support piers in the river and the City, DNR, WDFW, and Ecology are working to develop cleanup and restoration plans for the immediate shorelines associated with the bridge construction. The SRCT is a 12- foot -wide asphalt pedestrian trail that was constructed through intact native vegetation and along an existing dirt road at various locations. The trail and associated development such as retaining walls replaced some of the native vegetation. Most retaining walls are rock gabions, except for a keystone retaining wall at the Barker Road SRCT access. Smaller wooden retaining walls have been erected along the SRCT, mostly for erosion control. Much of the trailside erosion appears to result from informal trails. The SRCT in this river segment has been flooded downstream of Barker Road Bridge and the river bank has eroded at approximately RM 89.5 causing damage to the trail. The Union Pacific railroad intersects the shoreline at RM 89.8. This area of the shoreline supports the railroad tracks and the dirt access road on what appears to be a fill area. Concrete foundations, likely associated with the railroad are located in this area between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and the river. This area is noted as "Austin" on USGS maps. A remnant of historic railroad use on the northern /eastern shore is evident in crumbling concrete foundations near the Greenacres Gypsum plant. ViW 33 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Utilities Overhead power lines cross the river immediately downstream of the Barker Road Bridge and at Flora Road. The Barker Road Bridge provides crossings for a water line, a sewer force main, and communication lines. An AT &T's fiber optics line is located under or alongside the SRCT. The buried fiber optics have utility vaults located in the trail throughout this river segment. An above ground appurtenance associated with the fiber optics line was noted along the shoreline immediately upstream of the Barker Road Bridge. Two culverts for stonmwater were found under the SRCT. One is situated in the gulley on the north bank, just upstream of Barker Road. This culvert appears to no longer be active as a result of the development of Riverwalk. A second culvert is located downstream of Barker Road and allows for drainage to pass under an elevated portion of the SRCT. Most stormwater management within this river segment is allowed to infiltrate prior to reaching the river or sheet flows through open areas. Environmental The Department of Ecology has identified heavy metal contaminated areas on both banks of the Barker Road Bridge and at Flora Road on the south bank. The Flora Road site was remediated in 2009 by capping the contaminated sediments with clean fill. This project resulted in removal of vegetation and an expansion of the beach. At Barker Road, a fence around the upstream gulley on the south bank is planned to prevent access to the contaminated sediments. On the north bank removal and capping of contaminated sediments is planned. Cultural /Archeological Resources The Washington Infonnation System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database identified three known sites throughout SR -1. All three sites are located along the southern shoreline, likely due to the focused surveys that were conducted there for the SRCT project. None of the sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 5.1.1.2 SR -1 Physical and Biological Characterization The substrate in this segment is characterized by large cobbles with little sediment. Water depths range from approximately eight feet in the spring when the Post Falls HED is passing most of the flow to zero feet in the late summer when this segment becomes primarily exposed gravels with surface water limited to small pools and very shallow riffles. This segment includes a large meander at River Mile 90, which results in dissipated river flow energy. The meander also results in areas of erosion at the inside meander bend (RM 89.5), which is armored by large riprap. The area was further damaged due to the 2008 high spring flows. Segment 1 provides high quality visual resources to users of the SRCT along the south bank due to the presence of fairly continuous mature forest between the trail and the shoreline. This is augmented by the location of surrounding residences along the south bank, which are located above the trail and generally visually separated from the trail by a shrub zone buffer. Hydraulics and Water Quality Within SR -1, the channel is moderately to highly entrenched and highly sinuous with little to no floodplain development. The dominant bed materials are cobbles and boulders with little gravel or fine sediment material. Boulders and persistent willows along the river edge provide energy dissipation and shoreline stabilization. The current is generally swift and the channel is comprised of a series of rapids with shallow pools. Because of the dam upstream, the sediment supply is low unless the streambanks are eroding. The channel is vertically and laterally stable. Large woody debris is lacking, but rocks and intermixed vegetation are adequate to dissipate energy and protect banks. This reach is a Rosgen C3 stream type, which means that it has moderate sinuosity and a cobble- dominant substrate. 34 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Biological Resources and Vegetation Trout spawning surveys conducted by Parametrix in 2003 for the Avista relicensing effort documented no fish or spawning areas (redds) within this study segment. The identification of fish and redds within a mile to either direction of this stream segment indicates that the area is used for migration but not spawning. This may be due to lack of suitable spawning habitat at the river levels found during the spring spawning season. Fish surveys noted by SCCD in the 2005 PFC study indicated that brown trout, Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, northern pikeminnow, and large -scale sucker fish are all likely to be present within River Segment 1. Wildlife noted within Segment 1 includes bats, raptors, several neotropical songbirds, aquatic mammals, waterfowl, and reptiles (SCCD 2005). Residents in the area have reported seeing bald eagle, osprey, pheasant, moose, coyotes, deer, rabbits, beaver, mink, and river otter. No raptor nest sites were observed within this river segment. The Audubon Society has reported that this area provides some of the best habitat for birds along the river due to its relatively continuous vegetation and the large fields that exist adjacent to the river. The following plant associations were observed within SR -1 (see Table 5 -1 for reference): Table 5 -5: Habitat Analysis SR -1 Plant Association Area (acres) Percent of Total Developed/Landscaped 25.84 23% Non - native Grassland 15.61 14% Ponderosa ine /serviceberry 30.58 27% Ponderosa pine /black hawthome 19.82 17% Black cottonwood/ servicebe 0.46 <1% Black cottonwood/ black haw 6.78 6% Covote willow 15.51 14% Based on Table 5 -5 above, the dominant forest cover within SR -1 is a mixture of ponderosa pine forest communities. These communities are generally unfragmented, long stands that are mature in age with multiple age classes present within a given stand. Based on Table 5 -1, these plant associations provide foraging and cover for most of the fish and wildlife present within the river corridor. A fairly continuous narrow band of ponderosa pine /serviceberry forest is present between the SRCT and the shoreline on the south side of the river. This band of vegetation provides a high quality functional corridor for wildlife as well as shade for aquatic habitat. Additional cover is provided along the northern shoreline within park property to the west of the River Rose mobile home park. These stands are located within State Park ownership and, therefore, likely to be conserved. The vegetation inventory included as Appendix C found that though there was a high degree of variability between sample plots, native vegetation cover within SR -1 averaged 35% in the flooded zone, 71% in the riparian zone, and 67% in the upland zone. Areas south of the SRCT are dominated by non - native grasslands with scattered hawthome and serviceberry shrubs. These areas are generally in a degraded condition due to off -road vehicle use, multiple pedestrian access trails, and the ubiquitous presence of spotted knapweed and everlasting pea (Lathyrus latifolia). Along the north shore, the vegetation has been highly altered by landscaping and includes many ornamental plants. Vi ! 35 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 5.1.1.3 SR -1 Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation The following ecological baseline will be used to measure changes over time as the City works to achieve the "no net loss of shoreline ecological functions" goal (per WAC 173 -26- 186(8)). Ecological Baseline This river study segment spans three river reaches classified by SCCD in the 2005 PFC study. Reach 3 begins east of the City and tenninates at RM 90.3, where the river bends to the north. SCCD Reach 4 continues downstream around the river bend to RM 89.4. From there, SCCD Reach 5 continues into the next downstream River Study Segment (SR -2). All three SCCD reaches were rated as being in Proper Functioning Condition. SCCD Reach 3 was rated as being in "good" ecological condition, while SCCD Reach 4 was rated as "fair" and SCCD Reach 5 was rated as "fair to good." The good ecological rating for Reach 3 appears to be due to factors located east of the City near the Harvard Road Bridge so Segment 1 is best described as being in fair ecological condition. High Quality Conservation Areas The 2005 PFC study noted high quality areas along approximately half of the southern shoreline through this study segment. The high quality determination was based upon the presence of mixed cottonwood and ponderosa pine forests over 1 /2 -acre in area. These high - quality areas are generally located within park land are expected to remain in conservation status in perpetuity. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration Due to the extensive areas of mature riparian forest along the southern banks of this study segment, restoration potential was rated as "low" by the 2005 PFC study. Residential development along the south banks of the river is generally located above and away from the riparian vegetation. This buffer should be maintained by setbacks to avoid future development pressure. To the east of Barker Road along the southern shoreline, the area between the SRCT and residential development to the south is owned and managed by the Riverwalk Development LLC. This area is characterized by grassy slopes dominated by non - native herbaceous vegetation and sporadic native shrubs that provide good bird habitat. This area includes several uncontrolled access trails and would benefit from native herbaceous and shrub plantings as well as controlled access to discourage damage from foot traffic. Manufactured home courts flank the northern banks of the river on both sides of Barker Road. Within these areas, several homes are located within SMA jurisdiction. A thin parcel of public park land separates these homes from the edge of the river. Due to the proximity of the homes to the river, there is occasional landscaping found on the state park property. This area has little opportunity for shoreline restoration or conservation with the exception of limiting landscaping within the public shoreline areas to preserve native habitat. Between the northern apex of the river's meander bend and Flora Road to the west, there is a large undeveloped area along the northern banks of the river. This area contains a thin, discontinuous band of mature riparian vegetation on steep slopes above the river. Above this band of riparian vegetation, the habitat is degraded by a dirt road with several spur roads. The vegetation around the road is a mixture of early seral ponderosa pine saplings and non - native herbaceous upland grasses and knapweeds with a few small patches of native vegetation intermixed. This area would benefit from additional shoreline stabilization plantings on the steep slopes as well as native upland plantings in cleared areas and thinning of the existing pine saplings to provide cover, a functional migration corridor, and to prevent the spread of invasive vegetation. TDC 36 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Recommendations Table 5 -6 is a summary of ecological issues relevant to the selection of an appropriate shoreline designation and to the goal of achieving the goal of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Table 5 -6: Summary of Ecological Issues SR -I Ecological Issues Local Stressors Recommendations Woody Cover SRCT, camping, residential Conserve /protect existing forest areas. development Large river meander, Incorporate bioengineering concepts into Erosion seasonally high flow rates maintenance of affected shoreline areas for visual and ecological benefits. Non - native herbaceous cover Encourage landscaping with native plants. Invasive vegetation Control spread of knapweed. Support native herbaceous restoration prqjects. Small -mouth bass are Work with WDFW, Trout Unlimited, SCCD, Non - native fish outcompeting native trout due and Avista as habitat protection plans are to warm water tolerance. developed. Low water discharge during Work with Avista and regional governments to summer from Post Falls HED. ensure that adequate flows are maintained Water Temperature Hydraulics naturally through summer months. Create pools in discharging to aquifer. shaded areas near southern shoreline to provide trout refu e during low flows. Barker Road Clean up area/ Ensure that clean up efforts are monitored and Contamination heavy metals contamination. that replaced bed /shoreline materials are appropriate size for the local hydrologic regime and public use. Development potential along Create setbacks that would limit future southern shoreline redevelopment near existing riparian zone. Land Use Conflicts Control landscaping in public lands along the north shoreline area. Place signs prohibiting shoreline alterations on public lands. TDC VAW 37 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 5.1.2 Spokane River Study Segment 2 - Flora Road to Trent Avenue Spokane River Study Segment 2 (SR -2) includes both sides of the River between Flora Road (RM 89.1) to the east and Trent Street (RM 85.3) to the west. Segment 2 is approximately 3.7 miles long and includes a total area of 178 acres of shoreland within the SNIP jurisdiction. This portion of the river is characterized by commercial & industrial land uses beyond an inner band of State Park land that contains a fairly continuous riparian vegetation corridor. The lack of residential presence in SR -2 results in large open tracts of continuous grassland habitat above the river banks. The aquifer discharges to the river at the east end of SR -2. This results in cooler, deeper water relative to SR -1. 5.1.2.1 SR -2 Land Use Summary The City Comprehensive Plan shows that the land use within this river segment is composed of Parks /Open Space, Heavy Industrial, Low Density Residential, Mixed Use, and Regional Commercial. The largest use is for Parks /Open Space. The next largest use is heavy industrial, much of which is associated with the Kaiser Trentwood Aluminum Plant. The Regional Commercial designation is associated with the Spokane Valley Mall. Mixed use areas include the area between Mission Avenue and Sullivan Road and the Mirabeau Point area. The mixed use areas are only partial developed and additional development is anticipated. TDC 38 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Tables 5 -7 and 5 -8 show the land use and zoning within this reach. Table 5 -7: Land Use SR -2 Land Use Area (acres) Percent of Total Railroad ROW 2.4 1.4 Heavy Industrial 29.9 16.9 Low Density Residential 3.2 1.8 Mixed Use 11.3 6.4 Parks/Open Space 123 69.6 Regional Commercial 7.0 3.9 Table 5-8: Zoning SR -2 Zoning Area ) (acres of Total Railroad ROW 2.4 1.4 Heavy Industrial (I -2) 29.9 16.9 Mixed Use Center (MUC) 113 6.4 Parks/Open Space 123 69.6 R -2 (10,000 sf lots) 1.6 0.9 R -3 (7,500 sf lots) 1.6 0.9 Regional Commercial (RC) 7.0 3.9 Table 5 -9 provides a summary of the built structures and impervious surfaces. This provides an estimate of the existing development intensity within this reach. Table 5 -9: Built Environment SR -2 Features Area (acres) Percent of Total Rooftops 0.3 0.2 Pavement 5.4 .1 Gravel Surfacing 43 2.4 Total Impervious 10.0 5.6 Recreational Use and Access Land use within the shoreline jurisdiction in this river segment is mostly Parks /Open Space with Heavy Industrial between Kaiser and the Trent Avenue Bridge. There are two parks within this river segment, Sullivan Road Park and Mirabeau Point Park. Both provide access to the SRCT and to the river. The SRCT is located on the south bank and provides almost unlimited access along the river. The shoreline jurisdiction along the north side of the river is generally State Park land. Access to this area is from Flora Road (both sides of the river), Mission Avenue (south bank), a river takeout just upstream of the Sullivan Bridge (north bank), Sullivan Park and at the Trent Road Bridge. Except for Sullivan Park, all access points are informal. There are many trail and old dirt roads that are used for hiking in this area. Sullivan Park is located on the west side of Sullivan Road on the north side of the river. The park includes a paved parking lot, picnicking facilities, and a gazebo overlooking the Spokane River. A network of trails extends downriver from the park to Kaiser's fence line. These trails are near the TDC 39 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] OHWM and provide informal access to the Spokane River. Sullivan Park is heavily used for boater access. The banks have been heavily disturbed by users entering and leaving the river in this area. Mirabeau Point Park, the former Walk in the Wild Zoo, provides access to the SRCT and the river. Footpaths lead from the SRCT to the granite rock outcrop. This rock formation is a popular day use recreation spot. Forest Service style fire pit was observed in the trees to the south of the outcropping. Another Forest Service style fire pit was found off of the SRCT upstream of the Sullivan Road Bridge. Kaiser's intake pumping plant is located on the opposite bank and the river channel is deep at this location. An older access point that was closed in the early 1990's is located upstream of Sullivan Road at RM 88.5 on the north bank. A dirt access road leads to this area from Sullivan Road. The Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club (SCKC) is developing a proposal to reopen this access. Reopening this access would provide better access than currently exists to Sullivan Hole, which is the most widely used kayak play spot on the river. The terminus of Mission Avenue is another popular access for the SRCT and the river. Currently it is heavily used by boaters to access the Sullivan Hole play spot. The SRCT can also be accessed from the Spokane Valley Mall and several access points are located leading from parking lots on the north side of Indiana Street. ADA compliant access has been provided at the Sullivan Road Bridge. The section of river between the Flora Road and Mirabeau Point Park provides many locations for swimming, boating, and angling in the Spokane River. There are many locations within this section of the river that have sandy beaches. Informal footpaths are present between the SRCT and the beaches. The river bank becomes steeper in the section between Mirabeau Park and the Trent Road Bridge limiting access. The SRCT tends to stay along the top of the slope through this section, and there are only a few informal access points to the river. This has protected the vegetation in this area. Transportation Four bridges cross the Spokane River within this river segment. These are the Sullivan Road Bridge, the Union Pacific Railroad bridge, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad bridge, located immediately upstream of the Trent Avenue Bridge. The BNSF Railroad has access roads that are within the shoreline jurisdiction. These roads provide access to both the BNSF Railroad Bridge and the Yellowstone Pipeline. A section of the Flora Pit Road is also within the shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline Modifications Shoreline modifications in this river segment are typically associated with the four bridges, the Kaiser property, and the SRCT. There are remnants of past shoreline modifications and uses along the SRCT in this river segment. Old mill stones from the Inland Paper Company have been placed along the SRCT where it crosses under the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. A roof has been constructed under the bridge to protect users of the trail. There are a series of concrete piers next to the SRCT between Mirabeau Point and the Sullivan Road Bridge. One pier is located directly across the river from an old brick manhole on the northern shore. Three more concrete piers are located a couple hundred feet downstream. Kaiser's modifications to the shoreline are mainly associated with the withdrawal and discharge of process water. Kaiser maintains and operates a river pumping station. This facility is equipped with three pumps and is located on the water's edge directly across from the rock outcropping at Mirabeau Point. Kaiser has also recently completed restoration of the shoreline at the location of its discharge pipe. Restoration included remediation of contaminated soils, revegetation, and slope stabilization of the drainage channel where the discharge pipe is located. A rock wall was also constructed near the OHWM, parallel to the river, at the base of this draw. 40 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Shoreline modifications associated with the SRCT are paving and retaining walls. The majority of these retaining walls in this segment are wood structures, erected for erosion control at the many informal river access points. The SRCT is supported by a retaining wall where it goes underneath the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. Shoreline modifications associated with the river crossings are chiefly the bridge piers and retaining walls on the river bank. There are three remaining piers from an old bridge. This bridge was situated between the present Trent Avenue Bridge and the BNSF Railroad Bridge. Two of these piers are at the water's edge and the third sits atop the bluff on the east side of the Spokane River. There is also the remains of a dirt road, which extends to the water's edge on the north east corner of the Sullivan Road Bridge Utilities There are remnants of and current utilities present throughout this segment. These utilities are situated parallel and perpendicular to the Spokane River. Buried fiber optics and utility vaults are situated along the SRCT. The Yellowstone gas line crosses the river between the Trent Avenue Bridge and the BNSF Railroad Bridge. Two drinking fountains are found along the SRCT. All utilities cross the river on bridges. A 24 -inch cased sewer line crosses the river under the Sullivan Road Bridge. The sewer line goes under the SRCT at the south end of the bridge. The fencing around the sewer line on the north side blocks pedestrian access underneath the bridge. The BNSF Railroad Bridge has a six -inch casing attached to its south side. It is not known what utility type this is. The Trent Avenue Bridge has three four -inch casings and a six -inch casing attached under the south side, as well as an eight -inch casing under the eastbound lane. A 12 -inch casing extends a quarter of the span from west to east under the west bound lanes. Overhead power crosses the Spokane River in four places within this river segment. There are two crossings immediately upstream of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. Power lines cross the river between the Trent Avenue Bridge and the BNSF Railroad Bridge, and another crossing is located just downstream of the Trent Avenue Bridge. Two bioswales providing stormwater treatment for the Spokane Valley Mall are located within the shoreline jurisdiction. The eastern Swale has four drywells and no dry wells were observed in the western swale. Note that the western swale is equipped with an irrigation system. An outfall structure is present along the upstream side of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge on the north bank. This outfall consists of a suspended iron pipe, which disappears into a CMP standpipe near the OHWM. The pipe reemerges in the river channel below the water line. The structure appears to be abandoned, its use is unknown. A brick manhole was observed on the north bank downstream of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. This structure is approximately six feet in height and appears to have been part of the abandoned Industrial Park Treatment plant. The discharge pipe was not located. On the Kaiser Aluminum property an old drainage channel was located. An outlet structure consisting of a 30 -inch culvert and a broad crested weir was contained within the channel. The culvert extends to the water's edge. The channel and drainage structures appear to be abandoned. However, a minor amount of flow was observed discharging to the river from the culvert. A ten -inch culvert was observed on the west side of Kaiser's pump house. A drywell inlet was also noted in the concrete to the west side of the pump house near this culvert. Kaiser's treatment pond is located just outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Several monitoring wells were observed between the effluent pond and the Spokane River. The outfall is located in a drainage channel west of the effluent pond. The outfall extends under water to mid channel. An effluent irrigation 41 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] vault is located on the south side of the outfall. This vault is used to irrigate the new vegetation of the drainage channel. The only drainage structures along the SRCT occur between the BNSF Railroad Bridge and the Trent Avenue Bridge. The retaining wall at the west end of the BNSF Railroad Bridge has a drainage system built behind it. This drainage system discharges to the SRCT where it sheet flows across and to the river. A catch basin has been installed in the SRCT where an old road intersects the trail from the BNSF Railroad right of way. The catch basin has been installed to intercept drainage from this road. A culvert extends from the catch basin and discharges onto a steep slope to the river. Environmental Portions of the Kaiser Property and the industrial areas downstream of Sullivan Bridge are noted as having contaminated soils per Ecology records. Cultural /Archeological Resources The WISSARD database identified more than 10 known sites throughout SR -2. None of the sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 5.1.2.2 SR -2 Physical and Biological Characterization The river substrate in this segment is characterized by large cobbles and boulders with little sediment accretion. The channel in SR -2 is moderately sinuous and moderately to highly entrenched with little active floodplain beyond the OHWM. An exception to this was noted along the northern shoreline, south of Kaiser Aluminum. Hydraulics and Water Quality The current in SR -2 is generally swift. The channel morphology is dominated by long rapids but SR -2 contains more and deeper pools that were observed in SR -1. Boulders line the river edge and are uniquely abundant along the northern shoreline south of Kaiser Aluminum. These boulders provide a great deal of energy dissipation and shoreline stabilization. The channel gradient is both vertically and laterally stable. Large woody debris is lacking, but the boulders along the shoreline diminish hydraulic shear stress sufficient to protect banks. Biological Resources and Vegetation Rainbow trout spawning surveys conducted by Parametrix in 2003 for the Avista relicensing effort documented radio - tagged trout and spawning areas (redds) within this study segment. Due to the aquifer discharging cool water into the stream, SR -2 provides important cold water refugia for fish downstream of Sullivan Road Bridge. Seven redds were documented around Sullivan Bridge (RM 87.2) during the 2003 surveys. Wildlife noted within SR -2 during fieldwork associated with the 2005 PFC study includes Canada geese, mourning doves, chipmunks, magpies, red - tailed hawk, red - winged blackbird, as well as beaver activity, which was indicated by girdled cottonwoods. (SCCD 2005). In addition, an employee of Kaiser Aluminum found elk within the gated water intake facility more than once. Other than the fence around the water intake facility, SR -2 contains a fairly continuous narrow band of riparian forest or shrub habitat along both banks of the river, which provides a functioning wildlife corridor for species requiring cover. A unique community of mature western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) was located on the right bank of the Spokane River at RM 86.9, intermixed with ponderosa pine and black cottonwood. This was the only community of juniper in a riparian area noted for the entire county in the PFC Study (SCCD 2005). Due to the mature tree forms, they provide important habitat for cavity- nesting birds. In addition, the TDC 42 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Washington Natural Heritage Program maps unique /uncommon ponderosa pine plant associations along the upper periphery of the shoreline area through the Mirabeau Point Park. The following plant associations were observed within SR -2 (plant codes reference Table 5 -1): Table 5-10: Habitat Analysis SR -10 Plant Association Area (acres) Percent of Total Developed/Landscaped 8.86 4% Native Bunch rass Prairie 1.55 1% Non - native Grassland 53.26 25% Mock orange/smooth sumac 2.38 1% Ponderosa pine/serviceberry 106.06 49% Ponderosa pine/ black hawthome 10.14 5% Ponderosa pine/ western juni er 3.48 2 ° io Ponderosa pine/ mallow nine -bark 6.24 3% Black cottonwood 0.51 0% Black cottonwood/ serviceberry 7.03 3% Black cottonwood/ common chokecherry 7.50 3% Black cottonwood/ coyote willow 0.09 0% Coyote willow 10.01 5% Based on Table 5 -10, the dominant forest cover within SR -2 is a ponderosa pine /serviceberry community. This community is generally located along the southern shoreline in long, often fragmented stands, occasionally with multiple age classes present within a given stand. Stands are generally fragmented by clearings associated with camping or historic shoreline disturbance. A very narrow band of alternating black cottonwood and ponderosa pine forests are present along the northern shoreline. This corridor is thin but fairly continuous between Trent and the Kaiser Plant. East of the Kaiser plant the riparian corridor is very thin and occasionally absent. Based on Table 5 -1, forest habitat along the southern shoreline is likely to provide important foraging and cover functions for most of the fish and wildlife present within the river corridor. The cottonwood forests along the northern shoreline provide slope stabilization, insect production for birds and fish, and a thin /inadequate corridor for migratory wildlife. The vegetation inventory included as Appendix C found that, though there was a high degree of variability between sample plots, native vegetation cover within SR -2 averaged 33% in the flooded zone, 57% in the riparian zone, and 65% in the upland zone. The large extent and continuous nature of the plant associations present within SR -2 indicate that this river segment provides a relatively important, functional migration corridor for wildlife. Additionally, the presence of snags and mature trees, including junipers, adjacent to the large prairie areas along the northern shoreline provide important hunting and foraging habitat for raptors. This use is augmented by the relatively low human presence relative to the southern shoreline. 43 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 5.1.2.3 SR -2 Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation The following characterization of baseline ecological conditions is based on the Proper Functioning Condition Study conducted by SCCD in 2005. This ecological baseline will be used to measure changes over time as the City works to achieve the No Net Loss of Ecological Functions goal (per WAC 173 -26- 186(8)). Ecological Baseline This river study segment spans portions of two relatively similar river reaches classified by SCCD in the 2005 PFC study (Figure 5 -2). SCCD Reach 5 begins just east of Flora Road and continues downstream to the Mirabeau Point Park, near the water intake facility for Kaiser Aluminum. SCCD Reach 6 continues from this point downstream into URS river study segment 3. Both reaches were rated as being in Proper Functioning Condition. Reach 5 was rated as being in "fair- good" ecological condition, which Reach 6 was rated as "poor- fair" ecological condition, a rating that does not correlate well with the determination of "high quality area" throughout this reach. High Quality Conservation Areas The entire portion of riparian vegetation with SR -2 was noted as high quality shoreline in the PFC study (SCCD 2005). The high quality determination was based upon large, intact areas of cottonwoods, ponderosa pine, willow, serviceberry, chokecherry, recreational floating, and rainbow trout spawning. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration The 2005 PFC study ranked restoration potential as "low" for most of the SR -2, despite noting that "The majority of this reach lacks adequate riparian vegetation due to development and parks, particularly on the right [north] bank" (SCCD 2005). . URS observed degraded areas along both banks that would provide opportunities for enhancement of the riparian corridor. Along the south bank several small gaps within the woody riparian vegetation corridor were observed due to human disturbance. These areas also generally correlate with a high density of non- native /invasive vegetation. The disturbances appear to be recreational in nature and are associated with off -road vehicle use, camping, and gathering locations. Large riparian corridor gaps exist along the northern shoreline as a function of steep slopes and xeric soil conditions. Above the areas influenced by groundwater, large woody vegetation has a difficult time establishing due to low water availability and depth to groundwater. Provision of an adequate riparian corridor, would require the installation of trees along the river edge. The establishment of riparian trees would likely require watering or custom -grown container stock to get plant roots in touch with moisture deep below the surface. Once established, the trees could create a microclimate that fosters further seral development. Beyond the forest corridor, areas along the northern ridge may be more appropriate for native prairie restoration or xeric shrub communities. 44 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Ecological Recommendations Table 5 -11 provides a summary of ecological issues relevant to the selection of an appropriate shoreline designation and to the goal of achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Table 5 -11: Summary of Ecological Issues SR -2 Ecological Issues Local Stressors Recommendations Recreational off -road traffic, Conserve /protect existing forest areas. Expand camping narrow bands of vegetation along the north bank Woody Cover and fill in gaps along the south bank. Plant tall tree species south of spawning areas and pools for shade. Concentrated flow from SRCT Incorporate bioengineering concepts into Erosion (minor) resulting in isolated bank maintenance of affected shoreline areas for erosion visual and ecological benefits. Non - native herbaceous cover, Encourage landscaping with native plants. Invasive vegetation particularly in upland areas Control spread of knapweed. Support native herbaceous restoration projects Scarcity The mature juniper community located along Rare habitat the north bank should be protected against tree removal. Smallmouth bass competition Protect cold water refugia by restricting Non - native fish vegetation removal. Limit fishing of native trout. Avoid in -water activities near known spawning areas. Flora Road Metal Site Ensure that clean up efforts are monitored and Contamination that replaced bed /shoreline cap materials are appropriate size for the local hydrologic re ime. Fence around Kaiser's water Land Use Conflicts intake facility is fenced off Provide tunnel or walkway around facility resulting in wildlife barrier 5.1.3 Spokane River Study Segment 3- Trent Avenue to Millwood Town Limits Spokane River Study Segment 3 (SR -3) includes the south side of the River from Trent Avenue (RM 853) to the Town of Millwood (RM 83.5). Segment 3 is approximately 1.8 miles long and includes a total area of 43.4 acres of shoreland within the SMP jurisdiction. It also includes a small segment of shoreline on the north side of the river between Trent Avenue and the city limits. This portion of the river is characterized by medium density, rapidly developing residential areas west of Myrtle Point and parks & open space east of the Myrtle Point. It has gaining hydraulics due to positive discharge from the aquifer, deeper water, and reduced flow velocity due to its proximity to Upriver Dam. The west end of SR -3 contains unique and visually interesting rocks formations in the channel. These rocks provide unique habitats for plants above the waterline as well as fish within the river. The Coyote Rock development will alter current shoreline conditions west of Myrtle Point by introducing additional foot traffic, runoff from impervious areas, docks, and associated shoreline access development. Vi ! 45 5.1.3.1 SR -3 Land Use Summary The City Comprehensive Plan shows that the land use within this river segment is composed of Parks /Open Space and Mixed Use. The zoning within this river segment is Parks /Open Space and Mixed Use. The land within the shoreline jurisdiction in this river segment is primarily open space, but less than the river segments upstream. The center of the Spokane River channel is the City boundary for the majority of this segment. The Coyote Rock development is private and is located in the western portion of this river segment. The SRCT crosses the river at RM 84.5. Tables 5 -12 and 5 -13 show the land use and zoning within this river segment. Table 5 -12: Land Use SR -3 Land Use Area (acres) Percent of Total Railroad ROW 0.4 1.0 Mixed Use 17.6 40.5 Parks/Open Space 25.4 58.5 Table 5 -13: Zoning SR -3 Zoning Area (acres) Percent of Total Public ROW 0.4 1.0 Mixed Use 17.6 40.5 Parks/Open Space 25.4 58.5 46 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Table 5 -14 provides a summary of the built structures, impervious surfaces, and development intensity within the shoreline jurisdiction for this river segment. Table 5 -14: Built Environment Features Area (acres) Percent of Total Rooftops 0.0 0 Pavement 0.7 1.6 Gravel Surfacing 6.8 15.7 Total Impervious 7.5 17.3 Recreational Use and Access The SRCT is accessed from Plante's Ferry, located on the north bank of the river outside of the City, and at an informal gravel lot located at the northwest corner of the Trent Avenue Bridge. Limited, infonnal parking may be available at the Coyote Rock development, though it appears that public use will be restricted. The City's Myrtle Point Conservation Area is located upstream of the SRCT Bridge. According to the Audubon Society this area provides excellent habitat for many important bird populations due its habitat diversity. This area is extensively used for recreational activities since it is along the SRCT, the shoreline is relatively flat and sandy, and the basalt outcroppings and small coves provide a popular area used for swimming and angling. An access point for boaters has been discussed with various groups during the inventory. The need for a boat take -out has been suggested at Coyote Rocks, Myrtle Point, or Plante's Ferry. A location is under discussion but has not been decided on. Transportation An abandoned portion of the Inland Empire Paper Company (IEPC) Railroad tracks are within the shoreline jurisdiction downstream of the Trent Avenue Bridge. Portions of Coyote Rock Road are also within the shoreline jurisdiction. The SRCT Bridge is located near the Coyote Rock Development. Shoreline Modifications The SRCT and the SRCT Bridge have modified the shoreline in this area. The preliminary development of Coyote Rock has resulted in the removal of vegetation, construction of roads, building lots, and utilities. No homes were constructed at the time of the inventory but it is anticipated that this development will be built out in the near future. Approximately 31 lots have direct access to the river. Development covenants provide for protection of the existing 75 foot shoreline buffer. Individual lot river access and docks are allowed in the development. A variety of permits will be needed if the individual lots develop river access through the protected shoreline buffer. Due to potential impacts on the river environment, the shoreline environment, the lack of public access and cumulative impacts to the shoreline plant communities and habitats it has been indicated that that permitting agencies will require a high level of analysis prior to approving permit applications for docks and shoreline alterations needed to access them. The southern shore line across from Plante's Ferry Park is a flat bluff just above the OHWM. Several piers of river rock cemented together were observed in this area. The orientation of these structures is random and it is uncertain what they were used for. A few hundred feet downriver lay three concrete piers in a line parallel with the river. The two outer piers are equipped with steel hoops oriented towards the center pier. A large concrete pad is located west of these three piers. This pad is equipped with a large steel hoop directly inline with the center pier. 47 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] An old concrete structure was observed on the shoreline immediately downstream of the basalt outcroppings. This structure has three concrete walls parallel to the river on top of a concrete pad. Its use is unknown. On the bluff above this area was located the International Portland Cement Plant. Documentation indicates that this entire area was covered with cement dust when the plant was operating. It was closed in the early 1970s. Work is currently being done by others to better characterize the environmental impacts to the area from the cement plant. Utilities Overhead power crosses the river at three locations in this river segment. A 12 -inch culvert from the cement factory discharges to a 12 -inch culvert under the SRCT and then down an eroded gulley to the Spokane River. The Coyote Rock development has full utilities including sewer. A lift station has been constructed just outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. One foundation and daylight basement had been constructed at the time of the inventory. Environmental The Myrtle Point and Islands Lagoon metals clean up sites are both located within SR -3 (Ecology 2009). Remediation of these two sites was slated for 2009 by Ecology but has been delayed. Currently, characterization of the sites is being done in order to develop remediation plans. Depending on the direction that the cleanup takes, there is the potential to provide improvements to the shorelines for ecological function and /or public access. Cultural /Archeological Resources The WISAARD database identified several known sites throughout SR -3, including several around the railroad and the historic Plante's Ferry. None of the sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 5.1.3.2 SR -3 Physical and Biological Characterization The river channel contains a series of rapids with shallow pools. The stream bed is primarily composed of cobble and large gravels with fines beginning to drop out of the water column at the west end of SR -3 due to the decreasing flow rate associated with the Upriver Dam located west of town. Myrtle Point creates a large meander in the stream that dissipates flow energy and results in eddies and some associated erosion at the tail end of the river bend. Bedrock outcrops and large boulders characterize SR- 3. The streambanks along the south side of the river (excluding the outcrops) are composed of unconsolidated, in- cohesive materials that are easily eroded but large boulders along the river edge provide sufficient energy deflection /dissipation to avoid significant bank erosion. Hydraulics and Water Quality The current is generally swift around Myrtle Point but slows at the west end of SR -3 as flow energy is dissipated by the in- stream rock outcrops and the backwater of Upriver Dam. The 2005 PFC study indicates that the channel is vertically and laterally stable. Large woody debris is lacking, but the rock outcrops within the channel provide complex stream hydraulics and associated habitats. Biological Resources and Vegetation Rainbow trout spawning surveys conducted by Parametrix in 2003 for the Avista relicensing effort documented radio - tagged trout and spawning areas (redds) within this study segment. Thirteen redds were documented around the SRCT Bridge (RM 84.2) during the 2003 surveys. 48 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Wildlife noted within SR -3 during fieldwork associated with the 2005 PFC study includes mourning doves, chipmunks, magpies, red - tailed hawk, red - winged blackbird, and beaver, which was indicated by girdled cottonwoods (SCCD 2005). The rock outcrops between the SRCT Bridge and Myrtle Point provide unique habitat for neotropical songbirds resulting in high concentrations there. The PHS database identifies cliff habitat northwest of Myrtle Point, outside of the City on the north side of the river. Cliff - dwelling bats and birds are likely to use the river and riparian habitats in SR -3 for hunting and foraging. Few migration barriers exist throughout SR -3. The following plant associations were observed within SR -3 (plant codes reference Table 5 -1): Table 5 -15: Habitat Analysis Plant Association Area (acres) Percent of Total Black haw serviceberry- mallow nine - bark 1.68 3% Developed/Landscaped 10.07 20% Native Bunch rass Prairie 1.38 3% Non - native Grassland 7.19 14% Ponderosa pine/ black havdhome 16.00 32% Black cottonwood 0.24 0% Black cottonwood/ black haxvthome 5.92 12% Black cottonwood/ co ote willow 4.36 9% Douglas fir/ bitter cherry 1.92 4% coyote willow 1.25 3% The dominant plant association within SR -3 is Ponderosa pine /black hawthome. This community is generally located along the southern shoreline in long, often fragmented stands above the river banks. Near the Trent Street Bridge, there is a mature stand of PIPO /CRDO. Northwest of this stand the corridor transitions into degraded non - native herbaceous vegetation with young pine saplings establishing. A remnant patch of native herbaceous prairie vegetation was noted within this degraded habitat. This patch is noted as "Native Bunchgrass Prairie" in the table above. High quality shrub habitat (CRDO -AMAL- PHMA) was noted continuously along the lower streambanks. Black cottonwoods dominate the habitat at the north end of Myrtle Point and along the lower shoreline to the west. The vegetation inventory included as Appendix C found that, although there was a high degree of variability between sample plots, native vegetation cover within SR -3 averaged 54% in the flooded zone, 76% in the riparian zone, and 17% in the upland zone. A functioning wildlife corridor exists within SR -3 between Trent Ave. and River Mile 84. This habitat was noted as high bird value habitat by Audubon experts. West of River Mile 84, the shoreline has been affected by past transportation corridors and ongoing residential development. Specifically, the area contains debris piles, cleared areas, fill slopes, and a linear abandoned road corridor that is dominated by non - native trees and herbs. Although not noted as "rare" by any state databases, the rock outcroppings west of Myrtle Point were noted to support edaphic vegetation that was not seen elsewhere in the study area. This includes buckwheat, lomatium, and sedum plants. 49 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Where the shoreline extends west of the City boundary, it appears that a Douglas fir forest community provides cover for species migrating west into Millwood. 5.1.3.3 SR -3 Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation The following characterization of baseline ecological conditions is based on the Proper Functioning Condition Study conducted by SCCD in 2005. This ecological baseline will be used to measure changes over time as the City works to achieve the No Net Loss of Ecological Functions goal (per WAC 173 -26- 186(8)). Ecological Baseline River study segment 3 includes the majority of Spokane River Reach 6 as classified by SCCD in the 2005 PFC study. SCCD Reach 6 begins at Mirabeau Point and continues west /downstream to the approximate City of Spokane Valley /Millwood boundary. SCCD Reach 6 was rated as being in Proper Functioning Condition but it was given a "poor- fair" ecological condition rating, presumably due to lack of adequate riparian vegetation around Plante's Ferry Park (north of the City) and the Coyote Rock area. High Quality Conservation Areas Portions of SR -3 around Myrtle Point, the SRCT Bridge, and areas in- between were noted as high quality shoreline in the PFC study (SCCD 2005). The high quality determination was based upon large, intact areas of Douglas fir, mature cottonwoods, hawthorn, willows, chokecherry, serviceberry, Plante's Ferry Park, recreational floating, and rainbow trout spawning. URS noted a stand of mature pine trees just north of Trent Avenue, between SRCT and the river that provides high quality forest habitat as well as shade for pools within the river along the southern shoreline. URS also noted a small patch of native blue bunchgrass prairie with a high diversity of native forbs worthy of conservation and possible expansion. This small patch may be a good location for seed collection associated with upland prairie restoration projects. URS also noted an area of slow- moving water and side - channel habitat associated with the eddy west of Myrtle Point. This area is likely to provide slow water refugia for fish when the river is at flood stage. Also, URS noted uncommon edaphic vegetation growing on the rock outcrops within the channel east of the SRCT Bridge. This vegetation is sensitive and easily disturbed by rock climbing, which appears to be a common recreational activity in the area. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration The 2005 PFC study ranked restoration potential as "fair to good" for SR -3, which fully contains SCCD Reach 6. URS observed two degraded areas that would provide opportunities for enhancement of the riparian corridor within SR -3. One area is associated with historic shoreline disturbance that is evident between Trent Avenue and the Mirabeau Conservation Area. Disturbance includes concrete debris piles and cleared riparian vegetation areas east of a former industrial site. Areas east of this disturbed area were identified as high value bird habitat by the local Audubon Society. A second degraded area was noted west of the SRCT Bridge, below the Coyote Rock housing development. This area is associated with an old road that has provided a vector for the spread of non- native herbaceous and woody plants. This area is likely to be highly impacted by forthcoming development associated with docks and /or other shoreline access features. This presents an opportunity to grant minor shoreline development permits with conditions specifying restoration of the old road to a native corridor and, thereby, balance future development with restoration of degraded areas to achieve the goal of "no net loss of shoreline ecological functions." Vi ! 50 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Recommendations Table 5 -16 provides a summary of ecological issues relevant to the selection of an appropriate shoreline designation and to the goal of achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Table 5 -16: Summary of Ecological Issues SR -3 Ecological Issues Local Stressors Recommendations Conserve /protect existing forest areas and native prairie remnants. Expand narrow bands Recreational off -road traffic, of vegetation along the south bank east of Woody Cover camping, forthcoming Myrtle Point. Plant tall tree species south of development spawning areas for shade. Condition development applications with riparian enhancement specifications for all new shoreline development proposals Concentrated flow from SRCT Incorporate bioengineering concepts into Erosion (minor) resulting in isolated bank maintenance of affected shoreline areas for erosion visual and ecological benefits. Non - native herbaceous cover, Encourage landscaping with native plants. Invasive vegetation particularly in herbaceous Control spread of knapweed. Support native upland areas herbaceous restoration pro Warm summertime stream Protect cold water refugia by restricting Diminishing native temperatures, low dissolved vegetation removal. Limit fishing of native fish stocks oxygen, competition from trout. Avoid in -water activities near known smallmouth bass, adjacent land spawning areas, particularly during spawning development, recreational use. periods. Ensure that clean up efforts are monitored and Contamination Flora Road Metal Site that replaced bed /shoreline cap materials are appropriate size for the local hydrologic re ime. Fence around Kaiser's water Land Use Conflicts intake facility is fenced off Provide tunnel or walkway around facility resulting in wildlife barrier 5.1.4 Segment 4 Millwood City Limits to Spokane City Limits Spokane River Segment 4 (SR -4) includes only the south side of the river from the Town of Millwood boundary (RM 82.1) to the City of Spokane boundary (RM 81.6). Segment 4 is approximately 0.5 miles long and includes a total area of 11.8 acres of shoreland within the SMP jurisdiction. The land within the shoreline jurisdiction in this river segment is fully developed and private property extends to the OHWM. This area is entirely within the backwater of Upriver Dam. V i� 51 5.1 A.1 SR- 4 Land Use Summary The City Comprehensive Plan shows that the land use within this river segment is composed solely of Low Density Residential and is zoned as Single Family Residential. There appear three empty lots in this segment but the majority of this area is developed as single family residential with landscaped lawns. Many of the lots have bulkheads and docks. Tables 5 -17 and 5 -18 show the land use and zoning within this river segment. Table 5 -17: Land Use SR -4 Table 5 -18: Zoning SR -4 Area Percent Land Use (acres of Total Low Density Residential 1 11.8 1 100% Table 5 -18: Zoning SR -4 The City Comprehensive Plan shows that the land use within this river segment is composed solely of Low Density Residential and is zoned as Single Family Residential. Vi ! 52 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Area Percent Zoning (acres) of Total R -2 (10,000 sf lots) 1 11.8 100% The City Comprehensive Plan shows that the land use within this river segment is composed solely of Low Density Residential and is zoned as Single Family Residential. Vi ! 52 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Table 5 -19 provides a summary of the built structures, impervious surfaces, and development intensity within the shoreline jurisdiction for this river segment. Table 5 -19: Built Environment SR -4 Features Area (acres) Percent of Total Rooftops 1.6 13.6 Pavement 0.6 5.1 Gravel Surfacing 03 2.5 Total Impervious 2.5 21.1 Recreational Use and Access Access to the Spokane River is through private property. Public access to the river is limited. This river segment is within the backwater of the Upriver. It is understood that the City of Spokane opens up the one boat ramp located near Upriver Dain twice a year so that residents can launch their boats in the summer and remove them in the fall. Transportation Portions of South Riverway Drive are within the shoreline jurisdiction. There are no bridges over the river within this river segment. On the north side of the river, outside the city jurisdiction is Boulder Beach, a popular swimming area. Shoreline Modifications The shoreline has been fully modified by residential development within this river segment. These modifications include the construction of bulkheads at the OHWM, landscaping, and docks. There are approximately 20 houses along the shoreline in this river segment. Utilities Portions of South Riverway are located within the shoreline jurisdiction. There may be utilities located within this ROW. Environmental There are no reported environmental sites in this segment. 5.1.4.2 SR -4 Physical, Biological, and Archeological Characterization The stream bed materials are unknown as they are buried by sediment captured behind the dam. Streambanks, where not armored, consist of landscaped turf grass or ornamental landscaping on erodible soils. The stream channel is deeply entrenched and surrounded by bedrock outcrops, large boulder deposits, or bank annoring. Hydraulics and Water Quality Within SR -4, the river channel is backwatered by the Upriver HED. As a result, flow is minimal, water is deep, and most of the hydraulic forces exist as wave action upon the banks. The channel is both vertically and laterally stable (unlikely to migrate up or down, north or south). Flatwater areas behind the dam are subject to wake action from boating activities. Lots without adequate vegetation are suffering from streambank erosion. Biological Resources and Vegetation No rainbow trout spawning areas were observed by Parametrix in 2003 during their spawning surveys for the Avista relicensing effort. Trout populations are minimal to non - existent within this reach due to the Vi ! 53 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] hydraulics and low dissolved oxygen. Local anglers report little to no fish within the backwater area behind Upriver Dam. Due to the deep water characteristics of SR -4, the river is most notably used for wintering waterfowl habitat by ducks, geese, and great blue heron. When other local lakes and waterbodies freeze, the river in SR -4 provides important, unfrozen surface water habitat for waterfowl. No native plant associations were observed in SR -4. Aside from a few cottonwoods, observed vegetation included landscaped ornamental plants, turf grass, or non - native, feral plant assemblages. Cultural /Archeological Resources The WISSARD database did not identify any sites within SR -4, likely because this area was not surveyed for the SRCT project. 5.1.4.3 SR -4 Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation Ecological Baseline River study segment 4 includes a small portion of Spokane River Reach 7 as classified by SCCD in the 2005 PFC study. SCCD Reach 7 was rated "functional -at -risk" due to the abundance of shoreline modifications /armoring and the lack of native riparian vegetation. The SCCD rated the ecological condition in Reach 7 as poor to fair habitat. These ratings are consistent with the conditions noted within SR -4 (a small portion of SCCD Reach 7). High Quality Conservation Areas No portion of SR -4 was noted as high quality conservation area. However, due to the wintering waterfowl habitat provided by the open water portion of SR -4, it does provide a regionally important function during times when other waterbodies freeze. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration The 2005 PFC study ranked restoration potential as "poor to fair" for SCCD Reach 7, which fully contains SR -4. Shorelands within SR -4 have poor restoration potential because they are fully developed. Due to the low fish presence within SR -4, aquatic habitat improvements are not likely to benefit fish populations. Recommendations The following Table provides a summary of ecological issues relevant to the selection of an appropriate shoreline designation and to the goal of achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Table 5 -20: Summary of Ecological Issues SR -4 Ecological Issues Local Stressors Recommendations Encourage shoreline residents to plant native shrub and tree species along the shoreline. Riparian Vegetation Residential development and Condition new shoreline (re)development Condition ornamental landscaping permits with riparian enhancement specifications for all new shoreline development ro osals (docks, remodels, etc.) Waterfowl Habitat Motorboats Limit motor traffic during early spring and late fall/winter. Local Residential herbicides and Encourage shoreline residents to avoid use of Contamination fertilizers chemical herbicides and fertilizers as these drain directly- into the river. V! 54 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 5.2 Shelley Lake Shelley Lake is a natural lake that is privately owned and managed by the Shelley Lake HOA. The lake is located south of Sprague Avenue between Barker and Sullivan Roads. Shelley has a shoreline length of 2.12 miles and includes 28.7 acres of land within the shoreline jurisdiction. The lake receives water seasonally from Saltese Creek and loses water by infiltration and evaporation. As a result, lake levels fluctuate. a Iota � � rs�,r �SRF t� ' r r• s ■ • r per ... ; Gravel PON ` Tr ter t4T.H AVE + vTN •r •armor AVE IL _ •`�; ark a ntral Vall" � � C29 Sew N b Bch 5.2.1 Land Use Summary i� ,r N E 5 Figure 5 -6: Shelley Lake City of Spokane Valley I1 0 5110 1.GU0 Fzet ITRS The land use around Shelley Lake is low density residential and is zoned R -3. R -3 zoning allows for 7,500 square foot lots. The entire lake shore is built out with the exception of the granite outcrop on the east side of the lake, where only one home is located. There is a potential for additional development on the east side of the lake. The area immediately around the lake is designated a common area and contains a paved pedestrian trail. Tables 5 -21 and 5 -22 show the land use and zoning within this river segment. Table 5 -21: Land Use Shellev Lake Area Percent Legend Wetland Inventory • • • O' w !' =City Limns s - SMA Boudary 100 5.2.1 Land Use Summary i� ,r N E 5 Figure 5 -6: Shelley Lake City of Spokane Valley I1 0 5110 1.GU0 Fzet ITRS The land use around Shelley Lake is low density residential and is zoned R -3. R -3 zoning allows for 7,500 square foot lots. The entire lake shore is built out with the exception of the granite outcrop on the east side of the lake, where only one home is located. There is a potential for additional development on the east side of the lake. The area immediately around the lake is designated a common area and contains a paved pedestrian trail. Tables 5 -21 and 5 -22 show the land use and zoning within this river segment. Table 5 -21: Land Use Shellev Lake Table 5 -22: Zoning Shellev Lake Zoning Area Percent Land Use (acres) I of Total Low Density Residential 1 28.7 100 Table 5 -22: Zoning Shellev Lake Zoning Area (acres ) of Total R -3 (7,500 sf lots) 28.7 100 55 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Table 5 -23 provides a summary of the built structures, impervious surfaces, and development intensity within the shoreline jurisdiction for this river segment. Table 5 -23: Built Environment Shelley Lake Features Area (acres) Percent of Total Rooftops 3.7 43 Pavement 4.6 53 Gravel Surfacing 0.4 4.0 Total Impervious 8.7 100 Recreational Use and Access Access to Shelley Lake is limited to residents and guests. The development covenants state specifically that the public has no right to use the lake. A paved pedestrian trail has been constructed around the lake in the common area. The trail is dirt and gravel on the west side along the granite outcropping. The trail includes benches and mooring areas for non - motorized boats. The lake and trail are used by residents for walking, observing wildlife and birds, fishing, and non - motorized boating. Transportation Residential collector streets are located with the shoreline jurisdiction. The streets are separated from the lake by single family residences and the common area. Drainage from the streets flows to bioswales for treatment. While the roadways are located within the shoreline jurisdiction, they do not directly impact the lake shore. There are two paved access paths to the lake. Shoreline Modifications Shoreline modifications within the common area include the paved trail around the lake, benches, three boat mooring areas, the culvert crossing/bridge at the lake inlet, and an irrigation system that covers most of the north and west shoreline. Most areas of the developed shoreline have steep gravely banks. The shoreline jurisdiction also includes many of the residential lots and some of the residential streets area. Extensive modifications to these upland areas have been made in the form of houses, landscaping, driveways, and utilities. Based on our understanding of the environment prior to the development, it is difficult to determine if the development has reduced or increased conditions for vegetation and habitat improvements. Utilities All utilities serving Shelley Lake Estates are underground and include: sanitary sewers owned by Spokane County, water service by Vera Water and Power, electric and natural gas by Avista Utilities, communications by Comcast Cable, AT &T Residential, and Qwest Residential. Environmental According to Ecology's database, there are no locations of concern at Shelley Lak e quality impairment listings on the 303(d) list. However, lake water quality is summer months. There are many factors contributing to the poor water quality, water quantity. Two wells are listed in the Ecology well database within the development. . There are no water degraded during the including insufficient Vi ! 56 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Cultural /Archeological Resources No sites on either the local or state registers or the NRHP are contained within the shoreline buffer. Archaeological information may be obtained through the State Historic Preservation Office. There is a possibility of uncovering archeological resources along the shorelines of Shelley Lake. 5.2.1.1 Shelley Lake Physical and Biological Characterization Excluding the granite outcrops and the Saltese Creek inlet areas, most of the shoreline is characterized by steep, gravely unvegetated banks. Shelley Lake is located over the SVRP aquifer. The lake was possibly formed as a scour hole during the Missoula floods related to the granite exposure on the east shore. Soils in the area are Garrison gravelly loams, which are free draining. However, the bottom of the lake is sealed, possibly due to fine grained sediments (PBS &J, 2009). Based on a preliminary evaluation done as part of the Saltese Flats Wetland Restoration Investigation, infiltration rates at Shelley Lake are estimated at an average value of 10 cfs. The calculated infiltration rate is much lower than found in the gravels of the SVRP aquifer. Hydraulics Annual flow to Shelley Lake has been modeled at between 2,613 and 4,090 acre- feet/year (Kahle and Bartolino, 2007). Lake levels have been measured in 2007 through 2009 by the Shelley Lake HOA. Measured lake levels range between 2000.9 feet (December 2007), and 2017 feet (April 2009). The OHWM elevation was detennined to be 2013.7 feet by Ecology in 1993. Water generally flows into the lake from the spring melt, which is typically between mid -April through mid -June. Saltese creek is then blocked (dammed) by users along Saltese Flats. According to the Shelley Lake HOA the higher water level in 2008 created better conditions for fish and fauna and a decrease in algae and milfoil. The lake has an average depth of about 25 feet (ShelleyLake.org). Shelley Lake has no outlet, and the lake level varies through evaporation and infiltration through the lake bottom. To prevent flooding, the upper lake elevation is maintained by diverting high flows in Saltese Creek to the Steen Road Gravel Pit. The drainage area is approximately 15,000 acres (USGS, Streamstats) and includes the north side of Mica Peak and Saltese Flats (Figure 3 -2). The drainage area is located entirely within Washington State. Water Quality According to Ecology's database there are no locations of concern at Shelley Lake. There are no water quality impairment listings on the 303(d) list. However, lake water quality is degraded during the summer months. There are many factors contributing to the poor water quality, including insufficient water quantity. Two wells are listed in the Ecology well database within the development. A limited amount of water quality data is available for Shelley Lake. The SCCD has information on conductivity, pH and DO from July and August 2007 collected through a volunteer sampling program. Table 5 -24 summarizes this information. The lake is categorized as eutrophic (overly nutrient -rich) and likely phosphorous limited since large amounts of nitrogen are available from farming on the Saltese Flats (PBS &J, 2009). Vi ! 57 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Table 5 -24: Shelley Lake Water Quality Data Depth pH Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen Depth(meters) Temperature (meters) (µmhos /cm) mg /l Percent Secchi Total Air Water Jul -07 Surface 9.17 191.1 8.83 108.2 2 64 25 22.5 1 9.12 193.8 5.42 68 23.4 2 1 9.16 192.5 5.25 64.6 22.6 3 9.1 193.9 5.11 61.1 21 4 8.45 208.3 3.28 37.6 19.1 5 7.66 214 1.47 16.2 17.1 6 T42 219.4 1.25 13.7 17 Aug -07 Surface 8.8 202.1 9.2 104 1.8 6.2 30 22.8 1 8.8 203.3 5.4 62.2 23.9 2 8.93 201.6 5.27 61.1 23.5 3 1 8.85 198.9 5.15 59.3 23 4 8.32 209.3 4.09 46 21.7 5 7.76 230.4 2.01 1 22 20.4 6 7.17 251.7 1.42 1 15.4 19.8 Samples taken at 10:00 am each sample day. Water quality in the lake is impacted by activities along Saltese Flats and Saltese Creek, as well as lawn care practices in the residential lots adjacent to the lake. Stormwater runoff from roads is treated in bioswales and infiltrated into the ground. Stormwater runoff from the lake shore trail and yards drains directly into the lake. Due to the seasonal flow regime, fluctuating lake levels, and lack of inflow during the summer months maintaining lake water quality will be difficult. The EIS for Shelley Lake (Ramm, 1994) says that water quality in Shelley Lake had been degraded prior to the development of Shelley Lake Estates by upstream and possibly on -site agricultural activities, as well as peat mining on the Saltese Flats. Critical Areas The City of Spokane Valley maps the following critical areas around Shelley Lake: • Wetlands - associated with Saltese Creek at the southeast end of the lake • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (per PHS, below) • Critical aquifer recharge area (entire Spokane Valley) • Special flood hazard area (includes the lake, associated wetland and Saltese Creek) Priority Habitats & Species (PHS) Saltese Creek between the Saltese Flats and Shelley Lake is mapped as a riparian corridor by the WDFW. There are no records of any state endangered, threatened, sensitive plants, or high quality native plant communities. Biological Resources and Vegetation The 1994 EIS (Ramm) reported the following species as observed or evidence of their presence was observed: Ring necked and cinnamon teal ducks, great blue heron, red tailed hawk, pheasant, quail, flycatchers, killdeer, swallows, robins, flickers, kestrels, wrens, chickadees, great horned owl, field mice, voles, squirrels, marmots, turtles, skunks, large mouth bass and perch. The Shelley lake HOA lists TDC VAW 58 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Canadian geese, ducks, osprey, pheasant, quail, blue heron, white tail deer, marmots, rabbits, fish, frogs, turtles, and many other species as being present around the lake (ShelleyLake.org). Neighborhood sightings within the project area include hawk, owls, Oregon junco, magpies, meadowlark, hummingbirds, evening grosbeak, and rufous sided towhee. Shelley Lake does not support a significant fish population due to fluctuating water levels and poor water quality. The wetland area was not reported to contain nesting opportunities for waterfowl. The lake does receive use by migrant and resident waterfowl, mostly during the breading season (Ramm, 1994). The east side of the lake supports a ponderosa pine community along the granite exposure. The steep slopes and rocky areas also support native bunch grasses, perennial forbs, and small native shrubs. A seasonal wetland area in the northeast lake quadrant supports a stand of willows and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) as well as hawthome and wild rose shrubs. This wetland, while small in area, has healthy dense vegetation. The second seasonal wetland located along Saltese Creek contains fine grained soils also supports a variety of sedges, although they are small in number. The southerly wetland has a limited water supply in the summer and is seasonally dry. The rest of the lake shore is steep, but stable, and appears to be mostly gravels typical of the Garrison soil series. Three vegetation sample sites were established around the lake during the shoreline inventory. The sample plots showed a dominance of native species within the tree and shrub stratum and a dominance of non - native vegetation within the herbaceous stratum. Three non native Chinese elms are located along the trail and have the potential to spread and displace native vegetation. It is recommended that these trees be replaced with native or non - invasive trees. Cultural /Archeological Resources Neither the state register nor the NRHP identify historic resources within the SMP area around Shelley Lake. However, as with all areas around water bodies, there is a strong likelihood of uncovering historic resources along the shorelines of Shelley Lake. 5.2.1.2 Shelley Lake Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation Ecological Baseline Unlike the Spokane River, no proper functioning condition assessment was perfonned for the Shelley Lake shoreline areas. However, the following list provides a snapshot of the factors influencing the baseline ecological condition of the lake and surrounding shorelands. • Upland habitats east of the lake appear to be in fair condition and functioning adequately for forage and migration; riparian plant species diversity is relatively low and competition with non- native herbaceous communities is high. • The north, west, and south shorelines are completely developed and lack shade producing vegetation. • Flows and lake levels are seasonally variable with very low summer flow. Upstream land uses around Saltese Creek have been altered by forestry and agriculture and likely increase the degree of flow variability. Along this reach the floodplain appears to be functioning adequately and the creek appears to be vertically and laterally stable. • Large woody debris (LWD) was not observed in the lake or creek in sufficient amounts to create structured habitats. • Water quality is dependent upon stream flow. During summer periods low dissolved oxygen and high temperatures are the predominant water quality issue. Vi ! 59 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] • The Saltese Creek drainage basin collects pollutants such as sediment, deicing chemicals, animal wastes, oil and grease, heavy metals, pesticides, and fertilizers. These are carried down to the lake via seasonal flow. • The sediment regime is characterized by very high sediment loads during flood flows resulting in shoreline conditions that hinder establishment of native shoreline vegetation. The hydrology of the Saltese Flats /Shelley Lake system is typical for a western dryland environment. The hydrologic regime of the lake is not likely to have changed much since the Saltese Flats were drained for agricultural purposes. High spring flows fill the lake in a typical year. Evaporation and infiltration lower the water level throughout the summer. The lake level has been artificially maintained in years past from a nearby well. This may be an option in the future for improving summer time water quality. High Quality Conservation Areas The east side of the lake is a granite exposure that supports a ponderosa pine community. Due to the developed and unvegetated state of the remaining shoreline areas, this habitat provides important fish (shade) and wildlife habitat along the lake. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration Due to the lake's 16 -foot seasonal water level fluctuation, the steep, gravelly shorelines support little vegetation. The Shelley Lake HOA has been planting the shorelines with native plants, but has not had significant success. The lake inlet (south side) has an associated seasonal wetland that would benefit from shade and increased species richness. The small wetland area located on the north side of the granite exposure would benefit from the removal of reed canarygrass and replacement with native lakeshore sedges that better suit waterfowl. Prior to the development of Shelley Lake Estates, cattle grazing significantly disrupted native vegetation, and eliminated most of the high value habitat along the lake. Knapweed dominated much of the area. In 2007 the Shelley Lake HOA with assistance from SCCD, DOE, and WDFW began the multi -year "Shelley Lake Shoreline Habitat Enhancement Project." The project goal is to rehabilitate the shoreline with native grasses, shrubs, and trees to enhance native habitat while maintaining and enhancing the visual aspect of the lake for residents. In 2007 and 2008 the homeowners cleared noxious weeds from the shoreline and planted native plants. In 2009 high lake levels submerged and destroyed most of the plantings. As part of this project an irrigation system was installed along the paved trail. The Shelley Lake HOA is continuing to pursue establishing vegetation along the shoreline, but due to seasonal lake level fluctuation, establishing the plantings has been difficult. Stabilizing the lake level through either flow from Saltese Flats or pumping from the aquifer is should be considered to improve habitat and use by migratory birds populations. Recommendations Table 5 -25 is a summary of ecological issues relevant to the selection of an appropriate shoreline designation and achieving the goal of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 60 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Table 5 -25: Summary of Ecological Issues Shelley Lake Ecological Issues Local Stressors Recommendations Conserve /protect existing plant communities Residential along the east side of the lake. Plant riparian development, trees and shrubs around the wetland area Riparian Habitat Quality ornamental southeast of the lake. Plant native shrubs and landscaping grasses along the upper periphery of the lake margin and encourage native landscaping on adjacent residential parcels. Minimal summer Enhance wetland habitat with native shade - Wetland Habitat Quality_ flow, non - native producing trees or shrubs. Attempt to store more water via increased flow and /or vegetation hydraulic impoundment. Presence of non- Encourage landscaping with native plants. Invasive Cover native herbaceous Continue native herbaceous restoration projects. Remove Chinese elm and reed cover canarygrass. Low water Become involved in the Saltese Flats discharge during enhancement project to secure higher summer Water Temperature summer, lack of base flow support. Plant /maintain shade shade producing vegetation along the creek outlet and associated wetland areas. Restrict shoreline development below walking Redevelopment trail. Condition future redevelopment with Land Use Conflicts potential along RHA improvement standards. Change granite shoreline exposure zoning to lesser density or conservation area. It is possible that wetland habitat improvements will benefit water quality, and may even improve summer base flows. By increasing the residence time of stream flow in wetland areas upstream of the lake, the wetland may filter and adsorb nutrients, metals, etc. within the water column. The associated wetland has been disturbed on its eastern side by the construction of a gravel access road. 5.3 Park Road and Sullivan Road Gravel Pits Under RCW 78.44.050 DNR is granted exclusive authority for regulating the reclamation of surface mines. Reclamation plans are developed as part of the surface mining approval process. Reclamation plans typically include sequential phasing of mining and revegetation which allows for reclamation of portions of the mine while still active. Reclamation must be completed within two years after abandomnent of the mine. County or municipal approval for surface mining is an element of the permitting process. The reclamation plans for both the Park and Sullivan Road pits designate that the pits will be left as lakes and an area for wildlife habitat. TDC 61 5.3.1 Park Road Pit The Park Road pit is located on 98 acres within the City of Spokane Valley between Park Road and Thiennan Road in the SW '/4 S1 T25 N, R43 EWM. This pit is owned and operated by Central Pre - Mix. The Park Road pit is used for: sand and gravel mining, aggregate processing, ready -mix concrete production, occasional asphalt production, and other related activities. The Park Road pit consists of a 69 -acre water body with an irregular shape and no outlet. This water body is the result of the mining operation penetrating into the Spokane Rathdrum Valley Aquifer. The water surface elevation fluctuates between 1890 feet and 1900 feet above mean sea level. The shoreline is sloped at 2:1 and transfers to a 3:1 slope near the water surface for safety. The shoreline banks are generally 40 to 50 in height. Mining activities have been carried out to a depth of 160 feet below the water line to an elevation of 1740 feet. 5.3.1.1 Park Road Pit Land Use Summary The entire Park Road pit has a current land use of Heavy Industrial with a zoning designation of Heavy Industrial (I -2). Recreation Use and Access This is an active surface mining site and there is no public access to the water body. The shoreline is composed of gravels at a slope of 2:1 which present a danger of falling to untrained persons. There is no intent to provide public access to the pit at this time. It is known that birders use the pit for the Christmas bird count. 62 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Transportation Thierman and E. Heacox Roads are located with the shoreline jurisdiction along the western and northern edge of the pit. Thierman changes to Heacox Road at the northwest corner of the Park Road Pit. Utilities Three septic tanks and associated drain fields are located within the shoreline jurisdiction. Overhead power is also located within the jurisdiction. Equipment including conveyors, dredges, sorting and washing facilities is located within the shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline Modifications Sand and gravel mining have exposed the aquifer and created the existing shoreline. This is not a natural environment. Reclamation /vegetation of the shoreline will occur within two years after the mine is abandoned. Portions of the pit have become revegetated by natural colonization. Environmental According to Ecology's database this gravel pit is not a location of concern. Archaeological /Historic Resources No sites on either the local or state registers or the NRHP are noted within the shoreline jurisdiction. Specific archaeological sites have not been identified to our knowledge in this area. 5.3.1.2 Park Road Pit Physical and Biological Characterization Geology and Soils The soils at the Park Road Pit are composed of Garrison gravelly loam. The Garrison series is made up of somewhat excessively drained, gravelly or stony soils. Garrison gravelly loam is the dominant soil type in the City of Spokane Valley. Water Quality According to Ecology's database this gravel pit is not a location of concern Critical Areas The gravel pit is located over and in the SVRP aquifer critical area. Biological Resources and Vegetation Because the site is actively mined, the entire perimeter of the site is fenced. This limits wildlife use to birds and any fish that may have been stocked in the pit. Audubon representatives indicate that this pit is known to receive a high diversity and density of neotropical songbirds and waterfowl. The shoreline of the Park Road pit is a constructed and not a natural shoreline environment. According to the 1995 reclamation plan, prepared by DEA, "Revegetation of graded slopes will utilize native plant materials to enhance the natural character of the grading plan, provide aesthetic appeal, and provide a diversity of habitat." The upland slopes of the site will be planted with Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Hawthorn, Western Chokecherry, and Serviceberry. Slopes near the water's edge will be planted with Black Cottonwood, Pacific Willow, Coyote Willow, and Red Osier Dogwood to create a riparian zone. Created wetland fringes will be constructed and planted with Bulrushes, Cattails, and Sedges. TDC 63 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Access was not permitted within the mine site during the 2009 inventory but off -site observation indicated that volunteer cottonwoods have already begun to colonize the lower shoreline around the water edge. Priority Habitats & Species There are currently no classifications for priority habitat or wildlife corridors at the Park Road pit. Archaeological /Historic Resources The WISSARD database has no records for this site. 5.3.1.3 Park Road Pit Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation Ecological Baseline The pit is a private operation that is not open to the public and has not been assessed using a quantifiable methodology such as Proper Functioning Condition. Based on offsite observations it would appear that the ecological conditions of the site are currently impaired by ongoing mining activities, as is expected. Conversations with local wildlife experts indicate that the area is used heavily by songbirds and waterfowl. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration Mining activities have created a new, expanding shoreline area. As such it can not be described as "degraded" because it was not a pre- existing, natural shoreline feature. In accordance with the 1995 revised reclamation plan, the shoreline is to be planted as the mining operations move to subsequent phases. Perpetual stewardship of the reclaimed shoreline environment is planned. There are not any known areas of degradation or erosion to the shoreline at this time. Wildlife habitat enhancement has been included in the reclamation plan. These enhancements are slated to include the creation of shallow water habitat to encourage the growth of aquatic flora and promote use by aquatic fauna. Nesting boxes will also be placed amongst the upper portions of the shoreline. 5.3.2 Sullivan Road Pit The Sullivan Road gravel pit is owned and operated by Central Pre -Mix. The Sullivan Road gravel pit has been an active sand and gravel mine since 1980. The pit is located on 235 acres north of the Spokane River between Sullivan Road and Flora Road. The Union Pacific railroad tracks are immediately to the north of the site. The Flora Pit Road transects the south end of the property. As a condition of the 1963 land acquisition agreement with the County; the Flora Pit Road has a County easement for access to the County Flora Shop site. The revegetated shoreline will consist of varying slopes between a 5:1 to a 2:1. The water surface elevation will be at approximately 1940 feet and will have a depth of 150 feet. 5.3.2.1 Sullivan Road Pit Land Use Summary The entire Sullivan Road pit has a current land use of Heavy Industrial with a zoning designation of Heavy Industrial (I -2). According to the reclamation plan a 130 -acre lake will remain at the terminus of mining operation offset from the Spokane River by 250 feet. A 600 -foot setback from Sullivan Road will be retained for future use. 64 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Recreational Use and Access This is an active surface mining site and there is no public access to the water body. The shoreline is composed of gravels at a slope of 2:1 which present a danger of falling to untrained persons. There is no intent to provide public access to the pit at this time. Transportation The Sullivan Road pit is bound by Sullivan Road to the west, Flora Road to the East, and the Union Pacific Railroad to the north. The Flora Pit Road transects the south of the site between the pit and the Spokane River. The County has an easement through the Flora Pit Road to the County facilities on the west side of Flora Road. Central Pre -Mix and the County made an agreement upon the land acquisition in 1963 that should Flora Pit Road be removed Central Pre -Mix would construct a 60 -foot County roadway from Sullivan Road to the entrance of the County's Flora Road shop site. Shoreline Modifications Sand and gravel mining have exposed the aquifer and created the existing shoreline. It is not a natural surface water environment. Reclamation of the shoreline will follow the completion of each mining phase, or two years after the termination of mining activities. Perpetual stewardship of the site is planned to retain the site once remediation is complete. Remediation will provide native vegetation, as well as wildlife habitat. Utilities Septic tank, overhead power, natural gas, registered class A well. Equipment including conveyors, dredges, sorting and washing facilities is located within the shoreline jurisdiction. Environmental According to Ecology's database there are no locations of concern within the reach. There are no water quality impairment listings on the 303(d) list. Central Pre -Mix has an active water quality monitoring program at this site. Cultural /Archaeological Resources No sites on either the local or state registers or the NRHP are noted within the shoreline jurisdiction. Specific archaeological sites have not been identified to our knowledge in this area. 5.3.2.2 Sullivan Road Pit Physical and Biological Characterization Geology and Soils The soils at the Park Road Pit are composed of Garrison gravelly loam. The Garrison series is made up of somewhat excessively drained, gravelly or stony soils. Garrison gravelly loam is the dominant soil type in the City of Spokane Valley. Priority Habitats and Species There is currently no PH &S Mapping within the Sullivan Road Pit shoreline areas. Biological Resources and Vegetation Because the site is actively mined, the entire perimeter of the site is fenced. This limits wildlife use to birds and any fish that may have been stocked in the pit. Audubon representatives indicate that this pit is known to receive a high diversity and density of neotropical songbirds and waterfowl. TDC VAW 65 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] The shoreline of the Park Road pit is a constructed and not a natural shoreline environment. According to the 1995 reclamation plan, prepared by DEA, "Revegetation of graded slopes will utilize native plant materials to enhance the natural character of the grading plan, provide aesthetic appeal, and provide a diversity of habitat." The upland slopes of the site will be planted with Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Hawthorn, Western Chokecherry, and Serviceberry. Slopes near the water's edge will be planted with Black Cottonwood, Pacific Willow, Coyote Willow, and Red Osier Dogwood to create a riparian zone. Created wetland fringes will be constructed and planted with Bulrushes, Cattails, and Sedges. Access was not permitted within the mine site during the 2009 inventory but off -site observation indicated that volunteer cottonwoods have already begun to colonize the lower shoreline around the water edge. Priority Habitats & Species There are currently no classifications for priority habitat or wildlife corridors at the Park Road pit. Archaeological /Historic Resources The WISSARD database has no records for this site. Critical Areas The gravel pits is located over and in the SVRP aquifer critical area. 5.3.2.3 Sullivan Road Pit Ecological Condition, Stressors, and Opportunities for Restoration or Conservation Ecological Baseline The pit is a private operation that is not open to the public and has not been assessed using a quantifiable methodology such as Proper Functioning Condition. Based on offsite observations it would appear that the ecological conditions of the site are currently constrained by ongoing mining activities, as is to be expected. Conversations with local wildlife experts indicate that the area is used by songbirds and waterfowl. Degraded Areas and Opportunities for Restoration Mining activities have created a new, expanding shoreline area. As such it can not be described as "degraded" because it was not a pre- existing, natural feature. Rather, it is a nascent waterbody created for industrial applications that may transition into a different land use in several decades. Wildlife habitat enhancement has been included in the 1995 reclamation plan. These enhancements are slated to include the creation of shallow water habitat to encourage the growth of aquatic flora and promote use by aquatic fauna. Nesting boxes will also be placed amongst the upper portions of the shoreline. In accordance with the reclamation plan; the shoreline is to be planted as the current mining operations move to the next phase. Perpetual stewardship of the reclaimed shoreline environment is planned; the entire shoreline is targeted for riparian cover and conservation. TDC 66 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 6.0 SHORELINE USE ANALYSIS Updating an SMP requires a shoreline use analysis in order to estimate the future demand for shoreline space and identify potential land use conflicts. The following analysis includes a discussion of preferred shoreline uses and an evaluation of existing and planned land uses, total acreage available, and percentage vacant lands by zoning category within the 200 -foot SMP jurisdiction along the City's shorelines. Preferred shoreline uses are identified in the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(d)). Preferred uses are those that are unique to or dependent on a shoreline location. These include the following water orientated uses, in order of preference: • Water Dependent — Cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to water. • Water Related — Not intrinsically dependent but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location. • Water Enjoyment— Recreational or other use that requires public access. When determining allowable uses or resolving use conflicts, the following criteria should be considered (truncated from WAC 172- 26- 201(2)(d)(1-v)): • Provide appropriate areas for protection and restoration of ecological functions. • Provide areas for water- dependent and associated water - related issues. • Provide areas for water - related and water enjoyment uses that are compatible with ecological protection and restoration objectives. • Locate single - family residential uses where appropriate and where development can occur without significant impact to ecological functions or displacement of water- dependent uses. • Limit non - water - oriented uses to those locations where the above - described uses are inappropriate or where they demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the SMA. 6.1 Current Shoreline Use Within the City, there are approximately 511 acres under the jurisdiction of the SMA. This accounts for approximately 3% of the 24,464 acres within City limits. Per Table 6 -1, below, the majority of the shoreline zone (42 %) 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 accounts for 16% of the shoreline zone. A combination of other zoning categories, including Mixed Use, Commercial, and Public ROW account for less than 10% 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 6 -1: Summary of Zoning Categories within Areas Under SMA Jurisdiction Zoning Category Acreage % Industrial 153 32.3% Mixed Use 29 6.1% Parks/Open Space 201 42.4% Low Density Residential 76 16.0% Commercial 7 1.5 Railroad ROW 8 1.7% TRSI 67 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] During the prior 20 -year planning period, the majority of new development occurred within lands having a Residential, Mixed Use, or Commercial zoning designation. The Spokane River currently receives moderate to high in -water recreational use due to the hydraulics of the Spokane River, which provides prized floating conditions for non - motorized boats, rafts, and kayaks (rapids, water play areas, moderate to rapid flow). The northern shoreland areas receive moderate hiking and angling uses at specific, publicly - accessible areas, particularly around Sullivan Park. Due to an abundance of public park land and access provided by the Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT), the southern shoreland areas receive a good deal of recreational use by bicyclists and pedestrians. 6.2 Projected Shoreline Use The U.S. Census Bureau detennined that 80,927 people lived in Spokane Valley on April 1, 2000. As of April 1, 2009, the Washington State Office of Financial Management estimate for Spokane Valley was 89,440. This figure represents an annual growth rate of approximately 1.5 percent, which is consistent with past estimated growth rates in the Spokane Valley area. Using this growth rate, the estimated 2025 population of Spokane Valley is 114,765, or an increase of 30,815 persons (Spokane Valley 2009). 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 zones (see Figure 6 -1, Spokane River Lana' Use Capacity Analysis). The majority of vacant land (57 %) is associated with lands zoned as "Mixed Use Center" (MUC). The MUC zoning designation allows two or more uses on a site that can either be vertically or horizontally mixed and allows for employment, lodging, and retail along with higher density residential uses. Land with "Heavy Industrial" zoning accounts for the second largest vacant land zoning category within the 68 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] shoreline zone (34 %). Vacant residential lands (8 %) account for a small portion of the remaining developable vacant lands within the shoreline zone. Table 6 -2: Land Quantity Acreage Analysis Zoning Designation Acreage Residential 4.15 8 1 YO Heavy Industrial 16.72 34% Mixed Use Center 28.08 57 Total 48.95 100% Based upon a review of vacant lands intersecting the shoreline zone, the bulk of future development potential lies within the area between the SRCT Bridge and Millwood (Coyote Rock development) and areas east of Trent Street on both sides of the river. Although zoned as Mixed Use Residential, the proposed Coyote Rock developments are all single family residential based on historic platting. However, areas east of Trent, on the southern shoreline, have a greater likelihood of being developed as high density residential with limited mixed commercial uses. Vacant industrial parcels east of Trent Street, on the north side of the river, have the potential to become developed in a manner that could affect the shoreline, however, access to these parcels is limited due to the railroad. Additional 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 easements or lack of public access). 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 SR -1; however, this would be restricted from infringing upon park lands and, as such, have little direct effect on the current state of shoreline ecosystem functions. 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. Additionally, the City is likely to expand access to the shoreline areas per the goals of the SMA and public input received thus far. Proper planning for increased access to identify appropriate areas and methods of access will be important to protect the shoreline ecosystem. Within the City, the section of the Spokane River located between Barker Road and the Mirabeau Point Park is one of the most popular whitewater recreation stretches on the Spokane River. This stretch of the river is heavily used by rafters, kayakers, canoers, and inner tubers depending on water flow and air temperature. Within this reach are a number of natural whitewater features including Flora Rapids, Sullivan Hole, and the Zoo Wave that are used for park and play kayaking and surfing. In 2005 a siting evaluation for potential Whitewater Parks along the Spokane River from Post Falls Dam to Sandifur Bridge in the City of Spokane was prepared by Colorado based Recreation Engineering and Planning (REP). Within the COSV no potential whitewater park sites were identified in large part due to its relatively high gradient. However, the report did address potential recreation improvements in this stretch: "This site is an existing river run of approximately 2.5 miles in length, and runs through a residential area. The Barker to Sullivan Run features existing recreational amenities at Sullivan play hole rapid and Flora rapid. This site could be improved through less 69 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] intrusive enhancements. Hardened access points at put -ins and take -outs would facilitate and improve access while limiting erosion." (Site Evaluation For Proposed Whitewater Park Venues in Spokane, Washington, Recreation, Engineering and Planning, 2005). There are also recent efforts by members of the Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club to improve access and use at Sullivan Hole by re- opening the road on the north bank and making this area into a fonnal river access and "Whitewater Park." Current ideas are to focus on shoreline improvements only. The Spokane River within the COSV boundary is very popular for fishing. This area is not stocked with hatchery fish but is fished for the native redband trout. State fishing rules allow catch and release fishing between the first Saturday in June until March 15. Selective gear rules apply where up to three unscented artificial flies or lures with one single point barbless hook can be used. In addition, there is a State Health Advisory to avoid eating any fish caught in this area of the river. During the summer much of the fishing is located below Sullivan Road where cool aquifer inflow maintains water temperatures and flow volumes within the river that are preferable for the native trout populations. A proposal to establish a Spokane River Water Trail was unveiled at the Spokane River Forum held on March 22n and March 23r 2010. As currently envisioned, the Water Trail would formalize and provide improved direct river access at many of the existing access points identified in this inventory. Improvements to access points may provide opportunity for restoration of vegetation and remediation of contaminated soils. Some of the access improvements, as currently envisioned, would provide for additional parking and extending paved or non -paved roads to the river in order to trailer and launch larger rafts and drift boats. This proposal, if developed would increase direct river use by the general public and also by anglers who reportedly have had difficulties legally accessing the river. Additional development around Shelley Lake will also result in increased recreational use of the lake, albeit only from the private homeowners that live within the gated community (and guests thereof). The Sullivan Pit is expected to continue functioning as a private industrial site throughout the foreseeable planning period (20 years). However, the Park Road Pit is nearing the end of active mining and will likely transition into a natural space land use over the course of the next 20 years, per the tenns of the reclamation plan. It is expected that, under the SMA, access will be a goal of the future use of the Park Road Pit; however, this would likely only happen if the land became public. If the site remains private, access would be unlikely due to liability and insurance issues. Based on this estimate of projected shoreline uses and current land availability, it appears that shorelines within the City will be able to accommodate future demand for shoreline development and recreational uses. Primarily due to the widespread state park land along the inner riparian shoreline areas, it appears that the current and projected balance of shoreline land uses, including recreation, residential, mixed use, and industrial uses are adequate to meet current and future demands while maintaining valuable shoreline ecosystem functions. 6.3 Potential Conflicts Primary conflicts will arise from the attempt to balance recreational river use with the protection and conservation of priority habitats (riparian conservation) and species (red -band trout). Growing use of shoreline areas is likely to result in additional informal access trails, which result in habitat fragmentation and erosion, as is seen along the river banks between the Sullivan Park and the beach below. Additionally, informal camp sites and litter will likely have a negative effect on existing habitat quality via clearing and spread of noxious weeds. This process can be currently witnessed along the southern shoreline in SR -2. 70 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Residential growth in the Coyote Rock development area will likely further degrade a historically disturbed shoreline area due to increased shoreline access pressure. Such pressure would likely result in both formal and informal access route construction. The shoreline will likely experience high intensity shoreline use, including potential dock construction. Dock construction and associated watercraft use would result in a conflict between fish & wildlife habitat conservation, water quality, and recreation due to the potential for increased bank erosion, petroleum pollution, and removal of vegetation cover. Because this area lacks the buffer provided elsewhere along the shoreline by public park land, this area has the potential to resemble the residential area west of Millwood in SR -4. The risk of high intensity shoreline use also conflicts with the potential for improved wildlife migration corridor functions. Due to higher quality riparian habitats to the east and west of the development area, the degraded shorelines through the Coyote Rock development area provide opportunities for shoreline habitat restoration, yet they have the potential to become further degraded by ongoing development. The City should take care to evaluate all shoreline development proposals to ensure that they include compensatory habitat improvements so that migration corridor and shoreline habitat functions are maintained. Such a balance between development and restoration can be achieved with fairly simple riparian vegetation enhancements but proposals must include monitoring requirements to ensure follow- through and maintenance. Future development of the MUC -zoned vacant lands and infill or redevelopment of low density residential areas along the southern shoreline are likely to occur above the SRCT and, as such, have little direct affect on the high quality riparian forest/shrub habitats. Impacts are more likely to affect degraded grassland communities along the upper river banks. There is also a strong potential to affect the visual /aesthetic quality of the shoreline as experienced from recreational users of the river corridor. These likely impacts provide an impetus for native grassland conservation and restoration in order to achieve no net loss of ecological shoreline functions. Additionally, as with new shoreline residential development, new construction in this area is likely to result in impacts associated with increased shoreline access pressure. New industrial development east of Trent Street, along the northern shoreline, has the potential to result in conflicting "shoreline dependent" development, recreation, and wildlife habitat uses. This area is already highly degraded by historic shoreline alterations, including old railroad infrastructure, utilities, maintenance roads, and drainage infrastructure. Future development may affect recreational values by clearing vegetation and constructing incongruous development in an otherwise scenic area. As mentioned above, the Park Road Pit is likely to transition from industrial land uses to open space /natural area conservation land uses. This may result in potential conflicts that are inherent with any attempt at natural resource conservation when proposed within a matrix of high intensity land uses. For example, the area is surrounded by industrial and commercial development and interstate transportation corridors, thus not an ideal conservation area for terrestrial wildlife. The area has the potential to provide important wintering waterfowl habitat, as well as general songbird habitat but the value of such habitat is limited by the movement, noise, glare, and pollution sources located around this pit. Additionally, the use of such an area for recreation conflicts with avian habitat goals and may not be appropriate without safety improvements. 6.4 Management Recommendations In addition to the recommendations provided in Section 5, this section provides a summary of general recommendations related to the goals of the SMA. Future shoreline developments, including infill and redevelopment proposals, have the opportunity to be allowed in a manner that balances growth with shoreline enhancements to maintain no net loss of ecological functions. This balance would occur through the issuance of shoreline substantial development or conditional use permits, which can be granted with special conditions requiring native plant establishment or similar enhancement activity. 71 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Similarly, future capital improvement projects undertaken by the City 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. 6.4.1 Recommendations for the Spokane River Under RCW 90.58.020, the legislature declared that the development of SMPs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to shoreline uses in the following order: (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline, (3) Result in long term over short term benefit, (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline, (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. The following recommendations provide a means for implementing these preferential uses for the Spokane River, a shoreline of statewide significance. Protecting Statewide Interest The City is currently supporting statewide interests for the Spokane River. Regional plans for the Spokane River identify improved recreational use, improved water quality, and support for native fish stocks as regional goals- an appropriate surrogate for statewide interest. Presence of the SRCT throughout most of the City is emblematic of the regional recreation corridor that the City of Spokane Valley supports. Impacts to water quality from Industrial point sources and combined sewer overflows are very limited within the City, despite being a large population center. Regarding support for native fish stocks, the City has little ability to affect the changes that are most necessary for improving native fish runs. Preserving the Natural Shoreline Character The city's greatest shoreline asset with regard to preserving the natural shoreline character is the large area of public land under the ownership of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. It is recommended that the City consider establishing shoreline designations for these areas that protect their natural character and functions. These areas provide important shoreline ecological functions and should be conserved and protected in perpetuity to meet the SMA goals of No Net Loss of Shoreline Ecological Function. Areas where historic land uses cleared vegetation and introduced roads or other infrastructure should be slated for restoration where feasible, particularly near the shoreline. Areas prone to uncontrolled river access result in bank erosion. This is particularly notable below Sullivan Park in SR -2. By establishing formal access points in high intensity use areas, such erosion may be limited. This may require coordination with the State Parks and Recreation Department. Ecology should also be consulted to determine if these sites have environmental issues associated with them. The City should participate in the planning process and evaluate opportunities to combine the goals of conservation, restoration, and public access at these sites. Uses resulting in Long Term Benefits Similar to preserving the natural shoreline character, the large, linear tracts of park land along the City's shorelines provide long term conservation of riparian habitats and high - quality visual aesthetics and ecological functions that support enhanced habitat functions for wildlife and recreational opportunities. TDC 72 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Therefore long term conservation, protection and restoration (where applicable) of these areas is seen as the best way to result in long term benefits. New development in shoreline areas should be allowed in a manner that includes a provision for the improvement of shoreline ecological functions. This would allow growth in a manner that balances the future development impacts with the goals of `No Net Loss of Shoreline Ecological Function." The City could accomplish this balance in two ways. It could require applicants to submit and implement shoreline restoration plans commensurate with the level of proposed impact. Alternately, it could collect revenues through property taxes on new development or through shoreline substantial development pen and use this money to fund shoreline restoration projects and project monitoring within the City. Protecting Shoreline Resources and Ecology The ecological relationship of shoreline resources, including wildlife, fisheries, invertebrates, and amphibians, all receive benefits from mature & diverse shrub and forest habitats within the riparian zone. Avian resources also depend on diverse shrub and prairie habitats. Therefore, protection, conservation, and restoration of these habitats are the easiest way to benefit multiple shoreline resources and protect the existing ecological conditions within the City. Special emphasis is recommended on the protection of existing trees and the addition of new trees to forest areas along southern shoreline south of pool habitats to provide thermoregulation. Additionally, the fence below the Sullivan Road Bridge on the north side of the river provides a wildlife migration barrier that may force wildlife up onto the road. Alteration of the fence to allow wildlife passage is recommended. Enhancements aimed at benefitting fish, beyond increased riparian functions (shade, benthic macroinvertebrate production) would require greater effort, particularly with regard to pennitting and design. It is recommended that the City work with WDFW and Trout unlimited to secure funding for fisheries enhancement opportunities within the City. Opportunities include enhancement and protection of the unique aquifer interchange area between SR -1 and SR -2. The reemergence of cold groundwater makes this area a likely cold water refuge for fish, particularly during the summer. Additionally, the existing stormwater treatment facilities in SR -2 provide an opportunity for improved habitat diversity and shading. Such improvements would provide native vegetation cover for small wildlife and improved bird habitat. Increase Public Access to Publicly -Owned Shorelines and Increase Recreational Opportunities for the Public Access to the southern shoreline throughout the city is abundant via the SRCT. However, input gathered thus far indicates that additional parking and access to the shoreline from adjacent city streets is desirable at various locations. This includes improved access at Barker Road Bridge. This location provides a logical spot for non - motorized watercraft users to park and access the river. It is also a good bicycle entry point. Additionally, formal non - motorized access to the river from Eden Road would improve public access. Park land located south of the Kaiser aluminum plant and west of the railroad bridge is a popular destination for hikers. The area contains trails through a mature pine forest with a diverse herbaceous shoreline plant community. Large boulders along the shoreline make the area attractive to rock jumpers. Access to this area is currently gained from Sullivan Park, which is approximately a half mile to the east. For this reason it appears that the public occasionally trespasses through an unimproved dirt road located west of the railroad. This area is, therefore, a logical location for improving public access. The old water treatment facility, privately owned by Pentzer Venture Hodlings, may provide an opportunity to improve parking. This access improvement is dependent upon land availability. 73 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] In addition to creating a wildlife migration barrier, the fence below the Sullivan Road Bridge on the north side of the river provides a barrier to hikers using the otherwise contiguous parklands along the shoreline. Alteration of the fence to allow pedestrian passage is recommended. Also, public input includes requests to improve the dirt road located northeast of the Sullivan Road Bridge to allow access to the river for drift boats. Lastly, the park land/beach area just west of Myrtle Point is another popular recreation destination. Users can currently access the area via the undeveloped portions of Coyote Rock. However, as the area is developed, access will become limited. This area provides a potential take out location for watercrafts as most users end their runs at this location. It is recommended that the City work with the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC) to provide access for the take out of non - motorized watercrafts and associated public parking at this location. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary Other elements described in RCW 90.58.100 include support for, and appropriate placement of, shoreline - dependent economies and the protection of single family residences against shoreline erosion. Due to the presence of dams, freight mobility and other shoreline dependent industry factors are not applicable within the City. Therefore, there are very few "shoreline dependent" uses that apply to the Spokane River with the City, other than river recreation. Gravel mining is one of the largest industrial land uses in the City, however, it is not shoreline dependent. It is recommended that future gravel mining be restricted to areas outside of the Spokane River's shoreline zone. Residential structures within the City are located above the floodway and are currently protected against erosive flood events by the dams, which damper flood energy. Shoreline erosion was noted in areas where concentrated stormwater runoff occurred or where off -trail foot traffic resulted in bare soil. Neither is currently posing a threat to upslope residential structures. Native shoreline vegetation establishment /restoration efforts located below residential properties will reduce the risk of erosion. 6.4.2 Shelley Lake Shelley Lake is expected to remain a private area, thus goals of the SMP related to public access are not applicable. However, goals related to protection of the shoreline ecological functions are applicable. These present the greatest management challenge because there is no public land around Shelley Lake that the City can target for affecting ecosystem enhancements, yet additional development is anticipated around the lake that will add intensified shoreline use pressure. One property remains along the eastern boundary of the lake that includes functioning riparian and wetland habitats and a unique granite outcropping. These natural areas account for much of the wildlife diversity observed at the lake. It is recommended that this area be conserved formally, either through shoreline designation or a conservation easement. It is recommended that the open space associated wetlands around Saltese Creek near the lake inlet be brought under the SMP and zoned for conservation. Where possible, the City should support enhancements to this area. Such enhancements may include native plantings, hydraulic modifications to store more water, and /or placement of habitat features (woody debris piles). As a purely residential environment, it will be important to provide policies in the SMP that allow for utility maintenance and other ongoing activities within the shoreline zone. Restrictions that disallow normal, ongoing maintenance activities will either be ignored or will provide bureaucratic difficulty for residents and City staff. The Saltese Flats Wetland Restoration Investigation has the potential to affect Shelley Lake. The draft report for restoration of Saltese Flats indicates that potential benefits of wetland restoration include improved flow conditions in Saltese Creek and summer lake levels in Shelley Lake. Restoring Saltese 74 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Flats to a seasonal, shallow lake /wetlands system is an option that has been of interest to several state and local agencies. The flats have the potential to provide seasonal storage, which would improve summer base flow support. They also have the potential to provide open space and attenuate winter flood water. Water releases later in the summer will help increase the hydroperiod in wetlands associated with Saltese Creek, which will enhance water quality functions in those wetlands. 6.4.3 Gravel Pits The Park Road Pit is an active gravel mining operation that is approaching the end of its operating life. The land is private property, zoned heavy industrial, and surrounded by an urban road network. The Sullivan Road Pit is not expected to discontinue operations in the foreseeable planning period. As stated in Section 5 (Local Characterization), both pits play an important regional role in providing habitat for waterfowl. It has also been reported that the pits have been informally stocked with fish and, if managed correctly, may provide habitat that would support a cold water fishery. Discussions have been had with representatives of the gravel pits about potential future uses but it appears that little work has been done to address future uses beyond implementing the DNR approved reclamation plans that include wildlife habitat enhancement elements. It is reasonable to anticipate that if the pits remain privately owned public access will remain limited due to potential liability and environmental degradation issues. In the event that that pits become publicly owned, it is likely that they would be converted to public parklands, conservation areas, or a mix of private residential and park land. Public ownership would have the potential to provide education about the SVRP aquifer and to provide areas for conservation and protection for wintering and migratory wildfowl. There are challenges with transferring ownership to the City, a state agency, or to a third party conservation group. Major issues the costs associated with purchasing the properties, constructing public safety improvements, and continued operations and maintenance. If these pits are converted to future parkland, natural open space, and /or conservation areas, it is recommended that the existing structural facilities be converted to public uses or removed and revegetated. The narrow and steep upland banks should then be upgraded with a walking trails, safety improvements (guard rail), and viewing platfonns. Habitat improvements should focus on avian support. Fishery enhancements may also be a popular public use, though easy access to the water surface will require substantial modifications to the banks. The Sullivan Road Pit is located adjacent to the Spokane River corridor and presents an opportunity to improve habitat diversity through this segment of the river. The Park Road Pit is more isolated due to the surrounding urban road network. At the Park Road Pit, increasing /improving habitat for amphibians and terrestrial wildlife may be problematic beyond the confines of the pit due to high intensity vehicular traffic, it may result in frequent road kill. It is anticipated that the future, post - industrial use of these properties will not be determined for several years due to the relative abundance of other recreational opportunities within the city and corresponding low current pressure to develop these areas into public park facilities. Vi ! 75 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS City of Spokane Planning Staff Scott Kuhta Pro ect Lead, Senior Planner Kathy McClung Community Development Director Greg McCormick Planning Division Manager Lori Barlow Associate Planner Mike Basinger Senior Planner Micki Harnois Associate Planner Dan Neyman GIS Specialist URS Corporation John Patrouch, P.E. Project Manager Noah Herlocker, PWS Ecologist Jac ui Halvorson Environmental Planner — QA /QC Jake Dial, P.E. Civil Engineer Jim Kolva Associates Planning Technical Advisor Mike Folsom Professor of Geology, Soils, and Wetlands — Eastern Washington Universi Shoreline Technical Review Grou Doug Pineo and Jeremy Sikes Washington State Department of Ecolo Dave Harsh Washington State Department of Natural Resources Spokane Tribe Dave Lamb Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Indians Walt Edelen Spokane County Conservation District Mike Stone Parks and Recreation — City of Spokane Valle Karin Divers and Jason McClellen Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Randy Person Washington State Parks and Recreation — Riverside State Park 76 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Avista Corporation, 2005. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 2545, Applicant- Prepared Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment. Spokane, Washington Box, S.E., and Wallis, J.C., 2002. Surficial Geology along the Spokane River, Washington and its Relationship to the Metal Content of Sediment (Idaho- Washington Stateline to Latah Creek Confluence. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Gearhart, C.M., 2001. The Hydraulic Connection between the Spokane River and the Spokane Aquifer: Gaining and Losing Reaches of the Spokane River from State Line, Idaho, to Spokane, Washington. Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. Kahle, S.C. and Bartolino, J.R., 2007. Hydrogeologic Framework and Water Budget of the Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, Spokane County, Washington, and Bonner and Kootenai Counties, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007 -5041. (Provided information on the regional geology and current status of aquifer hydrogeology). Louis Berger Group, 2004. Recreation Facility Inventory and User Surveys Report, Spokane River Project, No. 2545. Bellevue, Washington. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2004. Intermountain Sub -basin Plan, Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, Oregon. O'Connor and J. G. McLellean. 2008. Stock Status of Redband Trout in the Upper Spokane River, Washington- WDFW Resident Fish Stock Status Project Annual Progress Report. April 2008. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Spokane Valley, WA. Document ID 4P106616. O'Connor and J. G. McLellean. 2009. Stock Status of Redband Trout and Estimate of Smallmouth Bass Abundance in the Upper Spokane River, Washington- WDFW Resident Fish Stock Status Project Annual Progress Report. September 2009. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Spokane Valley, WA. Document ID #PI 14270.. Parametrix, 2004. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, Wetland and Riparian Habitat Mapping and Assessment. Kirkland, Washington. Parametrix, 2003. Spokane River Hydroelectric Project, Sensitive, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Survey. Kirkland, Washington. PBS &J, January 2009. Existing Data Review, Saltese Flats Wetland Restoration Investigation PBS &J, October 2009. Data Update and On -Site Feasibility Report, Saltese Flats Wetland Restoration Investigation (provided background information of Shelley Lake, `eater balance for Saltese and Shelley lake system, and proposed plans for wetland restoration). Ramm. 1994. Shelley Lake Environmental Impact Statement Small, M.P., J.G. McLellan, J. Loxterman, J. Von Bargen, A. Frye, and C. Bowman. 2007. Fine -Scale Population Structure of Rainbow Trout in the Spokane River Drainage in Relation to Hatchery 77 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Stocking and Barriers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:301 -317, 2007. 17 pp Thurow, Russell F.; Bruce E. Rieman; Danny C. Lee; Philip J. Howell; and Raymon D. Perkinson. 2007. Redband Trout: Resilience and Challenge in a Changing Landscape. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society. 19 p. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1968. Soil Survey Spokane County Washington. Washington Department of Ecology. 2008. Progress on Watershed Planning and Setting Instream Flows. Publication No. 08 -06 -002. June 2008. Olympia, Washington. Time 78 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] GLOSSARY 1. 100 -year flood. The terms "10 year," "50 year ", "100 year ", and "500 year" floods are used to describe the estimated probability of a flood event happening in any given year. Their primary use is for determining flood insurance rates in flood hazard areas. A 10 year flood has a 10 percent probability of occurring in any given year, a 50 year event a 2 percent probability, a 100 year event a one percent probability, and a 500 year event a 0.2 percent probability. 2. Aquifer Recharge Areas. Geological formations where rainwater or seepage actually enters an aquifer to replenish or recharge it. Aquifers typically consist of gravel, sand, sandstone, or fractured rock. In recharge areas, water is able to move from the surface down into the aquifer to replenish groundwater supplies, but contaminants may also enter the aquifer at the surface level. 3. Bank Armoring. Protective covering, such as rocks, vegetation, or engineering materials used to protect stream banks, or fill or cut slopes from flowing water. Stream bank and channel armoring is done to prevent erosion of channel banks and bottoms during runoff events. In some hydrologic systems stream banks are a major source of sediment. 4. Bio- infiltration (208) swales combine grasses and soils to remove stormwater pollutants by percolation into the ground. Their pollutant removal mechanisms include filtration, soil adsorption, and uptake by vegetated root zones. 5. Bio - stabilization. Biological shore protection techniques comprised of living and /or organic materials, such as native grasses and sedges; live stakes and posts; jute netting; and coir fiber rolls and mats. 6. Channel Aggradation. The accumulation of sediment in rivers and nearby landforms, which occurs when sediment supply exceeds the ability of a river to transport the sediment. The increase in sediment is caused by a decrease in soil binding that results from plant growth being suppressed. 7. Channelization. The process of reconstructing the natural course of a stream in order to make it flow into a restricted path. 8. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and stormwater point discharges. Combined sewers convey both sanitary and stormwater flows. 9. Conservation Areas. Conservation areas define areas of undeveloped land primarily left in its natural condition. These areas may be used for passive recreational purposes, to create secluded areas, or as buffers in urban areas. 10. Critical Areas. The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities and counties to designate and protect the functions and values of critical areas, and these are defined as: 1) Wetlands; 2) Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers for potable water (CARAs); 3) Frequently flooded areas; 4) Geologically hazardous areas, and 5) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Recent changes to GMA further require that cities and counties use "best available science" (BAS) when designating and protecting these critical areas. 11. Cumulative impacts. Prospective impacts from a proposed action that may be indirectly or directly related to the action and, when taken together, may constitute or result in short-term or long -term impacts. 12. Ecological Condition Ratings. Ratings reflect the current structural diversity, density, and continuity of native plant communities. Riparian vegetative communities trap sediments and nutrients from surface runoff and provide a matrix of root systems that serve as effective filters, minimize streambank erosion and flooding damage, assist streamflow maintenance, and moderate temperatures. 13. Ecological Function Assessment. For each of the inventory reaches in this document describes the eight processes and functions identified in the SMA as summarized in Section 3.2. 14. Footprint (building). The shape and orientation of the ground floor of a structure on the lot. 15. Frequently Flooded Areas. These areas of special flood hazard have been identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 79 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 16. Geologically hazardous areas. Geologically hazardous areas include both erosion and landslide hazard areas. 17. Geomorphic processes. Induced by the hydrology create the in- stream structure that aquatic species have adapted to. Pools, riffles, glides, cover, and off - channel refugia are created through the movement of water at various flows. Each of these habitat elements together provides the complexity in a stream system that is necessary for the various species and life stages of aquatic organisms. 18. Habitat Fragmentation. The separation or breakup of a habitat area into smaller sections or habitat blocks by activities, such as development, logging, and agriculture, often resulting in degraded habitat due to blocked migration corridors and decreased access to water and feeding areas. It can also create isolated populations of wildlife and a decrease in their genetic diversity. 19. Habitat. The sum total of all the environmental factors of a specific place that is occupied by an organism, population, or a community. 1) High species diversity; 2. High vulnerability to habitat alteration; 3) High wildlife density; 4) Important movement corridors; 5) Important wildlife breeding habitat; 6) Important wildlife seasonal ranges; 7) Limited availability. 20. Hydrologic functions (shoreline). Include the transport of water and sediment across the natural range of flow variability; attenuating flow energy; developing pools, riffles, gravel bars, and the recruitment and transport of large woody debris and other organic material. 21. Hyporheic. Within a shoreline this zone provides the following functions: removing excessive nutrients and toxic compounds; water storage; support of vegetation and invertebrates; sediment storage; and maintenance of base flows. The subsurface habitat, or hyporheic zone, is the interstitial habitat beneath the streambed that is the interface between surface water and the adjoining groundwater. Vertical and lateral dimensions of subsurface water movements are controlled by geologic structure, such as the relative permeability of underlying strata. 22. Invasive Plant Species. Invasive plants can alter and disrupt natural habitats and reduce biodiversity. They are most threatening in ecosystems such as wetlands and fire prone areas. Invasive plant species thrive where the continuity of a natural ecosystem is breached and are abundant on disturbed sites like construction areas and road cuts. 23. Large Woody Debris. (LWD). Large woody debris including tree boles, root wads, and large branches, has been recognized as an important structural component of stream systems for both stream stabilization and habitat restoration. 24. Lucustrine. The environment of a lake. 25. Meander. A bend in a river, also known as an oxbow loop. A stream or river flowing through a wide valley will tend to form a meandering stream course as it alternatively erodes and deposits sediments along its course. The result is a snaking pattern as the stream meanders back and forth across its floodplain. When a meander gets cut off from the main stream body, an oxbow lake is fonned 26. Native Aquatic and Shoreline - Dependent Wildlife Habitat. The shoreline provides habitat for a variety of species. Habitat functions may include but are not limited to: space or conditions for reproduction; resting, hiding and migration; and food production and delivery. 27. Native Plant Community. The collective product of individual plants indigenous to a particular locale responding to shared habitats. 28. Neotropical birds. Account for 340 of the 600 species of birds that breed and nest in North America. These birds migrate each fall to warmer climates in tropical regions of Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. 29. No Net Loss. Ecological functions recognize that any ecological system is composed of a variety of interacting physical, chemical, and biological components, that are interdependent in varying degrees and scales, and that produce the landscape and habitats as they exist at any time." When more development is proposed than can be reasonably expected to have impacts not anticipated and mitigated by the regulations of the SMP, the resources that may be affected must be identified and mitigated sufficiently to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. TDC 80 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 30. Ordinary High Water Mark. The OHWM is a line usually identified by examining the bed and banks of the water along the shore to determine where action of the water has created a distinct mark upon the soil with respect to upland vegetation 31. Palustrine. Palustrine systems include any inland wetland which lacks flowing water. 32. PCB's. A group of man-made chemicals historically used as insulating fluids or coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors and other electrical equipment. They have also been used in hydraulic oils, fluorescent lights, inks, carbonless paper, and other uses. Manufacture of PCBs stopped in the U.S. in 1977 (Ecology 2005). 33. Priority Habitats. Are habitat areas determined by WDFW to have unique or significant value to many species and that meet one or more of the following criteria: 34. Properly Functioning Condition (PFC). Represents the physical ability of a reach to withstand a 25 -30 year hydrological event. Properly functioning reaches have characteristics such as: well established riparian vegetation; an active floodplain; and stable channels. Sites considered to be properly functioning may not provide other important ecological or biological values and functions. 35. Reach. An expanse, or widening, of a stream or river channel. This commonly occurs after the river or stream is dammed. A reach is similar to an arm. 36. Riparian function. The interaction of various hydrologic, geomorphic, and biotic processes across a range of spatial and temporal scales within the riparian environment. As a result, riparian function encompasses a variety of processes that determine the character of the riparian zone and exert influence on the adjacent aquatic and terrestrial environment. The flow of sediment, water, wood, and energy into and out of the riparian zone is controlled by climatic, geologic, topographic, vegetative, and management - related factors. 37. Riparian Zone. The riparian zone provides important stream shading through canopy closure over the shoreline, habitat for invertebrates that provide forage for fish and wildlife, habitat for terrestrial species, surface water runoff filtering, and structural stability of stream banks. 38. Riverine. Associated with a river. 39. Scree slopes. Broken rock that appears at the bottom of crags, mountain cliffs or valley shoulders, forming scree slopes. The term scree is generally used interchangeably with talus, though scree often refers to rocks that are smaller than a volley ball). 40. Sessile aquatic species. Sitting on stem. 41. Shoreland. The area 200 -feet horizontally landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). 42. Shoreline vegetation. Both within the riparian zone and the adjacent upland areas, serves the following functions: maintaining temperature; removing excessive nutrients and toxic compound; sediment removal and stabilization; attenuation of flow energy; and providing large woody debris and other organic matter. 43. Shorelines of Statewide Significance. For rivers east of the Cascade Mountain Range crest, "those natural rivers or segments thereof where the mean annual flow is two hundred cubic feet per second (cfs) or more; or the portion of the rivers downstream from the first three hundred square miles of drainage area, whichever is less." 44. Shorelines of the State. Shorelines of streams or rivers having a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or greater. 45. Shorelines. Include all upland areas called `shorelands', which is the area 200 -feet horizontally landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM); floodway and contiguous floodplain areas; and all associated wetlands and river deltas (RCW 9.58.030(2)(f)). 46. Surficial Geology Study (USGS). Surficial geology is concerned with the description of the types and distributions of unconsolidated sediments across the landscape. This infonnation is collected and maintained primarily in maps and databases. It is useful to hazard assessment, and land use planning. 47. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The maximum amount of any number of a variety of pollutants that a waterbody can assimilate without violating state water quality standards. TDC 81 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] 48. Underground Storage Tank (UST). And Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST). About 640,000 underground storage tanks (USTs) nationwide store petroleum or hazardous substances that can harm the environment and human health if the USTs release their stored contents. Leaking USTs (LUSTS) can leave considerable clean-up problems. 49. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA). Ecology was given responsibility for the development and management of these administrative and planning of these watershed boundaries. 50. Watershed. A drainage basin or catchment, meaning the region of land whose water drains into a specified body of water. 51. Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. TDC 82 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventory and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Appendix E Technical Review Group Comments UM °Pineo, Doug (ECY)" »' < <DPIN461 @ECY.WA.G0V> 04/19/2010 05:31 PM History: [;�, This message has been forwarded. Greetings: Good edits. To "Lori Barlow" <Ibarlow @spokanevalley.org >, "John Patrouch" <patrouch @cet.com >, <Noah_Herlocker @URSCorp.com> cc "Chris Donley" <donlecld @DFW.WA.GOV >, "Divens, Karin A (DFW)" <Karin.Divens @dfw.wa.gov> bcc Subject red -lined version of SMP update inventory and characterization On page 13, there's a typo, referring to "redtrout" instead of redband rainbow trout, or redband trout. On page 14, the discussion of adverse impacts to redband trout in the upper reach of the Spokane River, between the Post Falls Dam and slackwater behind Upriver Dam, might benefit from some additional review by Ecology's hydrologists here at the eastern Regional Office, and Chris Donley at WDFW. You correctly characterize challenges to spawning success from declining flows. However, I believe there are two sources of these declines. One is the potential for Avista to reduce flows at the Post Falls Dam. I believe the more dominant or significant impact is from changes in natural, run of the river peak flows, documented over the past 40 years. As I understand it, the peak flows have been occurring earlier in the year, while the fish continue to spawn in April with June emergence of alevins in June. Thus there has been an increase in stranding of redds (trout "nests" in the gravel). Anyhow, since the decline of this stock of native fish is a significant policy issue, you probably want to document the most accurate understanding of currently suspected factors for the decline in the characterization. Pages 69 and 72: Good discussion of reasonably foreseeable uses on the river, generally focusing on increased recreational use. Current popularity of this reach for whitewater boating, angling, and other informal recreational uses is documented, as well as the strong likelihood of increasing use. Planning for this increase, and developing the best plans for accommodating it so as to avoid further degrading ecosystems and ecological function along the river in Spokane Valley is an essential part of the SMP update. Where the possibility of developing paved or unpaved roads to the river for launching and recovering boats and rafts is discussed on page 69, it would be more useful to characterize this need in a broader, less specific context. Alternative systems for launching drift boats and rafts are available, which are less intrusive on the shoreline environment and less subject to ongoing public expenditures for maintenance, and can even be placed and removed seasonally. Discussion of "combine(ing) the goals of conservation, restoration, and public access at these sites..." within the context of RCW 90.58.020 on pages 71 and 72 is the best I've seen to date. I'll conclude review tomorrow, and may have another note or two. Doug Pineo Shorelands Specialist Washington Dept. of Ecology Eastern Regional Office 4601 N. Monroe St. Spokane, WA 99205 509 - 329 -3416 509 - 329 -3529 FAX doug.pineo@ecy.wa.gov °Lori Barlow" To "Scott Kuhta" <skuhta @spokanevalley.org >, <Ibarlow@spokanevalley.org> <John_Patrouch @URSCorp.com >, 04/22/2010 05:05 PM cc <Noah_Herlocker @URSCorp.com >, "Greg McCormick" bcc Subject FW: Inventory and Characterization Report For Spokane Valley SMP Update - Public Hea ring History: f=73 This message has been replied to. , Lori Barlow, AICP City of Spokane Valley (509)720 -5335 From: Divens, Karin A (DFW) [mailto:Karin.Divens @dfw.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:11 PM To: Lori Barlow Subject: RE: Inventory and Characterization Report For Spokane Valley SMP Update - Public Hearing Hi Lori- Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on the Inventory and Characterization report for Spokane Valley. WDFW appreciates the incorporation of comments submitted previously and would like to suggest just a few more changes before adoption. On page 12, in the second paragraph, I would like to correct the PHS definition with the following language: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife publishes a Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) list. The PHS List is a catalog of habitats and species considered to be priorities for conservation and management. I would also like to provide additional information regarding priority habitats and species that you may choose to incorporate: . Priority species require protective measures for their survival due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority species include State Endangered Threatened Sensitive and Candidate species; animal aggregations (e.g., heron colonies, bat colonies) considered vulnerable and species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Priority habitats are habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type (e.g., shrub- steppe) or dominant plant species (e.g., juniper savannah), a described successional stage (e.g., old- growth forest), or a specific habitat feature (e.g., cliffs). There are 20 habitat types, 152 vertebrate species, 41 invertebrate species, and 10 species groups currently in the PHS List. These constitute about 17% of Washington's approximately 1000 vertebrate species and a fraction of the state's invertebrate fauna. On page 12, WDFW appreciates the inclusion of the list of PHS species present in Spokane County. I would suggest changing the title of the table as the word "Listed" implies a reference to species federal or state status. Change listed to the word Distribution. Also, consider including the full list of habitats present. The complete list of habitats and species by county may be accessed via the link below. http: / /wdfw.wa.gov /hab /phs /2008/ =2010 distribution by county.xls Page 13: There is an error at the bottom of the page "redtrout" should be "redband trout" Page 17 , 18 Discussion of Saltese Flats restoration: As I understand it, Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District is also likely going to be pumping reclaimed water to Saltese Flats. Contact Bruce Rawls with Spokane County Wastewater Utilties for more information regarding the current status of this proposal and the status of property purchase. Page 26: Priority Habitats and Species: While the habitat formerly mapped as Urban Natural Open Space is now classified as Riparian Habitat Area, WDFW no longer maps riparian habitat as the PHS definition is descriptive enough for jurisdictions to apply and understand. WDFW appreciates the level of work that went in this portion of the SMP update and looks forward to continual involvement in development of the City Valley SMP. Karin A. Divens Priority Habitats and Species Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2315 N Discovery Place Spokane Valley, WA 99216 (509) 892 -1001 x 323 karin.divens @dfw.wa.gov From: Lori Barlow [ mailto :lbarlow @spol<anevalley.org] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 9:29 AM To: Pineo, Doug (ECY); Divens, Karin A (DFW) Cc: Scott Kuhta; Micki Harnois; Greg McCormick; John_Patrouch @URSCorp.com Subject: Inventory and Characterization Report For Spokane Valley SMP Update - Public Hearing Hi Doug and Karin, We have scheduled a public hearing to begin review of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. The information regarding the hearing is noted below. The public review draft is available on the city's website for review. However, since you provided significant comments the city SMP Update Team thought you may be interested in reviewing the strike through version of the Inv. and Characterization report so that you could see more conveniently how your comments may have been addressed. I have attached a redlined version of the report to this email. The public hearing is scheduled for : April 22, 2010, 6 pm, Council Chambers, Spokane City Hall, 11707 East Sprague The Spokane Valley Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, the first major component of the City's Shoreline Master Program update, at 6 pm on April 22, 2010, in City Council Chambers. The Commission will accept written and oral testimony at the public hearing. Following the hearing, the Commission will make a recommendation to City Council for their consideration. The City Council will either accept or modify the Planning Commission's recommendation or send it back for further work. Once the City Council "accepts" the Inventory report, the SMP Update team will prepare the next SMP Component for public review. Once all components are reviewed and accepted by City Council, the entire SMP document will be assembled for public hearings and final adoption. Thanks for your help with this update project. Lori Barlow, AICP Associate Planner - Community Development City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509 - 720 -5335, Direct 509 - 921 -1008, FAX www.spol<anevalley.org (Contents of this email and any reply are subject to public disclosure) STnr r4 b 7 fi x � ' �'C 71389 P1�4. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 2315 N Discovery Place • Spokane Valley.. Washington 99216 -1566 • (509) 892 -1001 FAX (509) 921 -2440 March 10, 2010 City of Spokane Valley Attn: Scott Kuhta 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 SUBJECT. • Comments regarding the Technical Review Draft of Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Dear Mr. Kuhta: The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft version of the City of Spokane Valley's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report February 2010. The inventory and characterization is very thorough; we have only a few comments on the Report that highlight minor inconsistencies and ecosystem characterization gaps. Chapter 3, Regional Characterization: The shoreline analysis in this chapter is a comprehensive inventory of ecosystem -wide processes and ecological functions in habitats within shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Spokane Valley. However, the inventory of species and habitats in Section 3.2 Spokane River Biological Resources does not include all state listed species related to or affected by shoreline planning. In Spokane County, amphibians, such as western toad, also depend on freshwater shoreline habitat in the county. The following link will take you to WDFW's Priority Habitat and Species website http : / /wdfw.wa.gov /hab /phslist.htm County Specific Lists of Species and Habitats are also available at this site under Related Links on the left hand side of the page. The characterization does not include species that are Sensitive or Candidates for listing and therefore vulnerable of becoming Endangered or Threatened without removal of threats. We have enclosed a list of priority species found in the WDFW priority habitats and species database for Spokane County (http: / /wdfw.wa.gov /hab /phspage.htm). We recommend including these species in your characterization report to inform policies and regulations that will adequately protect the existing habitat functions upon which these species depend. Additional Comments on the Species List: Osprey, while included as a species of Local Importance in Spokane County, is no longer included as a priority species and is not included on the State Monitor list. Section 3.2: References to Rainbow trout as well as Redband trout. WDFW has conducted genetics work under the Joint Stock Assessement Program and the redband trout have been found to be genetically distinct, wild fish. It is redundant to have both redband and rainbow trout listed. Columbia River redband trout (Onchorynchus mykiss gairdneri) are a subspecies of rainbow trout (O. mykiss) (Behnke 1992). A genetic inventory of rainbow indicates we have a virtually pure population of Columbia River redband trout in the Spokane River (Small et al 2007). For more information and to further improve the accuracy of the Characterization Report, please refer to the specific comments provided by Jason McLellan, WDFW Fisheries Biologist, forwarded through Doug Pineo, Ecology. Section 3.5 Regional Processes, Stressors and Opportunites for Improvement: Erosion (Spokane River): The Spokane River, particularly the upper reaches is not a wood controlled system nor in the past is it believed to have been wood controlled. The upper reaches of the river look much the same today as the reaches look historically indicating a system that is somewhat stable overtime. WDFW looks at the movement of bedload and channel changes that may occur with high flow conditions as a positive change. The embedded conditions that exist in the Spokane are not indicative of a natural river condition. It takes extreme high flow events (1996/1997) to move the bedload. The BEDS on the river do alter the natural flow regimes, restrict flows, and limit gravel recruitment downstream. The limited sources of gravel feeder bluffs and the operation of BEDs has resulted in a gravel starved system. This lack of gravel recruitment is believed to be one of the limiting factors effecting trout production in this reach. Flooding: WDFW does not look at flooding as negative, but rather as a natural river process. Streams and rivers are supposed to be allowed floodplain connectivity and natural channel migration. It is the process of shoreline development and a controlled system that has resulted in flood control and resulted in altered natural shoreline and riverine processes. Solarization: The main temperature issue in the upper Spokane is due to the operation of the BED upstream in Post Falls. Temperature is considered to be a factor in reduced survival of juvenile salmonids. The warmer water also supports the non - native smallmouth bass. Fish and Wildlife: Fish: While the upper river habitat structure could be ranked as fair to good, the water quality parameters, particularly instream flow and temperature, force the ranking under Condition to be Poor. WDFW is quite concerned with the population decline of native redband trout in the Spokane River and as described above, this is likely linked with reduced spawning material, increased temperature, low recruitment success, and predation. Wildlife: Provide a source for the rankings. While some areas might have suitable habitat, development limits the functional use of the river by some wildlife species. The railroad, highway, residential, and commercial development have all limited the habitat available for species. WDFW suggests adding Residential Development as a process so that docks, danger tree removal, private boat ramps, shoreline armoring, trails, riparian impacts, loss up upland habitat and connectivity are all examples that can be included. Homeless encampments are also an issue along the river within the City. Poaching is another Stressor on the native trout resources. WDFW has recently increased enforcement patrols to try to get control of the increased illegal fishing taking place on the already stressed population. Activity includes angling out of season, not practicing catch and release, and illegal use of bait in baitless /barbless area. 5.0 Local Characterization: Fish: Include Redside shiner and sculpin spp. in the list of fish species found in the Spokane River system. Bull trout, Chinook salmon, and northern pike could also be added to the list of species that are occasionally noted— though all are entrained from the Couer d'Alene system. Critical Areas: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas extend above the OHWL. For example, the WDFW recommended riparian habitat width is 250 ft. This extends well above the OHWL. Stating "below the OHWU may cause confusion. Shoreline Modifications: The City has an opportunity to address cumulative shoreline impacts under this update process. Addressing cumulative shoreline impacts is a requirement under the Ecology's SMA and relying on WDFW to address these impacts under the hydraulic code is problematic at best. WDFW does not have the authority to address cumulative impacts from individual applications and can only deny projects on the basis of impacts to fish life. WDFW encourages the City to take this opportunity seriously and set an appropriate standard for future shoreline developments. Sources: WDFW would like suggest that the following sources be considered for best available science: A. Management Recommendations: WDFW produces management recommendations supported by best available science. Management recommendations are most appropriate to inform protection standards, but may also inform shoreline analysis recommendations. Sources include: 1. The updated PHS list includes electronic links to PHS management recommendations and single -page recommendations, recovery plans, living with wildlife program, and NatureServe Species Reports for all priority species. ( http: / /wdfw.wa.gov /hab /phsrecs.htm Management recommendations most commonly applied to SNIP updates are: a. Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian (1997), http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ripxsum.htm 2. Trout Recovery: A sampling of agency recommendations include: a. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines, http: / /wdfw.wa.gov /hab /ahg , covering a number of topics related to shoreline protection and restoration. b. WDFW Wild Salmonid Policy (1997): http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/wsp/wsp.htm c. WDFW, Ecology, and DOT. Alternative Mitigation Policy Guidance: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/altmtgtn.pd f d. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout (Knight 2009); http://wdfw.wa.gov/habitat/plannersguide/index.html Again we thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on the Report and are impressed with the thorough inventory and characterization. With the inclusion of all WDFW priority habitats and species, we believe this report provides a good foundation for your Shoreline Master Program policies and regulations. We look forward to providing additional technical assistance throughout your update process. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or requests for additional information. I look forward to continuing to work with the City of Spokane Valley on this Shoreline Master Program Update. Sincerely, n Karin A. Diverts Kad: KAD Cc: Mark Wachtel, RHPM Jennifer Davis, Environmental Services Coordinator Doug Pineo, Department of Ecology From: Person, Randy (PARKS) [ mailto : Randy. Person @PARKS.WA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:17 PM To: Lori Barlow Cc: Parsons, Christine (PARKS); Person, Randy (PARKS); Schulz, Mark (PARKS); Guidotti, Chris (PARKS); Fraser, Bill (PARKS); Scott, Kathryn (PARKS); Harris, Jim (PARKS); Koss, Bill (PARKS) Subject: Response to Spokane Valley SMP inventory report Thank you for making the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report available for comment. It contains a great deal of information, and should make a good basis for future discussions. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has a few comments for you to consider. Spokane River Centennial Trail —the document routinely refers to the trail developed by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, and maintained through an interagency agreement, as simply "Centennial Trail." We recommend that the more complete reference "Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT)" be used. Although it's not a bad reference in context, there were several other "Centennial Trails" constructed in Washington at about that time, and using the full reference will make it easier in the future, especially for digital search engines. The SRCT is mentioned often as an important feature. At times it is a landmark, at other times its presence as a barrier is noted. Unfortunately, only the map in figure 5 -4 on page 42 actually shows the alignment of the trail within the shoreline zone. Wherever possible, please show the actual trail alignment. We can help with this — GIS data is available for the asking, that shows State Park ownership, as well as the trail alignment. Please contact Kathryn Scott at Kathryn.Scott @parks.wa.gov or (360) 902 -8691 to work out the details. In a similar vein, the text is full of landmarks and other geographic references, which some of us are unfamiliar with. Categorically, maps showing the locations of all the referenced items should be included. It is difficult to fully understand the written information without some idea of the physical relationships being discussed. The second paragraph on page 69 discusses potential for non - motorized watercraft access near Coyote Rock, "just west of Mirabeau Point." Is this correct? Our reading of the maps shows the Coyote Rocks area lying just westerly of Myrtle Point, with Mirabeau further upstream. Speaking of development, please consider the ongoing need for public access to the shoreline during discussions of shoreline designations, appropriate uses, and development regulations. This report describes a number of areas with social trails leading to the water edge. The demand to reach this special area is high, and the need to protect the shoreline is also high. We recognize that often the best solution is appropriate development of designated facilities such as paths, viewing platforms, and hand carried watercraft launch and retrieval facilities. Providing carefully designed convenient access facilities directs use, and helps protect adjacent fragile natural areas. To be able to provide useful public access facilities and thereby limit impacts, it is important that public access facilities be shown as "permitted uses" in publically owned shoreline areas, and especially those lands that contain the SRCT. Appropriate development regulations will then help assure that facilities are well designed and strike a good balance between public access and preserving most of the shoreline's existing natural character. Please add the address local.government @parks.wa.gov to your mailing list. This site is monitored regularly. Sending there will assure a timely response that is not dependent on one individual. Thank you. We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Spokane Valley as you work towards a new revised Shoreline Master Program. Randy Person, Park Planner Washington State Parks randy.person@parks.wa.gov Phone 360 - 902 -8655 Fax 360 - 586 -0207 Snail mail PO Box 42650, Olympia, WA 98504 Street 1111 Israel Road SE, Olympia, WA 98504 Hi, Scott. We're always happy to review when someone actually pays attention to our comments. Your newly available suite of maps is very helpful. The Shorelines by Section map certainly shows the SRCT very accurately. Those same maps could be made more useful with just a little more label work. Some examples: • E -5i shows the Sullivan Road area, with several parking areas near the river. I might presume the one west of Sullivan, closest to the river on the north bank, is public recreational parking, and the others are business related. A short label in these relatively clear areas would clarify things. If the parking on the north side is intended for access to the SRCT, by walking across the bridge, that could even be stated. E -5o could easily label Myrtle Point. E -5j shows an unidentified railroad bridge In general, take the attitude of an ignorant (though intelligent) person viewing the area for the first time through your maps. Don't crowd them with so many notes that you can no longer see the features, but the scale used allows a lot of room for helpful labels. And speaking of scales ... Even here at the office, my print default came up at 8' /z x 11. If I was an interested citizen viewing these from home, I may well have a printer that could not produce 11 x 17. Especially today, when digital output is so controllable by the end user, it is important to have a scale that works. The text 1" = 200' does not. It should be replaced (or augmented) with a graphic scale, which was well done on E -4. No matter what size the output, one can then accurately determine distances. I'm still not sure that I could pick out each area in the Audubon report, but I have a much better idea of the site conditions with the draft inventory maps. Although a day in the field exploring the river would be great, I'm probably destined to help coordinate our responses from Olympia, so the printable product is very important for me. Cheers, Randy Person Memo To: Scott Kuhta From: Walt Edelen CC: Shoreline Inventory Comments Date: 4/6/2010 Re: Characterization Report Comments: 1. Page 5. It should state Spokane County Conservation District, not Service 2. Page 11. 3 rd paragraph. It should read, According to Spokane County Conservation District's, 3. Page 11. 3 rd paragraph states that the PFC rates the Spokane River as poor to fair ecologically. This is inaccurate. The PFC states that the Spokane River, ecologically, is fair to good. The PFC reported 24% as Good, 55% Fair, and only 21 % as poor. 4. Scientific names of plants should be italicized on page 13. 5. Your water quality section is rather sparse. I would have expected a lengthy section with all the TMDL efforts and data collected over the years. 6. Page 14. NPS. Your first sentence needs restructuring. It reads as though you are promoting decreased use of urban runoff and fertilizers. 7. Shelley Lake. Might want to add something about the large waterline fluctuation of Shelley Lake due to the spring runoff. There is a significant drop by summer without the pumping. 8. Would one of your issues (page 17) be instream flows? What about impacts of Post Falls dam? 9. Page 21.2 paragraph. Ends with relatively recently. Change that to recently. 10. Page 21. Shelley Lake section. No mention of slaughterhouse history & use. Dumping of carcasses in Lake? Probably not needed. 11. Page 24. It may be important to enhance the riparian corridor, but there are areas that need to be protected from development encroachment. High quality areas that need restrictions likely greater than the SMA or local ordinances. 12. It would be helpful to have the River Miles stated for the Study Segments in the documents. I could line up other things with that information. 13. Page 31. 1 think this area is a Rosgen channel type C2 or C3. Not sure it matches up with PFC work. 1 14. Table 5.5. 1 realize the one plant association comes out to 0 %, but it just doesn't look good to the general reader. 15. 1 do like the fact that you researched the amount of impervious surfaces within the riparian zone. Great data. 16. 1 was a little confused as to how you have 144.6 acres of plant associations within your 88.5 acres of Segment 1. Is this due to that the 88.5 is just the amount under jurisdiction? 17. Page 41. The statement regarding the SCCD report and adequate riparian vegetation of greater than 60 ft. I think this interpretation is not entirely accurate. The SCCD report indicates that this area had a riparian width similar to the previous reach (in the report — reach 4). It actually states an average riparian width of 0 -50 ft and that it the reach was dominated by discontinuous narrow bands of vegetation. Overall, the reach is fair to good on habitat. 18. 1 do like the paragraph on page 41 where it states that more trees need to be added for restoration efforts. 19. Page 43. Coyote Development. Who has determined that a 75' buffer is adequate? What types of access are they trying to get with permits? 20. SR -4 — areas behind upriver dam are subject to wake action due to boating activities. Local residents complain of this regularly. Lots without adequate vegetation are suffering streambank erosion issues. 21. The trail around Shelley Lake has mooring areas for non - motorized boats? I didn't see any last year. 22. The east side of Shelley Lake has a nice High quality area including the granite rock, Ponderosa Pine community and some alder communities. 23. General comment: There should be better spacing between some of the text and the figures in the document. It may be a formatting issue. 24. Page 65. Last paragraph. Misspelled word (t). the word "it" is missing the "i" 25. 1 do not think dock permitting should occur within the Spokane River at the Coyote Development site. This is not protection of the shoreline and preserving its natural character. Don't allow this activity to degrade a great City asset. 26. Your Recommendations section does not include any restoration plans for the shorelines. Why not? You could work with local agencies, especially the SCCD to accomplish this. 27. Overall, I think you have a done a good job on the inventory section. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding my comments Regards, Walt Edelen Water Resources Program Manager Spokane County Conservation District • Page 2 URS Comment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Report (Tech Review Group Draft) Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Doug Pinneo and Comment 3 -12 -2010 Response 4 -5 -2010 [DAP2]: When referring to functions it's probably good to specify Jeremy Sikes, Ecology Date: ecological functions. Also these three bullets mix up the following Date: No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by 1. Section 1.0, 4 t " pgh [DAP1] I think this is supposed to be a heading Remnant sentence, removed JCP [DAP2]: When referring to functions it's probably good to specify ecological functions. Also these three bullets mix up the following sequence a little bit: 1) Conduct a shoreline inventory; 2) Analyze inventory data and information to: - characterize ecological functions including biodiversity, native plant Sec. 1.1 Purpose of and animal community integrity, etc., so as to achieve a "meaningful 2. the understanding of shoreline ecological functions; Revised paragraph to address comment. JCP Characterization - identify elements of natural character, shoreline habitats and ecosystems and related attributes which should not be disturbed, damaged or destroyed because they can't be restored or replicated within the time horizon of the SMP (10 -12 years); - identify opportunities for restoration of shoreline resources and ecological function; - characterize reasonably foreseeable uses and developments in the shorelines as the basis for assessing potential cumulative impacts. [DAP3]: SMP jurisdiction MUST be extended to include the delineated boundary of all associated wetlands. Local governments MAY choose to extend SMP jurisdiction to include the buffers necessary to protect wetlands as they are critical areas as defined in the Growth Management Act. 3' Sec. 1.2 SMA All critical areas (as defined in the GMA) within SMP jurisdiction shall Revised per comment and added a reference to the latest JCP Jurisdiction be managed with the comprehensively updated SMP after it is approved SMP amendment. by the Department of Ecology and becomes part of the statewide Shoreline Master Program. This was clarified earlier this week by the legislature in its most recent amendments to the SMA and GMA. This legislation has been informally labeled the "Anacortes Fix" during the 2010 legislative session. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 6 No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by [DAP4]: The technical advisory committee might also benefit from Many groups have been contacted (Audubon, IEFFC, Sec. 2.0 Methods participation by experts in riparian ecology and stream ecology at SFF, TU, Native Plant Society) and involved with data 4. last bullet (Tribe) Eastern Washington University and from other local experts not gathering. Some have been more responsive than JCP affiliated with government. others. The inventory is available on the website and public notice has been published. 2,1 -Field [jjs5]: Was there some kind of gap analysis document that was prepared Revised slightly. App. A includes a listing of data 5. Inventory, last for the City? If so, this section should at least refer to it and include it as sources and an evaluation of missing information that JCP paragraph a reference. If not, this 3 sentence paragraph describing gaps does not was needed for the inventory. really tell the tale. Either way this section requires some expansion. Comment [DAP6]: The SMA requires "protecting against adverse Agreed. Reaches are given detailed assessment of all impacts to the land, its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the veg. commuinities for this reason. Also, Sec. 3.2, under state and their aquatic life. Thus, riparian and associatedupland the Biological Resources heading, addresses not only vegetation and native plant communities are thus given equal protection the importance of riparian habitat but of the importance 6. under the SMA. It's fine to call out the special importance and of the ecotone between the riparian habitat and the NH ecological functions riparian areas have in the landscape, but this adjacent upland communities. Some redundancy is discussion should be revised to better emphasize the relevance of upland inherent in the outline of the document so the vegetation plant communities in SMA jurisdiction. This need is better born out in is described in general regional terms (Sec. 3), historic 2.2.1 Veg. Survey the actual descriptions of reaches in Section 5. terms (Sec. 4), and study segment - specific terms (Sec. Protocol 5) Rex Crawford's associations best matched the observed Comment [DAP7]: Since Rex Crawford's work encompassed only the plant associations along the river (surprisingly!). So as Columbia Basin and not the surrounding highlands, like the northern tier to minimize reinventing the wheel, the most applicable 7 of eastern Washington, the Spokane area, the Palouse and the riparian vegetation management guide was used, which NH and floodplain plant associations of the Blue Mountain counties (Asotin, happened to be RC's. It should be mentioned that Garfield, Columbia, and Walla Walla), why did you not develop or Kovalchick et. al. and the SCCD's PFC study were also assign your own plant associations or use those identified by others referenced for various wildlife habitat values as including Kovalchik? presented in Table 5 -1. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 6 No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by [DAPS]: From our Spokane River and Aquifer expert John Covert: On page ten they have a graphic that shows gaining and losing reaches along the river. The most up -to -date version of this map can be found in the 2009 Update addition of the SVRP Aquifer Atlas. I am attaching a screen capture of a portion of page 14 of the atlas that shows the most current understanding of the relationships. It is slightly different than the one in the draft SMP inventory. The aquifer boundary was updated in 2007 (Bi state study) which isn't used on the image on page 10. Revised section to address comments. COSY is In the third paragraph from the bottom of page 20 they say "Sometime acquiring the latest aquifer GIS information. Mapping between 1910 and 1925 the Spokane Valley Irrigation District will be revised I this or the final draft depending on constructed a canal to divert water from the river for irrigation near the when the information can be acquired. state line." This is true. Near the top of page 21 is this paragraph: 8. 3.1- SVRP Aquifer A review of the historic documentation indicates that the Spokane River The intent of this paragraph was to indicate that JCP did not play a large role in the development of the valley did not impact the river to a development of the Spokane Valley. Early land development is great extent. Irrigation from the river, lakes, and aquifer generally associated with irrigation from certainly played a major role in development but the the surrounding lakes and later with pumping from the Spokane- immediate river valley was not a significant factor in Rathdrum Aquifer. The river was not shaping the valley as evidenced by no roads or utility heavily used until relatively recently. corridors along the river as occurs in many other areas. The Spokane Valley Farms Canal at Post Falls (USGS gage 12418500) Section revised. diverted hundreds of cfs from the Spokane River and irrigated thousands of acres from the 1920s into the 1960s. That surface water was replaced with groundwater wells in the late 1960s (USBR project drilled 34 wells in the aquifer to replace the surface water diversion). Very little surface water is actually used any more. Almost all water users withdraw from wells now. So the paragraph on page 21 needs to be fixed. JC 3.1- SVRP 9. Aquifer, 4 t " [DAP9]: These two sentences contradict each other. Revised JCP paragraph [DAP10]: The Proper Functioning Condition assessment conducted by the Spokane County Conservation District did in fact include some limited annotation about ecological function, but significantly Section 3 presents a general, regional overview of SMP 10. 3.2- Spokane River understates the ecological function s made evident elsewhere in this waters within the City. More detailed assessments of NH (last paragraph) Inventory. Also, the river banks in much of the river reaches flowing geomorphic conditions and ecological functions are through Spokane Valley are self armored and frequently characterized presented in Section 5; at the local assessment scale. by large boulders and cobbles distributed by much larger flow regimes than occur today. This section needs to be rewritten. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 6 No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by [DAP1I]: This discussion does not tell us anything about, or introduce future discussion of the spatial and temporal occurances and distribution of these groups in the shorelines of the Spokane River. The SMP guidelines tell us how to use local expertise but use of anecdotal Again, this is meant to provide a regional description to 11. 3.2- Bio Resources observations of wildlife abundance must be carefully placed in context. showcase the matrix within the COSV shorelines fit NH Even the PFC assessment is a one -day "fly by" of only very limited into. value in the inventory discussion. This introductory discussion also makes no mention of aquatic or terrestrial macro - invertebrates, though they are briefly mentioned later. [DAP12]: Redundant. Red band are the native rainbow trout which include both resident non - migratory populations and also the region's anadromous steehead trout which do not reach into Spokane Valley. Per WDFW comments, a new table (Table 3 -2) was Also, many other priority species have been observed in Spokane Valley added to the report to include all priority species within 3.2 -Bio Resources, over the years, and while a discussion of the Priority Species has a the county. Section 5 then links the life forms to 12. trout bullets limited place in the SMP update Inventory, the SMA and SMP available habitats and describes their use potential in JCP/NH Guidelines require equal protective management for all species in Table 5 -1. This is meant to provide a surrogate for the shoreline environments. This is one of the areas in which the SMA and shoreline's potential to support these species and, the GMA standards for Critical Areas differs significantly. The SMA thereby, highlight areas for conservation or restoration. standard for protecting wildlife and their aquatic and terrestrial habitats is higher in the SMA than in the GMA. Stn -Bio Resources, [DAP13]: Thurow is in error with respect to the status of red band trout Revised t incorporate the findings of Small's 2007 13. 4 paragraph in the Spokane and its tributaries. See Jason McLellan's more thorough t genetics study. JCP/NH comments circulated separately. I assume you are describing the "Vegetation" section. Again, this is meant to provide a general/regional overview of vegetation patterns along the river. By [DAP14]: This a vague, general and deficient discussion which doesn't describing the general bands of vegetation and 14. 3.2 plants add anything to our "meaningful understanding" of native plants along corresponding geomorphic positions, lay readers are NH the Spokane River in Spokane Valley. more readily able to visualize the shoreline environment and understand the differences within a varying habitat collectively referred to as "riparian". Further detail provided in Section 5. 15. 3.3- Shelley Lake [jjs15]: Has this "work" been referenced already elsewhere? No. Reference expanded. JCP 16. 3.4- Gravel Pits [jjs16]: Reference a figure here Added a reference to Figure 1 -1 JCP 17. 4.1- historic veg. Conspicuous? Meaning they "stand out" less? Yes. I have changed conspicuous to "common" for NH clarity. 18 4.1 shoreline Ujs18]: They have a water right for discharge? Should this refer to an Revised — added reference to NPDES permit for JCP alterations effluent discharge permit? discharge. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 4 of 6 No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by 19. 4.1 Hjs19]: The riparian impacts from the initial trail construction bear a Revised after discussions with Ecology. Please review JCP little more description here. What type of vegetation? was it intact and comment. riparian? How much? To what effect? [DAP20]: In a number of locations in Spokane Valley, where no previous roadbed existed, the trail was constructed through remnant intact patches of native Rathdrum Prairie and through riparian 20. 4.1 vegetation, for example west of Barker Road, over 30 acres of native Revised, see response in No. 19. JCP plant associations were permanently lost. The trail also introduced noxious weeds to areas previously not invaded. Trail maintenance has included routine use of herbicides to control the weeds, also affecting adjacent remaining native vegetation. [jjs2l]: this implies that there was once much more water in the lake. Is Hard to say, since past information is hard to come by, 21. 4.2 that true? Miniature hydroplane races sound awesome. but we know that supplemental water was pumped into JCP the lake from the aquifer until recently. [jjs22]: SI there any more information on how this conversion will take There are approved DNR reclamation plans for each of 22. 4.3- gravel pits place? Will they actively restore the area to maximize habitat or just quit the pits. JCP mining and let nature take it's course? "Rare" as used in the report includes listed (T & E), "Sensitive ", and "Tracking" status plants. No records Comment [DAP23]: More significant in many ways than rare plants are of any rare plants or rare plant associations were 23. 5.1 -rare plants the relative abundance and association of plant species which are not yet documented within the SMP areas. Overlapping rare NH listed. plant associations were noted at the old Inland Empire Zoo (Mirabeau Park) but not within the SMP during fieldwork. [DAP24]: This is not true. The river channel is characterized by a diverse channel morphology and fish species exploit different habitats within the wetted perimeter. Temperature and dissolved oxygen also This section was updated to address cold water refugia 24. 5.1 -fish strongly affect the distribution of different species in the river. Small per McLellen & O'Connor (WDFW) 2008 and 2009. NH mouth bass are as yet not widespread in the lower river below Monroe Further detail on spawning areas and local abundances Street Dam in Spokane, as they are in the upper river in Spokane Valley. provided I the study segment subsections. Contact WDFW for more recent surveys of fish in the upper Spokane River. 25. 5.1- Critical areas [DAP25]: Need to add geohazards According to the City GIS information no geohazards JCP have been identified along the Spokane River. 5.1- sediment [jjs26]: refer to figure; this is a little confusing. be more specific; what 26' natural areas? where are the corridors? how important are they Revised, added additional detail. JCP transport regionall City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 5 of 6 No. Ref. Comment Response Provided by Hjs27]: I understand what you are getting at here, but I'm not sure about the use of the word "buffer", Implies that it is providing more ecological 27. 5.1.1.1- recreation benefit than the trail actually does. The presence of the trial in the buffer Revised, JCP actually degrades it's function over even a pervious dirt road and certainly over a vegetated riparian corridor. Maybe "physical separation"? 28. 5.1.1.1 - recreation Ujs28]: Is this informal parking causing or likely to cause any kind of No. Parking is along a paved road. JCP shoreline degradation? 29. 5.1.1.1 -trans [jjs29]: This sounds interesting; can you give a quick summary of the No. See www.bridginZhe , I emailed you the JCP proj ect? link. DAP30 -Need to characterize velocities better than to say the 30. 5.1.3.1- recreation `Backwater... is present." Especially at higher flows, there is significant Revised to better reflect conditions. JCP current at this reach [DAP31]: This issue is far from over and it is Ecology's carefully Revised by adding discussion on permitting and 31. 5.1.3.1- Shoreline evaluated position that docks should be prohibited in this reach, both potential effects, including cumulative impacts. Note JCP Modifications because of impacts on the river and public user, but also due to that all agencies review letters commented on this. cumulative impacts to shoreline plant communities and habitat 5.1.3.2 -phys. [DAP32]: This is a good characterization and is a good standard for 32. characterization other SMPs. It represents a significant improvement over the City of thanks NH /JCP Spokane Inventory. [DAP33]: This is a well- intended effort to characterize areas which within the COSY, the areas described as high quality should not be disturbed, but is not tied to distinct metrics. The broad "high conservations areas are attributed to healthy, mature, 5.1.3.3 -High category of quality" also was applied to popular recreational areas intact bands of native riparian forest. I've documented 33. Quality Cons. regardless of their ecological function, and was also applied to large this in the report to make sure it is clear that this NH Areas monotypical stands of large, introduced European white willow and description is related to habitat conditions (rather than golden willow trees in the vicinity of the confluence of the Spokane and recreation, etc.). This rationale seems relevant to the Little Spokane rivers. Remove this reference while retaining the shoreline characterization so I've left it in for now. description of these important areas. A better terminology is needed. 34. Throughout Minor teat edits made in track changes through document Incorporated NH /JCP 35. 36. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 6 of 6 URS Comment Ref. Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Report (Tech. Review Group Draft) Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Bill Gothman, COSV Comment Date: 2.27.2010 Response Date: 4/5/2010 No. Ref. Comment Response Expanded Section 6.4.3 a bit to address comments. We have spoken with Central Premix and the City about potential future uses. Please review and comment and if I thought the discussion about the aggregate mines (gravel pits) was there are additional ideas we can address prior to thoughtful and accurate, and for the most part thorough. However, some completion of the final document. discussion of the future of these water bodies is warranted. There is a general tendency to think they should forever be closed off from public use because they expose the aquifer, but stepping back to realize that this is what most naturally formed lakes also do often produces a calming effect. Very high quality fisheries can be sustained in lakes of this size and bathymetry, with the high water quality. Experience in 5.3 and 6.4.3- other parts of the US demonstrate that recreational use of lacustrine 1. future use of water bodies which form critical elements of major municipal and JCP/NHB gravel pits regional water supplies can be successfully managed to protect water quality. A discussion of the future of the Park Rd. and Sullivan Rd. lakes is warranted in the sections on opportunities for ecological restoration and the Use Analysis. For process purposes, another discussion series is warranted with the owner - operators of the current active surface mines, to explore options for the future beyond the active economic lives of these mines. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 2 No. Ref. Comment Response 2. Water Trail — Some of you attended at least parts of this week's Spokane River Forum, so you know discussion of public access and recreation needs to be expanded to address more in - depth analysis of the diversity and scope of current and reasonably foreseeable future Added reference to the water trail. public use of Spokane River shorelines within the city. The very recent Section 6.2- emergence of a Water Trail proposal for the entire river in Spokane 2 ' Additional detail County (and perhaps into Kootenai County to the east) should be a I would like to add that I appreciate these comments; they JCP on projected specific area of discussion, since it involves elements of public access, have helped us focus on an important element of the use recreation recreation, and protecting shoreline ecological functions. Unlike the analysis that had not been addressed previously and is not unrealized promises and potential of the Centennial Trail to date, the very clearly defined in WAC 173 -26. Thanks Water Trail also encompasses possibilities for interpreting the natural and cultural history of the river and the landscape through which it flows. These are all purposes within the scope of the SMA and local SMPs, so should be addressed. 3. Whitewater — At least five sites have been identified or proposed for Section 6.2- whitewater parks along the Spokane River, all located in reaches and on Reviewed the REP initial siting study done none Additional detail top of channel forms which are critical to native fishes and the aquatic of the sites are within the COSV. However, t i there a 3. on projected macro - invertebrates upon which they feed. Several of these are located short discussion on enhancements of the entire reach JCP whitewater within the corporate limits of Spokane Valley, so are a "reasonably between Barker and Sullivan that has been included. recreation foreseeable use" which should be specifically addressed in the Use Analysis. 4. Bridges — both conventional transportation bridges and those envisioned for recreational purposes are significant perturbations on The reference to the pedestrian bridge is in the City of 4 Section 6.2- river channels and shorelands. At least one proposal for a recreational Liberty Lake. Added a short discussion on bridges in JCP Future Bridges bridge across the Spokane River in the Spokane Valley has been general. published in the Spokesman Review. These need to be addressed in the Use Analysis. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 2 URS Comment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Report (Tech. Review Group Draft) Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Jason McLellen, Comment 2 -19 -2010 Response 4/5/2010 Columbia River redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Ecology Date: gairdneri) are a subspecies of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus Date: No. Ref. Comment Response Redundant having both rainbow and redband trout listed. Columbia River redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) are a subspecies of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus Page 12, mykiss) (Behnke 1992). A genetic inventory of rainbow 1' Comment 1 trout indicated we have a virtually pure population of Text updated NBH /JCP Columbia River redband tout in the Spokane River (Small et al. 2007). This statement is not accurate. Steel head are the anadromous life history form of rainbow trout. Thus, 2 Page 12, Comment 2 rainbow trout, including steelhead, native to the Columbia Text updated NBH /JCP River drainage east of the Cascade Mountains are Columbia River redband trout Behnke 1992). 3' Page 12, Only in areas where the anadromous life history form has be Removed NBH /JCP Comment 3 eliminated. This is not accurate for the Spokane River. A genetic inventory showed little hybridization between hatchery 4 Page 12, Comment 4 (coastal origin, O. m. irideus) stocks of rainbow trout and Removed NBH /JCP redband trout in the Spokane River drainage (Small et al. 2007). City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 1 URS Comment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Report (Tech Review Group Draft) Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Karin Divert, WDFW Comment 3/10/2010 Response 4/5/2010 ecosystem -wide processes and ecological functions in habitats within Date: shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Spokane Valley. However, the Date: No. Ref. Comment Response The shoreline analysis in this chapter is a comprehensive inventory of ecosystem -wide processes and ecological functions in habitats within shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Spokane Valley. However, the inventory of species and habitats in Section 3.2 Spokane River Biological Resources does not include all state listed species related to A complete list of Priority Species was added as Table 1. or affected by shoreline planning. In Spokane County, amphibians, such 3 -2 in the revised report NBH as western toad, also depend on freshwater shoreline habitat in the county. The following link will take you to WDFW's Priority Habitat Chapter 3, Regional and Species website hlW : / /wdfw.wa.gov/hab /phslist.htm County Characterization Specific Lists of Species and Habitats are also available at this site under Related Links on the left hand side of the page. The characterization does not include species that are Sensitive or Candidates for listing and therefore vulnerable of becoming Endangered or Threatened without removal of threats. We have enclosed a list of 2 priority species found in the WDFW priority habitats and species See above NBH database for Spokane County ( http: / /wdfw.wa.gov/hab /phspage.htm). We recommend including these species in your characterization report to inform policies and regulations that will adequately protect the existing habitat functions upon which thesespecies depend. Osprey, while included as a species of Local Importance in Spokane Additional Comments County, is no longer included as a priority species and is not included on the Species List on the State Monitor list. 3. Osprey reference removed. NBH City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 4 No. Ref. Comment Response Section 3.2: References to Rainbow trout as well as Redband trout. WDFW has conducted genetics work under the Joint Stock Assessement Program and the redband trout have been found to be genetically distinct, wild fish. It is redundant to have both redband and rainbow trout listed. Columbia River redband trout (Onchorynchus 4 mykiss gairdneri) are a subspecies of rainbow trout (O. mykiss) Updated per Jason McLellen's comments NBH (Behnke 1992). A genetic inventory of rainbow indicates we have a virtually pure population of Columbia River redband trout in the Spokane River (Small et al 2007). For more information and to further improve the accuracy of the Characterization Report, please refer to the specific comments provided by Jason McLellan, WDFW Fisheries Biologist, forwarded through Doug Pineo, Ecology. Erosion:The Spokane River, particularly the upper reaches is not a wood controlled system nor in the past is it believed to have been wood controlled. The upper reaches of the river look much the same today as the reaches look historically indicating a system that is somewhat stable overtime. WDFW looks at the movement of bedload and channel Section 3.5 Regional changes that may occur with high flow conditions as a positive change. 5 Processes, Stressors The embedded conditions that exist in the Spokane are not indicative of Table 3 -3 changed to reflect this information. NBH and Opportunites for a natural river condition. It takes extreme high flow events (1996/1997) Improvement to move the bedload. The HEDs on the river do alter the natural flow regimes, restrict flows, and limit gravel recruitment downstream. The limited sources of gravel feeder bluffs and the operation of HEDs has resulted in a gravel starved system. This lack of gravel recruitment is believed to be one of the limiting factors effecting trout production in this reach. Flooding: WDFW does not look at flooding as negative, but rather as a natural river process. Streams and rivers are supposed to be allowed Agreed; table changed to describe flooding as a natural 6 floodplain connectivity and natural channel migration. It is the process process that has been affected by HEDs and has resulted NBH of shoreline development and a controlled system that has resulted in in altered fluvial processes, including those described in flood control and resulted in altered natural shoreline and riverine the above comment. p rocesses. Solarization: The main temperature issue in the upper Spokane is due Table updated to reflect the relative importance of cold 7. to the operation of the HED upstream in Post Falls. Temperature is Water input from the aquifer rather than merely focusing NBH considered to be a factor in reduced survival of juvenile salmonids. The on shade from vegetation. warmer water also supports the non - native smallmouth bass. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 4 No. Ref. Comment Response Fish: While the upper river habitat structure could be ranked as fair to good, the water quality parameters, particularly instream flow and temperature, force the ranking under Condition to be Poor. WDFW is quite concerned with the population decline of native redband trout in 8. the Spokane River and as described above, this is likely linked with Table updated accordingly NBH reduced spawning material, increased temperature, low recruitment success, and predation. Wildlife: Provide a source for the rankings. While some areas might have suitable habitat, development limits the functional use of the river 9. by some wildlife species. The railroad, highway, residential, and Additional detail provided for condition findings. NBH commercial development have all limited the habitat available for species. Other: WDFW suggests adding Residential Development as a process so that docks, danger tree removal, private boat ramps, shoreline 10. armoring, trails, riparian impacts, loss up upland habitat and Added to Table 3 -3 NBH connectivity are all examples that can be included. Homeless encampments are also an issue along the river within the City. Other: Poaching is another Stressor on the native trout resources. WDFW has recently increased enforcement patrols to try to get control 11. of the increased illegal fishing taking place on the already stressed Noted under stressors to Fish in Table 3 -3 NBH population. Activity includes angling out of season, not practicing catch and release, and illegal use of bait in baitless/barbless area. Fish: Include Redside shiner and sculpin spp. in the list of fish species 5.0 Local found in the Spokane River system. Bull trout, Chinook salmon, and 12. Characterization: northern pike could also be added to the list of species that are Added. NBH occasionally noted — though all are entrained from the Couer d'Alene system. The current critical areas ordinance for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas is related to the WDFW Critical Areas: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas extend priority habitats. As you know, these are being updated above the OHWL. For example, the WDFW recommended riparian and the current "Urban Natural Open Space" category is 13. habitat width is 250 ft. This extends well above the OHWL. Stating being removed. Thus the future designation will likely "Fish NBH "below the OHWL" may cause confusion. be one for Habitat Conservation Area' (below the "Riparian OHWM) and a separate designation for Habitat Area ", which I have described as areas within up to 250 feet from the OHWM on page 26. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 4 No. Ref. Comment Response Shoreline Modifications: The City has an opportunity to address cumulative shoreline impacts under this update process. Addressing cumulative shoreline impacts is a requirement under the Ecology's SMA and relying on WDFW to address these impacts under the Cumulative impacts will be addressed specifically 14. hydraulic code is problematic at best. WDFW does not have the under the next element of the SMP update process. NBH authority to address cumulative impacts from individual applications and can only deny projects on the basis of impacts to fish life. WDFW encourages the City to take this opportunity seriously and set an appropriate standard for future shoreline developments. WDFW produces management recommendations supported by best available science. Management recommendations are most appropriate Thank you for summarizing and providing links to all of to inform protection standards, but may also inform shoreline analysis these guidance documents! The existing recommendations. Sources include: characterization repeatedly recommends riparian enhancements, which I believe is consistent with the 1. The updated PHS list includes electronic links to PHS management riparian priority habitat guidance. This will be further recommendations and single -page recommendations, recovery elaborated upon in the forthcoming shoreline restoration plans, living with wildlife program, and Nature Serve Species plan, which is a separate element of the SMP update Reports for all priority species. process. ( http: / /wdfw.wa.gov/hab /phsrecs.htm Management recommendations most commonly applied to SMP updates are: Per our conversations, most of the limiting factors related to trout recovery have to do with factors outside a. Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian (1997), of the City's boundaries and beyond their control (e.g. hlW: / /wdfw.wa.gov/hab /ripxsum.htm HED flow controls). I have tried to acknowledge the 15. Management issues present within the City and focus on shoreline NBH Recommendations 2. Trout Recoy r3 A sampling of agency recommendations include: planning activities that are within the control of the a. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines, hlW: / /wdfw.wa.gov/hab /ahg/ City. These include protecting the cold water refugia west of Sullivan Rd, where the stream is recharged by covering a number of topics related to shoreline protection the aquifer. McLellen reports that this area is where and restoration. most of their fish were captured during stock surveys b. WDFW Wild Salmonid Policy (1997): conducted between the state line and Plantes Ferry park hlW: / /wdfw.wa.gov /fish/wsp /wsp.htm so I've tried to highlight thermal protection of this habitat as apriority. Please let me know if there are c. WDFW, Ecology, and DOT. Alternative Mitigation Policy other WDFW recommendations that apply to trout Guidance: http:// wdfw.wa.gov/hab /ahg /altmtzn.pdf recovery, which are within the City's ability to d. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout implement and that I have not already addressed. (Knight 2009); http: / /wdfw.wa.gov/ habitat /plannersguide /index.html Thank you very much for your comments! City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 4 of 4 URS Comment Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Report (Tech. Review Group Draft) Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Walt Edelen, SCCD Comment Response 4/5/2010 COSV Date: Date: No. Ref. Comment Response It should state Spokane County Conservation District, not Service 1. Page 5 Corrected JCP Page 11, 3�d It should read, According to Spokane County Conservation District's, �' paragraph Corrected JCP Page 11. 3 d States that the PFC rates the Spokane River as poor to fair ecologically. This is Checked the GIS database, revised to 3. paragraph inaccurate. The PFC states that the Spokane River, ecologically, is fair to good. state fair to good. JCP The PFC reported 24% as Good, 55% Fair, and only 21% as poor Scientific names of plants should be italicized on. 4. page 13 Corrected NBH Appreciate the comment; we tried to summarize the water quality issues that might affect the planning efforts within Your water quality section is rather sparse. I would have expected a lengthy section with the City of Spokane Valley. Metals, PCBs, PBDEs are the contaminants listed 5. all the TMDL efforts and data collected over the years. for the waters within the COSV. Non- JCP/NBH Point nutrient sources are also an important management issue for the P. TMDL. Some additional text was provided regarding temperature and DO issues. Your first sentence needs restructuring. It reads as though you are promoting decreased 6. Page 14. NPS use of urban runoff and fertilizers. Revised JCP Might want to add something about the large waterline fluctuation of Shelley Lake 7. Shelley Lake due to the spring runoff. There is a significant drop by summer without the Added jcp p um p in g . City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 3 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 3 Would one of your issues be instream flows? What about impacts of Post Falls dam? 8. page 17 Agreed — Added to table NBH /JCP 9 Page 21. 2nd Ends with relatively recently. Change that to recently Thanks — revised that paragraph JCP paragraph extensively. I have heard about the slaughterhouse Page 21. Shelley No mention of slaughterhouse history & use. Dumping of carcasses in Lake? history and carcass dumping but have not 10. Lake section Probably not needed. been able to find any written JCP documentation to reference, little impact on current management practices. Agreed, out of scope for SMP. For It may be important to enhance the riparian corridor, but there are areas that need to be example, the Steen Road Gravel pit protected from development encroachment High quality areas that need restrictions should be protected as an overflow for 11. Page 24. likely greater than the SMA or local ordinances. Shelley Lake. There are also areas of JCP intact prairie as well as wooded areas that should be recognized in the GMA critical areas. 12 It would be helpful to have the River Miles stated for the Study Segments in the Agreed, RMs added JCP documents. I could line up other things with that information 13. Page 31 I think this area is a Rosgen channel type C2 or C3. Not sure it matches up with yes, C3 likely (cobble sub). Text added. NBH PFC work 14. Table 5.5 I realize the one plant association comes out to 0 %, but it just doesn't look good to Changed to " <I %" NBH the general reader I do like the fact that you researched the amount of impervious surfaces within the Thanks, hopefully it can be used in the 15. riparian zone. Great data future as an element to address JCP cumulative impacts and no net loss. I was a little confused as to how you have 144.6 acres of plant associations within your The total is 114.6 acres of plant associations (not 144.6). This includes 16. 88.5 acres of Segment 1. Is this due to that the 88.5 is just the amount under jurisdiction? 88.5 acres above the OHWL (shorelands) NBH and 26.1 acres below the OHWL (frequently flooded willows). The statement regarding the SCCD report and adequate riparian vegetation of greater than 60 ft. I think this interpretation is not entirely accurate. The SCCD 17. Page 41 report indicates that this area had a riparian width similar to the previous reach (in Removed statement. JCP the report — reach 4). It actually states an average riparian width of 0 -50 ft and that it the reach was dominated by discontinuous narrow bands of vegetation. Overall, the reach is fair to good on habitat. I do like the paragraph where it states that more trees need to be added for restoration 18. page 41 efforts. Thanks NBH City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 3 City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 3 Believe that the buffer was set under the previous (existing SMP) guidelines. Coyote Development. Who has determined that a 75' buffer is adequate? What COSY adopted Spokane County's. It is 19. Page 43 types of access are they trying to get with permits9 an interesting situation that has had many JCP comments. We assume that as lots are developed the homeowners will work towards direct river access from each lot. Thanks, comment added. From the SR -4 — areas behind upriver dam are subject to wake action due to boating activities. public meetings we have received 20. 5.1.4 Local residents complain of this regularly. Lots without adequate vegetation are comments about erosion due to wave JCP suffering streambank erosion issues action and also a request to remove the "no wake zone" requirement. The trail around Shelley Lake has mooring areas for non - motorized boats? I didn't see There are a few posts driven into the 21. 5.2 any last year. banks so that non - motorized boats can be JCP moored. 22 5.2 The east side of Shelley Lake has a nice High quality area including the granite Agreed — this area is included in the JCP rock, Ponderosa Pine community and some alder communities inventory. 23. General comment There should be better spacing between some of the teat and the figures in the Agreed, will try to catch them all. JCP document. It may be a formatting issue 24 Page 65. Last paragraph Misspelled word (t). the word "it" is missing the 'T' Corrected. JCP Agency and public comments have been 5.1.3.3 & I do not think dock permitting should occur within the Spokane River at the Coyote received about this. Since the 25. Development site. This is not protection of the shoreline and preserving its natural development was platted under the old JCP Section 6.3 character. Don't allow this activity to degrade a great City asset. SNIP guidelines not sure what the outcome is going to be at this time. Your Recommendations section does not include any restoration plans for the shorelines. A separate Restoration Plan will be 26. 6.4 Why not? You could work with local agencies, especially the SCCD to accomplish this. developed, similar to the City of Spokane's. We look forward to working JCP/NBH with the SCCD and other agencies and user groups on this element of the SMP. Overall, I think you have a done a good job on the inventory section. Please contact me if 27. General you have any questions regarding my comments Thank you JCP/NBH City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 3 URS Comment Ref. Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Report (Tech Review Group Draft) Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Randy Person, WSPRC Comment 3 -11 -2010 & 3- Response 4/5/2010 General- Commission, and maintained through an interagency agreement, as Date: 22 -2010 Date: "Centennial Trail" No. Ref. Comment Response Spokane River Centennial Trail — the document routinely refers to the trail developed by the Washington State Parks and Recreation General- Commission, and maintained through an interagency agreement, as "Centennial Trail" simply "Centennial Trail." We recommend that the more complete 1. vs. Spokane River reference "Spokane River Centennial Trail (SRCT)" be used. Although "Centennial References changed to SRCT. NBH Centennial Trail it's not a bad reference in context, there were several other Trails" constructed in Washington at about that time, and using the full reference will make it easier in the future, especially for digital search engines. The SRCT is mentioned often as an important feature. At times it is a landmark, at other times its presence as a barrier is noted. To improve the clarity of maps, the SRCT was generally Unfortunately, only the map in figure 5 -4 on page 42 actually shows not shown in the small graphics contained within the report. General- SRCT the alignment of the trail within the shoreline zone. Wherever possible, Because the trail crossing over the river in SR -3 is 2. boundary on maps please show the actual trail alignment. We can help with this — GIS described in detail as a point where parks ownership, and NBH data is available for the asking, that shows State Park ownership, as the natural buffer it provides, ceases to exist to the west, it well as the trail alignment. Please contact Kathryn Scott at was shown on Figure 5 -4. However, the trail boundary is Kathryn. ScottA_parks.wa.gov or (360) 902 -8691 to work out the shown on maps in Appendix E. details. In a similar vein, the text is full of landmarks and other geographic references, which some of us are unfamiliar with. Categorically, maps showing the locations of all 3. Landmarks/ Maps the referenced items should Appendix E was later provided to WSPRC. Maps within NBH be included. It is difficult to fully understand the written information Appendix E shows the location of these landmarks. without some idea of the physical relationships being discussed. Incorrect The second paragraph on page 69 discusses potential for non- landmark motorized watercraft access near Coyote Rock, "just west of Mirabeau 4. description, page Point." Is this correct? Our reading of the maps shows the Coyote Good catch, Myrtle Point is correct JCP 69 Rocks area lying just westerly of Myrtle Point, with Mirabeau further upstream. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 3 No. Ref. Comment Response Speaking of development, please consider the ongoing need for public access to the shoreline during discussions of shoreline designations, appropriate uses, and development regulations. This report describes a Shoreline number of areas with social trails leading to the water edge. The This will be addressed in policies goals and development 5. designations demand to reach this special area is high, and the need to protect the regulations. We have had discussions with Chris Guidotti, JCP versus access shoreline is also high. We recognize that often the best solution is Riverside State Park Manager about this topic. appropriate development of designated facilities such as paths, viewing platforms, and hand carried watercraft launch and retrieval facilities. Providing carefully designed convenient access facilities directs use, and helps protect adjacent fragile natural areas. To be able to provide useful public access facilities and thereby limit impacts, it is important that public access facilities be shown as Shoreline "permitted uses" in publically owned shoreline areas, and especially 6. designations those lands that contain the SRCT. Appropriate development See response to comment 5. JCP versus access regulations will then help assure that facilities are well designed and strike a good balance between public access and preserving most of the shoreline's existing natural character. Contact Please add the address local. governmentAparks.wa.gov to your 7. info. /mailing list mailing list. This site is monitored regularly. Sending there will assure City has added this email address to the mailing list. COSV request a timely response that is not dependent on one individual. Note: the following comments were provided separately on March 22, 2010: The Shorelines by Section map certainly shows the SRCT very accurately. Those same maps could be made more useful with just a little more label work. Some examples: E -5i shows the Sullivan Road area, with several parking areas near The City of Spokane Valley is preparing the map portfolio NBH/ Appendix E; the river. I might presume the one west of Sullivan, closest to the river (Appendix E of the Technical Review Draft). Comments 8- 8. various map on the north bank, is public recreational parking, and the others are 11 have been forwarded to the City and will be addressed DN (COSV) panels business related. A short label in these relatively clear areas would by Dan Neyman, GIS specialist with the COSV. clarify things. If the parking on the north side is intended for access to the SRCT, by walking across the bridge, that could even be stated. • E -5o could easily label Myrtle Point. • E -5' shows an unidentified railroad bridge In general, take the attitude of an ignorant (though intelligent) person 9 General mapping viewing the area for the first time through your maps. Don't crowd note them with so many notes that you can no longer see the features, but the scale used allows a lot of room for helpful labels. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 2 of 3 No. Ref. Comment Response And speaking of scales ... Even here at the office, my print default came up at 8 ' /2 x 11. If I was an interested citizen viewing these from home, I may well have a printer that could not produce 11 x 17. 10. Mapping- page Especially today, when digital output is so controllable by the end user, size issue it is important to have a scale that works. The text F = 200' does not. It should be replaced (or augmented) with a graphic scale, which was well done on E -4. No matter what size the output, one can then accurately determine distances. I'm still not sure that I could pick out each area in the Audubon report, mapping General ma but I have a much better idea of the site conditions with the draft 11. inventory maps. Although a day in the field exploring the river would comment be great, I'm probably destined to help coordinate our responses from Olympia, so the printable product is very important for me. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 3 of 3 uns Comment Ref. Response Form Document Reviewed: City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Report (Tech. Review Group Draft) Subject: Shoreline Planning Commenter: Bill Gothman, COSV Comment Date: 2 -27 -2010 Response Date: 4/5/2010 No. Ref. Comment Response P14, "Municipal 1. Wastewater" 1 st line, Coeur d'Alene misspelled Thanks — fixed JCP paragraph Would you want to mention that the Barker Bridge project 2 P30,6 involves removing several old piers from the 1910 bridge and Revised slightly, good comment. JCP paragraph constructing a bridge with fewer piers than the 1935 ( ?) bridge? Abbreviations not defined (also in other tables of the document) 3. P32, Table5-5 Abbreviations thrown out- plant names spelled out. NH "tunnel our walkway" should it be "tunnel or walkway " ?? 4. P41, bottom line Thanks- fixed JCp 5 P44, 3 rd would you want to mention the action to remove and analyze Revised to indicate that initial studies are being JCP paragraph concrete dust to see if it has a use in capping land fills? done. 6 P65 , 3 rd pgh, first line change "the primary affect" to "the primary effect" Thanks —fixed JCP 7 P65 4 th line from chg 'T' to "it" Thanks- Fixed JCP bottom 8. 9. City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Updates Page 1 of 1 City- of Spokane Valle- Shoreline Master Program Update September 7, 2010 Inventor- and Characterization Report [PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT] Appendix G Centennial Property Management - Shoreline Assessment tw Shoreline Assessment Spokane River Trentwood, Mirabeau and Mission /Flora Properties August 6, 2010 Prepared for Centennial Property Management Prepared by: Towey Ecological Services 24211 S. Harmony Rd. Cheney, WA 99004 509- 939 -5203 Introduction This Shoreline Assessment was authorized by Centennial Property Management to determine the current ecological condition of three separate properties (Trentwood, Mirabeau and Mission Flora) located on the Spokane River (see attached location and parcel map). The information contained within this report will serve as supplementary information to the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Plan Update- Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (SMP). The information contained within the SMP, for the segments assessed in this report, was accurate and is consistent with the field observations. In addition, the shoreline assessment was conducted to determine opportunities for shoreline rehabilitation or other mitigation options (within the context of a long -term shoreline plan, property development plan, shoreline access opportunities, wildlife viewing stations and educational signage) and ecological condition and connectivity to adjacent properties. It should be noted that additional site specific assessments (engineering, geo- technical, etc.) may be required for the properties in the course of developing future site plans. The specific shoreline assessments were conducted within the Spokane River Study Segment 2 (SR -2) - identified in the SMP. The field assessments were conducted in May 7 and 11, 2010. The primary investigator was William T. Towey, a qualified biologist with Towey Ecological Services. Methods The field investigation consisted of assessing the current conditions within each of the three identified properties. Information was collected by traversing the shoreline of each property- documenting: 1) existing vegetative communities; 2) relative distances of intact riparian habitat areas; 3) potential for habitat restoration opportunities; and 4) general recommendations relative to the protection of shoreline function and values. In addition to the field assessment, the investigation was guided by the use of aerial photographs, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey (see attachment), the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Plan Update and the Spokane County Shoreline Master Plan Update. Field data points were taken using a hip chain and a Garmin GPSmap -60. Data points were downloaded to a USGS topographic map (see attachment). Results and Discussion Site Description/Analysis MIRABEA U This specific reach of the Spokane River is adjacent to the Centennial Trail (trail). The shoreline is located on the left bank of the Spokane River. The riparian area waterward of the trail is contiguous and intact, whereas the area upland of the riparian area consists of fragmented habitat and disturbed habitat - including the trail. The area is heavily utilized for recreational purposes such as biking, walking, jogging and rollerblading. The majority of the shoreline habitat is protected by moderately steep topography and vegetated upland areas. Location 1 - This area is immediately east of the Centennial trailhead and is accessible to the Spokane River. The area is relatively flat with steeper topography to the east. The intact buffer width in this area is approximately 125'. The shoreline habitat structure is diverse with large woody debris, side - channels and boulders. The dominate vegetation within this area is cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), Oregon grape (Mahonia spp.), dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) and wild rose (Rosa spp.). The riparian area transitions to upland grasses, serviceberry and the trail. Habitat above the trail (south) consists of open field habitat with sparse pine, serviceberry, and juniper. This area has potential for restoration through native plant (or other appropriate species that provides proper function and value) installation. Location 2 - This area is characterized by steep shoreline topography. The dominate vegetation includes a continuation of Location 1 and pine tree (Pinus ponderosa), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii), choke cherry (Prunus virginiana) and juniper (Prunus virginiana). The riparian area transitions to upland grasses, serviceberry, pine trees and the trail. Habitat above the trail (south) consists of open field habitat with sparse pine, serviceberry, and juniper. This shoreline area has potential for habitat restoration. Location 3 - This area is characterized by a continuation of vegetation found in locations 1 and 2 with the addition of douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). The riparian buffer area water of the trail is greatly reduced to 59'. The shoreline slopes are fairly steep and lacks the diversity of downstream shoreline. The riparian area transitions to upland grasses, serviceberry and the trail. Habitat above the trail (south) consists of open field habitat with sparse pine, serviceberry, and juniper. This shoreline area has potential for habitat restoration. Location 4 - The riparian area is bisected by the trail in this location. This location is the end of the contiguous band of cottonwood. The vegetation is a continuation of locations 1, 2 and 3 with an increased presence of currant (Ribes spp.) and lupine (Lupinus spp.). The shoreline topography is steep with the upland above the trail relatively flat. Location 5 - This location marks the beginning of pine trees, upland grasses and arrow - leaved balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata) above the trail. The riparian vegetation is similar to location 4. The shoreline topography is steep with the upland above the trail relatively flat. Location 6 - This marks the location of a transition from steep topography to moderately steep topography. Location 7 - This area is characterized by relatively flat topography with the presence of a walking trail. This area has restoration potential due to its sparse habitat and human disturbance (trail). Restoration measures would include native plant (or other appropriate species that provides proper function and value) installation and reclamation of the trail footprint. Location 8 - This marks the end of the potential restoration area and relatively flat topography. The shoreline area upstream transitions to steep topography. Location 9 - This marks the beginning of a narrower band of shoreline riparian next to the trail. This area requires greater protection due to the narrow buffer and proximity to the trail. Location 10 - This marks the end of the assessment and the train trestle. There is a restoration opportunity southwest of the trestle -south of the trail. This area is sparsely vegetated with pine and is optimal for habitat restoration measures. Location 11 - This marks the beginning of thick pine trees, juniper, mullein (Verbascum thapsus), serviceberry and wild rose. This area requires thinning of pine tree for forest health. Location 12 - End of thick stand of pine trees. Summary- This shoreline segment is characterized by contiguous riparian vegetation in close proximity to high recreational use. Due to the varying widths of riparian habitat in this segment relative to the Centennial trail- and the potential areas for habitat restoration - the opportunity to maximize protection of the shoreline function and value through a buffer management plan exists. The dominant soils in the river segment consist of Garrison very stony loam which is conducive to native plant (or other appropriate species that provides proper function and value) restoration efforts. A combination of plant restoration, pine tree thinning, buffer averaging (no net loss of riparian habitat buffer protection) and establishment of a future buffer width would 3 preserve and protect the integrity of the shoreline habitat. Protection of the existing habitat - including plant restoration when necessary- is critical to the maintenance of a Properly Functioning Condition' designation for this segment. Due to the fragmentation of wildlife corridors by commercial development to the southwest, heavy recreational use, Centennial Trail, and the train trestle to the east, the riparian area is mostly benefiting localized populations of wildlife- including waterfowl breeding. MISSION /FLORA This specific reach of the Spokane River is adjacent to the Centennial Trail (trail). The shoreline is located on the left bank of the Spokane River. The riparian area waterward of the trail is contiguous and intact, whereas the area upland of the riparian area consists of fragmented habitat and disturbed habitat - including the trail. The area is heavily utilized for recreational purposes such as biking, walking, jogging and rollerblading. The majority of the shoreline riparian habitat is at least 250' from the ordinary high water mark. Location 1 - This shoreline area is characterized by large boulders, large wood debris and flat topography adjacent to the Spokane River. The dominant vegetation consists of willow (Salix spp.), pine trees, currant, dogwood, oregon grape and serviceberry. The intact riparian area is approximately 360' in width from the ordinary high water mark to a disturbed area (parking lot and commercial building). The riparian area is protected from the development by a berm vegetated with serviceberry, pine, wild rose and mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii) The Centennial trail is approximately 240' from the ordinary high water mark. Location 2 - This marks the end of the boulder -large woody debris complex. The area is devoid of adequate vegetation and is a potential habitat restoration area (17,400 sq.ft). The habitat consists of serviceberry, pine, hawthorn, Oregon grape and lomatium (Lomatium spp. ). The shoreline riparian area is at least 250' wide at this location. Location 3 - This marks the end of the potential habitat restoration area. Location 4 - This marks the end of dense pine and riparian vegetation. Shoreline habitat is contiguous with locations 1 and 2. South of the Centennial trail the habitat opens up to pine, lupine and serviceberry. The shoreline riparian area is intact for 250' from the ordinary high water mark to the property boundary fencing (Location 5). ' Properly Functioning Condition- when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to: dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediments, captures bedload, and aids in floodplain development; improve flood -water retention and ground -water recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and supports greater biodiversity. 4 Location 6 - The shoreline habitat area begins to become steeper in this area and closer to the Centennial trail. The upland areas have potential for habitat restoration and currently consist of sparse vegetation (pine trees, knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) and mullein (Verbascum thapsus)). Location 7 - This marks the end of the potential habitat restoration area. Location 8 - This marks the area adjacent to a house with thinned vegetation immediately upland of the riparian area. The Centennial trail is very close to the Spokane River in this location. Very little habitat restoration potential given the residence /trail located near the riparian area. Location 9 - This marks the end of the thinned area -start of riparian vegetation. Summary- This shoreline segment is characterized by contiguous riparian vegetation in close proximity to high recreational- residential and commercial use. Due to the varying widths of riparian habitat in this segment relative to the Centennial trail- and the potential areas for habitat restoration- the opportunity to maximize protection of the shoreline function and value through a buffer management plan exists. The dominant soils in this river segment is riverwash which is conducive to native plant restoration efforts. A combination of habitat restoration, buffer averaging (no net loss of riparian habitat buffer protection) and future establishment of the required riparian habitat area would preserve and protect the integrity of the shoreline habitat. The majority of intact riparian habitat is less than the required riparian buffer area and would need to include portions of the upland areas. Protection of the existing habitat- including habitat restoration when necessary- is critical to the maintenance of a Properly Functioning Condition designation for this segment. Due to the fragmentation of wildlife corridors by commercial development to the southwest, heavy recreational use, Centennial Trail, and single family dwellings, the riparian area is mostly benefiting localized populations of wildlife - including waterfowl breeding. There is connectivity of intact shoreline habitat (wildlife corridor) along the left bank of the Spokane River that provides access to migrating wildlife. TRENTWOOD The shoreline is located on the right bank of the Spokane River. The riparian area waterward of the trail is contiguous and intact -but is very narrow in width. The upland area is moderately sloped devoid of habitat diversity. The dominant vegetation in the upland areas are knapweed, arrow- leaved balsamroot, lilac (Syringa spp.). The width of the riparian habitat in this shoreline segment ranges between 50' -60'. Location 1 - This portion of the shoreline is immediately adjacent to a train trestle which provides a distinct fragmentation of the shoreline habitat. The relatively narrow width of P the shoreline habitat consists of spirea (Spiraea douglasii), cottonwood, hawthorn, dogwood and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). Potential for habitat restoration exists in the upland areas. Location 2 - This marks the beginning of pine trees, Oregon grape and currant -along with the vegetation described in location 1- in the riparian habitat area. The shoreline is moderately steep with a narrow riparian area (55'). Potential for habitat restoration exists in the upland areas. Location 3 - This location is a potential habitat restoration area (approximately 3,000 sq. ft.). The area has been previously disturbed and the vegetation removed. The shoreline area is dominated by knapweed and has very strong potential for restoration to provide for habitat continuity with the shoreline segment. Potential for habitat restoration also exists in the upland areas. Location 4 - This marks the beginning of a relatively dense stand of cottonwoods for the remainder of the shoreline segment (to end of assessment at location 5). The shoreline topography gets noticeably steeper in for the remainder of the shoreline segment. Potential for habitat restoration exists in the upland areas. Location 5 - End of assessment. Summary- This shoreline segment is characterized by a narrow band of contiguous riparian vegetation. The dominant soil type is a Garrison gravelly loam/riverwash which is conducive to shoreline restoration work. Due to the varying steepness of the topography -it is probable that a buffer averaging plan-which would include habitat restoration -would provide the necessary protection of the functions and values of the shoreline environment. The upland areas, immediately adjacent to the outer extent of the riparian vegetation, are conducive for native plant (or other appropriate species that provides proper function and value) restoration. Protection of the existing habitat and increasing the width of the overall riparian habitat areas through habitat restoration is necessary to the maintenance of a Properly Functioning Condition designation for this segment. Large woody debris recruitment and wildlife use would increase with the development of a much wider riparian habitat area. Due to the fragmentation of wildlife corridors by a train trestle to the west, lack of habitat to the north and fencing to the east, the riparian area is mostly benefiting localized populations of wildlife - including waterfowl breeding. 11 PROJECT MAP Nop�14C r4 'r~ ater Tank r - -- -— - - 4�j 993 TRENTWOOD •+ . Gra;it �' PROPERTY i Y i W 9 Borrow I �j Pit INLAND EMPIR :y ) zoo ° ~ o 2 O C7 4 eel Borrow it X y f 12 - -- . •t� MISSION - FLORAE' •:� == r' r NT pi- Borrow f 99 o MIRABEAU RN ,;,• Pit h ' PROPERTY PROPERTY - -, a .. �' r . • 0 .. - . r . d am. ® # ¢ . •—• • •r -_ .* ' � - ,,�`. �� . � f + ! r �• -- RAN --`-* � `�. '``� `` . �, �, / • - - f - - - COO ir - f}O r. 7 1 T-s'1 T1 s AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Page I of I http : / /websoilsurvey. sc. egov.usda.gov /imsoutputfW ssNavigate_salemnp008v329222242 15... 4/27/2010 NRCS SOIL SURVEY Soil Map — Spokane County, Washington (Centennial Properties) 47° 41 47 47 47° 39 49" USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4127/2010 w (A')nservatinn Servirt? N3tinnni L` --tivn CZ t c ., o., n--- < _t o Map SmIe: 1:25,600 if printed on A size (8.5' x 11 °) sheet. b N 0 350 700 1,400 2.100 tars Feet !!! ttt 0 1.000 2,000 4.000 6.000 Soil Map — Spokane County, Washingtoan Map Unit Legend Centennial Properties Spokane County, Washington (WA063) Map Unit Symbof Map Uni Nam Aores in A01 Percent of A01 GOA Garrison gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent 2,157.0 68.4% slopes GOB Garrison gravelly loam, 5 to 20 percent 248.5 7.8% slopes Gn9 Garrison very stony loam, 0 to 20 499.6 15,8% percent slopes Pits Pits 27.4 0.9% Rh Rivenvash 55.3 1.7% Ro Rock outcrop 3.9 0.1% StC Spokane very rocky complex, 0 to 30 25.7 0.8% percent slopes SuF Spokane extremely rocky complex, 20 74.8 2.4% to 70 percent slope s W Water 64.1 2.0% 'totals for Area of Interest 3,166.1 100,0% Natural Posources Web Soil Survey 412712010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Soil Map— Spokane County, Washington (Centennial Properties) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) ! Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope Other Political Features 0 Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation Rails �. Interstate Highways t US Routes Major Roads Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:25,600 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http : //websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 11 N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA -NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Spokane County, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 2, Jun 9, 2009 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 712/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 412712010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Surrey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map Units Special Point Features �. Blowout Borrow Pit X Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill 1 Lava Flow Marsh or swamp 4t Mine or Quarry p Miscellaneous Water © Perennial Water v Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot i Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole I > Slide or Slip R; Sodic Spot Spoil Area Q Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope Other Political Features 0 Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation Rails �. Interstate Highways t US Routes Major Roads Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:25,600 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http : //websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 11 N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA -NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Spokane County, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 2, Jun 9, 2009 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 712/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 412712010 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Surrey Page 2 of 3 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 10 -0* * A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT WHEREAS, the City initiated a Shoreline Management Program update process in 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed a public participation plan for the Shoreline Update on October 27, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Shoreline Update process specifies that individual components of the Shoreline Management Program (SMP) update will be reviewed separately and accepted by Council resolution, and recognizing that as each component is completed, it will be used as a base upon which to develop the remainder of the SMP; and WHEREAS, the first component of the SMP Update is the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report; and WHEREAS, an initial Shoreline Open House was conducted on November 5, 2009, where the SMP Update process was explained to interested parties; and WHEREAS, a second Open House was conducted on February 4, 2010, where findings from the Inventory and Analysis was presented to interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Technical Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report was issued for review on February 19, 2010; and WHEREAS, a Joint City Council /Planning Commission study session was conducted on March 2, 2010, where the findings from the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report were presented and discussed; and WHEREAS, a Public Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report was issued for public review on April 6, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the Public Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report on April 22, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report be formally accepted; and WHEREAS, this Resolution informally accepts the document, with minor revisions anticipated to occur prior to formal adoption, and WHEREAS, the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report will be formally adopted as a part of the entire SMP document by Ordinance at a later date. Resolution 10 - * ** Accepting Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Page 1 of 2 DRAFT NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, that the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted. Approved this day of ' 2010. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 10 - * ** Accepting Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 14, 2010 City Manager Sign -off Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution: Granting an Easement — East Spokane Water District 1 — Center Road GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Study session September 7, 2010. BACKGROUND: The City owns right -of -way in the Hollywood Hills area of west Spokane Valley that is platted as a road, but which is too steep and rocky to use as roadway. (See Attachment 1) It is designated as part of Center Road. (See Attachment 2) Because it is unusable as roadway, and due to a long history of stormwater flooding issues in that area, the City built a zigzag shaped ditch to slow down and help absorb stormwater on that stretch of right -of -way. East Spokane Water District 1 (ESWD1) is the water district serving that portion of the City. ESWD 1 would like to boost its pump capacity in that area due to low water pressure. Rather than buying land, which would cost thousands of dollars, a cost that would be passed on to their customers who are also Spokane Valley residents, ESWD 1 approached the City to inquire whether the City would allow the pump station on unused City property. Nearly all of the facility would be located underground, with two small outbuildings being visible. (See Attachment 3) City staff has no objection to granting an easement for this purpose, but included language in the proposed easement document setting forth conditions that in the event the facilities need to be moved for repair, maintenance or upgrade of the City's stormwater facilities that are also on the unbuilt portion of Center Road, that ESWD 1 would pay those costs. These conditions ensure that the City would not be financially impacted by granting the easement. A copy of the proposed easement is included. (See Attachment 4) Please note that the error in the first paragraph of page one has been corrected so that it correctly states that the easement is for a waterline pump facility. Also, staff noted a second typographical error on page one, paragraph two, line two, where the word "know" was replaced with "known. " OPTIONS: Grant the easement; do nothing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we approve the Resolution granting the easement, and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents related to the same. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Acting City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Proposed Grant of Easement 3. Map of region 4. Map of neighborhood 5. Mock up of proposed outbuildings Filed at the Request of City of Spokane Valley, Washington 11707 East Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ACTUAL BENEFITS HEREIN DERIVED by the parties, the undersigned Grantor hereby grants an easement to Grantee for the placement of a waterline pump facility in Grantor's right -of -way. The easement for placement, construction, operation and maintenance of a waterline pump facility to be blown as East Spokane Water District No. 1 Beverly Booster Station is described as follows: Commencing at the center of the intersection of S. Highland Drive and S. Center Drive; thence in a generally southeasterly direction along the centerline of the S. Center Drive right of way a distance of 50 feet to the point where the easement begins; thence the easement shall extend the full width of the right of way of S. Highland Drive and for a distance continuing in a generally southeasterly direction a distance of 60 feet where the easement shall terminate. The easement will be rectangular in shape and have dimensions the width of which will be the width of the right of way of S. Center Drive and the length of which will be 60 feet. Situated in the County of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, State of Washington. Said easement shall be subject to the following conditions: I . Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall be subject to all permit fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Easement or under City Code. Where the City incurs costs and expenses for review or inspection of activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Easement or City Code relating to the subject for which a permit fee is not established, Grantee shall pay such costs and expenses directly to the City. In addition to the above, Grantee shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all costs it reasonably incurs in response to any emergency involving Grantee's facilities. 2. Non - Exclusivity. This Easement shall in no way prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights -of -way, roads, streets or other public properties or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights -of- way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. 3. Non - Interference with Existing Facilities The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its roads, streets, alleys, and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes, and should in the sole discretion of the City a conflict arise with the Grantee's facilities, the Grantee shall, at its own expense and cost, conform to the City's facilities and other government purposes of the City. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the lines and facilities of the Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to the Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's system shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use, or with any other pipes, wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights -of -way by or under the City's authority. 4. Right to Roads Not Superseded The City, in the granting of this Easement, does not waive any rights which it now holds or may hereafter acquire, and this Easement shall not be construed so as to deprive the City of any powers, rights, or privileges which it now has, or may hereafter acquire, including the right of eminent domain, to regulate the use and control of its roads covered by this Easement, or to go upon any and all City roads and highways for any purpose including constructing, repairing, or improving the same in any such manner as the City, or its representatives may elect. The City shall retain full authoritative power in the same and like manner as though this Easement had never been granted. -2- Nothing in this Easement shall be construed to prevent the City from constructing facilities, grading, paving, repairing and /or altering any street, or laying down, repairing or removing facilities or constructing or establishing any other public work or improvement. All such work shall be done, insofar as practicable, so as to not obstruct, injure or prevent the unrestricted use and operation of the facilities of the Grantee under this Easement. Grantee agrees to construct, operate and maintain its pump station such that the pump station does not impair the functionality of the Grantor's drainage and flood control facilities which are also located in the subject right of way. If, however, Grantee's pump station interferes with City drainage and flood control facilities and /or City's maintenance or improvement of its drainage and flood control facilities, and Grantee fails to remedy such interference to City's satisfaction, Grantee's facilities shall be moved, removed or replaced. Any and all such moving, removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of the Grantee. Should Grantee fail to remove, adjust or relocate its pump station by the date established through written notice to Grantee, the City may cause and /or effect such removal, adjustment or relocation, and the expense thereof shall be paid by Grantee. 5. Restoration After Construction. Grantee shall, after installation, construction, relocation, maintenance, or repair of facilities within the area of this Easement, restore the surface of the right -of -way or public property to at least the currently adopted City standards or as reasonably required by the City Public Works Department through a right -of -way permit, depending upon special circumstances. Grantee agrees to promptly complete all restoration work and to promptly repair any damage caused by such work within the area of this Easement or other affected area at its sole cost and expense. 6. Damage and Non - Compliance Any and all damage or injury, done or caused to City right -of -way, City facilities, or any portion thereof in the construction, operation, maintenance or repair of Grantee's facilities shall be immediately repaired and reconstructed to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department as set forth in Section 5, above; and in the event the Grantee shall fail, neglect, or refuse to immediately repair and reconstruct said damage or injury to said City right -of -way or facilities, the same may be done by the City and the cost and expense shall be immediately paid by the Grantee to the City. If it is discovered by the City that Grantee has damaged, injured, or failed to restore the right -of -way in accordance with this Easement, the City shall provide the Grantee with written notice including a description of actions the City believes necessary to restore the right -of -way. If the right -of -way is not restored within ten days from written notice, the City, or its authorized agent, may restore the right -of- way and facilities. The Grantee is responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by the City to repair and restore the right -of -way and facilities in accordance with this Easement. -3- 7. Inspections and Fees. All work performed by Grantee shall be subject to inspection by and approval of the City as required in City Code. 8. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this Easement, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law. Dated this day of , 2010. Grantor: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: RIM Mike Jackson, City Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of Spokane ) On this day of , 2010, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared Mike Jackson, to me known to be the individual who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires -4- Grantee: EAST SPOKANE WATER DISTRICT NO. 1 Rick Scott, Chairperson Board of Commissioners Ed Peck, Secretary Board of Commissioners STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of Spokane ) On this day of , 2010, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared Rick Scott, Chairperson Board of Commissioners for East Spokane Water District No. 1 and Ed Peck, Secretary, Board of Commissioners for East Spokane Water District No. 1, to me known to be the individuals who executed the within and foregoing instrument in their capacity as Commissioners for said Water District, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Water District for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires 6th Ave A M .r 8th Ave X CL 12th A" ShoL %j .panel 1 F Spokane ��'� °te � .� - � � - - -- - -- - E I St Ave -~ � E 5"h Ave D C!} ,�, m s� E 2 n , , CL - E 2nd Ave M 5 (n � E 2rd Ave cc C •yam M m CL 'E :Ith Ave ,6r ,.! Av e C e Cr E 12:h Ave E cl ,a M Park m C � +a CL CO Location of Proposed CL Booster Pumping Station' ft Ave F dth Awes 6th Ave A M .r 8th Ave X CL 12th A" Engle%vood Cemetery E 9#,h Ave m E: ' 6th Aver u� E t7th Ave _ 4th Ave E ' 5th! Ave E 'J rh Ave 9 B lVd E {L x- Pain M E 51: A" E 5"h Ave D C { m CL - sU �. " C •yam Engle%vood Cemetery E 9#,h Ave m E: ' 6th Aver u� E t7th Ave _ 4th Ave E ' 5th! Ave E 'J rh Ave 9 B lVd E {L x- Pain C Edgediff Hos a1 Of 2C E 8th Ave D r E h Ave U^ E �h ttve m E I C?V' Ave - sU 2th Ave CL 'E :Ith Ave E 12:h Ave C � +a Location of Proposed Booster Pumping Station' rL y y V I C I N ITY MAP C Edgediff Hos a1 Of 2C Rough IaVout of proposed booster pumping station facility. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING AN EASEMENT TO EAST SPOKANE WATER DISTRICT 1 FOR PLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF WATER FACILITIES. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, Washington is the owner of right -of -way known as Center Road in that area of the City known as Hollywood Hills. A portion of that right -of -way is not usable as roadway due to the steep grade; and WHEREAS, East Spokane Water District 1 (ESWD 1) is the water purveyor for the Hollywood Hills area, and WHEREAS, ESWD 1 would like to increase the water pressure in that area, and has requested that the City grant an easement for placement of the necessary water pump facilities and outbuildings on an unused portion of Center Road; and WHEREAS, City staff has analyzed the proposed placement and determined there is no conflict between this request and the existing stone water facilities currently occupying another portion of this right -of -way; and WHEREAS, the proposed easement language specifies that in the event the City storm water facilities need to be maintained, repaired, replaced or otherwise modified, the ESWD lfacilities will be moved at the District's cost, and WHEREAS, granting this easement is in the best interest of customers of ESWD 1, who are also residents of the City. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Grant of Easement For Placement and Maintenance of Water Facilities The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley hereby grants an easement for the placement and maintenance of water facilities as set forth in the proposed Easement, attached as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, and subject to the conditions therein. Section 2. Authorization for City Manager to SiEn Easement The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley authorizes the City Manager to execute the Grant of Easement for placement and maintenance of water facilities. Resolution 10- Grant of Easement, Water Facilities Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 3. Effective Date This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this day of September, 2010. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Resolution 10- Grant of Easement, Water Facilities Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: Sept 7, 2010 & Sept 14, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Outside Agency Requests for Funding September 7, 2010 September 14, 2010 Outside Agency Presentations Economic Development Agencies a. Spokane Co. Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) 1. Greater Spokane Valle- Chamber b. Big Brothers, Big Sisters 2. Greater Spokane, Inc. c. Changepoint 3. International Trade Alliance d. Coalition of the Responsible Disabled 4. Global Trade Services PS e. Community- Minded Television 5. HUB Sports Center f. Eastpoint Church g. Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council (GSSAC) h. Project Access i. Spokane Soccer Club j. Spokane Valley Arts Council k. Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 1. Spokane Valley Meals on Wheels m.Spokane Vallev Partners n. Starlight Children's' Foundation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: City budgeting practices. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: economic development agencies, with a requests from a total of nineteen agencies development agencies. Proposals were requested from social service and due date of 4 p.m. August 6, 2010. We received : fourteen social service agencies and five economic BACKGROUND: The City has been providing partial funding for public services and economic development agencies since the City's incorporation in 2003. The proposed budget for 2011 includes $159,000 for this purpose, which may be distributed as Council deems appropriate. Each agency has been invited to make a five - minute presentation, with Social Service Agencies presenting September 7, and Economic Development Agencies presenting September 14, 2010. The matter is set for a motion consideration at the September 28, 2010 council meeting. OPTIONS: Council discretion concerning funding. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Councilmembers are asked to submit their funding recommendations to Finance Director Ken Thompson no later than end of day Monday, September 20; after which Mr. Thompson will present the combined information and allocation averages at the September 28 Council meeting for Council's final funding allocation determination. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson ATTACHMENTS: Spreadsheets showing list of funding requests with history of funding allocations. (See separate notebook for individual grant proposals) Outside Agency Grant Applicants for 2011 Funding SOCIAL SERVICES Amount Amount Funding Requested for Recommended Allocated in 2011 2010 Big Brothers Big Sisters $ 9,522 $ $ 5,000 Changepoint $ 5,000 $ Coalition of the Responsible $ 13,472 $ Disabled Community Minded Television ' $ 50,133 $ Eastpoint Church $ 1,400 $ Greater Spokane Substance Abuse $ 10,000 $ Council (GSSAC) Project Access $ 20,000 $ $ Spokane County Regional Animal $ 35,000 $ Protection Service (SCRAPS) Spokane Soccer Club $ 50,000 $ Spokane Valley Arts Council $ 10,000 $ $ Spokane Valley Heritage Museum $ 2,190 Spokane Valley Partners $ 30,000 $ $ Starlight Childrens Foundation Valley Meals on Wheels ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of $ Commerce Greater Spokane Incorporated $ International Trade Alliance $ Global Trade Services PS $ The HUB Sport Center $ TOTAL $ 14,500 7,500 $ $ 19,000 $ $ 60,000 $ $ 25,000 $ 18,000 $ 14,500 $ 395,217 20,000 Proposed use of funds Mentor background checks & screenings, orientation & training, staff salaries, support services to sustain matches beyond the 12 month period. Educational advertising expenses: signs, brochures, posters, bill boards, press and media. Staff salary, rent and utilities, phone /internet, mileage, and admin costs for the CORD program To provide skills training workshops, housing assistance, financial education, basic health and wellness education. Cameras, office supplies, production equipment (cameras, micro phones),software. 2 laptops for the purposes of computer training, aiding single parents in creating resumes, applying for jobs, checking their child's grades online and communicating with teachers Advertising, supplies, and transportation for Spokane Valley Youth Leading Change Project outreach program. 20,000 for pharmaceuticals, durable medical equipment, transportation services, translation services and operation cost. Rugged Vehicle Laptops for Animal Protection Vehicles 15,000 to provide scholarships for players having financial difficulties, 25,000 for marketing SCC events including 2 major tournaments occurring in Spokane Valley, field improvements and maintenance, and 10,000 to provide free parking for participants 6,000 700 for insurance, 3500 for artist showcase, 1000 for administrative support, 1500 for website maintenance, 2300 for brochures, mailing, printing, and 1000 for bronze sculpture placement. Office equipment: a computer able to support a large searchable data base, a scanner used to add documents to the data base, external hard drive, disk, and a printer 25,000 Providing comprehensive social and emergency services to low income households, seniors in need, and families facing temporary setbacks. Hospital Happenings and Great Escapes which provide outings, entertainment programs, and recreational activities for hospitalized children and their families. 6,500 2,000 meals to senior citizens of the City of Spokane Valley. 20,000 Advertising, creation of new resource materials, data analysis and consultant services, continued membership in the National Business Incubator Association. 60,000 Recruitment, retention, and expansion actvities including mailings, marketing, communication, visits to sites and Spokane Valley properties. Assisting local businesses with market research and development, providing them guidance with regard to import and export compliance issues. Trade development advising and consulting services to Spokane Valley businesses. 12,000 for utlity cost and a basketball shot clock 2,500. $ 142,500 Total amt requested for 2011 $ 395,217 Total available funds for 2011 Use Comcast $150,000? Budget Requests from Outside Agencies OUTSIDE AGENCIES 04 Apply 04 Funded 05 Apply 05 Funded 06 Apply 06 Funded 07 Apply 07 Funded 08 Apply 08 Funded 09 Apply 09 Funded 10 Apply 10 Fundec 11 Apply 11 Fundec Agency Totals Aging & Long Term Care of Eastern Wa. 25,000 0 0 Arc of Spokane 5,000 0 0 Arts Council, Spokane Valley 10,000 5,000 12,000 5,000 14,000 5,000 10,000 6,000 10,000 21,000 Big Brothers Big Sisters 8,500 7,000 2,500 9,974 3,000 10,280 4,000 10,184 5,000 9,522 14,500 Centennial Trail, Friends of 1,000 0 0 Center Pointe 1,500 0 0 Change point 5,000 Chase Youth Commission 60,000 2,000 10,000 1,000 3,000 3,000 Coalition of Responsible Disabled (CORD) 20,500 0 29,825 0 13,414 0 13,472 0 Community Minded Television 25,000 0 50,133 0 Daisy Girl Scouts 107 0 0 Eastpoint Church 1,400 Greater Spokane Substance Abuse 8,500 2,500 8,500 50o 10,000 3,000 Hearth Homes 150,000 0 10,000 0 0 Heritage Museum 2,190 Institute for Systems Medicine 100,000 0 0 Pet Savers 25,000 0 0 Project Access 102,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 35,000 30 30,000 30 25,000 15 25,000 20 20,000 145,000 SCRAPS 35,000 Spokane Soccer Club 50,000 Spokane Valley Meals on Wheels 8,200 1,000 2,500 2 5,000 5,500 5,400 5,500 6,500 6 7,500 21,000 Spokane Valley Partners (Community Center) 4,000 4,000 14,283 4,000 14,823 7 5,000 5 20,000 20 20,000 11 35,000 25 30,000 76,000 Starlight Children's Foundation 14,500 Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery 5,000 0 0 *Youth Activities (per the 2006 mtg, Big Bro.Chase) 2,000 2,000 OUTSIDE AGENCIES Economic Development Connect Northwest 25,000 0 0 Economic Dev Commission 100,000 56,000 175,000 55,000 90,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 12,000 4,000 15,000 3,000 247,000 Global Trade Services, PS 18,000 Greater Spokane, Inc. 65,000 65,000 65,000 64,000 65,000 60,000 60,000 189,000 HUB Sports Center 14,500 Inland NW Women's Business Center 10,000 0 0 International Trade Alliance 35,000 14,000 35,000 14,000 35,000 16,000 35,000 20,000 35,000 25,000 40,000 26,000 25,000 115,000 Spokane Neighborhood Economic Dev. 0 Spokane Site Selector 21,000 21,000 17,662 16,500 37,500 Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce 15,500 5,500 30,000 20,000 19,000 25,500 TOTALS 302,000 100,000 267,483 100,000 186,430 120,000 289,500 130,000 233,974 151,000 446,167 156,000 236,598 142,500 395,217 899,500 Prepared by Chris Bainbridge 09/02/2010 Page 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 14, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Report back to Council — City Center District Zone GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The Council has requested that the Sprague /Appleway Subarea Plan (SARP) be revisited zone by zone with property owners involved in the process. On August 17, 2010, staff presented an overview of the City Center District zone to Council. On August 19, 2010, a community meeting was conducted at 8am in Council Chambers to gather public input on the City Center zone regulations. OPTIONS: The Council should consider the comments received as a result of the public outreach effort and direct staff on how to proceed. The Council may consider the following options: 1. Identify which issues and specific language to forward to Planning Commission for Code Amendments; 2. Identify specific issues to be addressed by Comprehensive Plan Amendment; 3. Take No Action; 4. Direct staff otherwise. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: This memo is for information only. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The project will use existing staff; however this is a significant project which will likely require other projects be placed on hold. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner, Community Development ATTACHMENTS Report and PowerPoint Presentation Written Public Comments August 19, 2010 Meeting Sign -in Sheet and Meeting Transcript City Center Zoning District Summary of Issues and Concerns City Council has directed the Community Development Department to conduct a thorough review of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) regulations with community input through a series of public meetings. This report provides Council a summary of public comments received during the City Center Zone review process and highlights specific concerns of business and property owners. Comments received will inform Council of possible changes that could be made to make the SARP regulations more acceptable to business and property owners. Background On August 17, Staff presented an overview of the City Center District Zone to City Council, followed by a community meeting held at 8am on Thursday, August 19, 2010 in Council Chambers. Notice of the meeting was mailed to all property and business owners located within the City Center Zone as identified on the Spokane County Assessor's Office property records and current business registration information. Additionally, notice was distributed to approximately 800 email addresses, published in the newspaper and posted on the City website. The meeting was attended primarily by business and property owners with 28 signing the meeting sign -in sheet (attached). At the meeting, staff presented an overview of the City Center regulations, followed by questions from the audience. Comments were recorded on a flip chart and the meeting was recorded. A transcript of the recording is attached for Council's review. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information to the public to further their understanding of the regulations and to receive comments regarding issues and concerns for Council's consideration. Amendment Process As Council is aware, it is possible to change the SARP regulations through a text amendment process as long as the changes are consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the Subarea Plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Text amendments are first considered by the Planning Commission which conducts a public hearing on the proposal. The Planning Commission then makes a recommendation to Council to either approve or disapprove the proposal. If the desired amendment is not consistent with Subarea Plan then a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required to address the change. The Comprehensive Plan can be amended one time per year with applications due November 1St of each year. Meeting Summary In general, there were not many specific concerns raised either at the community meeting or in letters sent by concerned citizens. Questions and comments were recorded during the meeting include the following: City Center District Zone Issue Report to Council Page 2 July 13, 2010 Planning Division City Center Zoning District Summary of Issues and Concerns City Council has directed the Community Development Department to conduct a thorough review of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) regulations with community input through a series of public meetings. This report provides Council a summary of public comments received during the City Center Zone review process and highlights specific concerns of business and property owners. Comments received will inform Council of possible changes that could be made to make the SARP regulations more acceptable to business and property owners. Background On August 17, Staff presented an overview of the City Center District Zone to City Council, followed by a community meeting held at 8am on Thursday, August 19, 2010 in Council Chambers. Notice of the meeting was mailed to all property and business owners located within the City Center Zone as identified on the Spokane County Assessor's Office property records and current business registration information. Additionally, notice was distributed to approximately 800 email addresses, published in the newspaper and posted on the City website. The meeting was attended primarily by business and property owners with 28 signing the meeting sign -in sheet (attached). At the meeting, staff presented an overview of the City Center regulations, followed by questions from the audience. Comments were recorded on a flip chart and the meeting was recorded. A transcript of the recording is attached for Council's review. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information to the public to further their understanding of the regulations and to receive comments regarding issues and concerns for Council's consideration. Amendment Process As Council is aware, it is possible to change the SARP regulations through a text amendment process as long as the changes are consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the Subarea Plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Text amendments are first considered by the Planning Commission which conducts a public hearing on the proposal. The Planning Commission then makes a recommendation to Council to either approve or disapprove the proposal. If the desired amendment is not consistent with Subarea Plan then a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required to address the change. The Comprehensive Plan can be amended one time per year with applications due November 1St of each year. Meeting Summary In general, there were not many specific concerns raised either at the community meeting or in letters sent by concerned citizens. Questions and comments were recorded during the meeting include the following: City Center District Zone Issue Report to Council Page 2 July 13, 2010 1. Temporary restrictions on City Center Retail should be removed. 2. Concern about 34 uses no long permitted in the City Center when compared to prior commercial zoning. 3. Pre - located streets present a concern. 4. Return to 2004 zoning. S. City should make it easy to do business. 6. Concern about impacts to undeveloped ground. 7. Time allowed to replace one nonconforming use with another should be increased from 2 to 5 years. 8. City needs a City Center and must figure out its identity. Comment Letters Staff received 2 comment letters by the September 7, 2010, deadline (see attached letters). Following is a summary of written comments. 1. Restore traffic to two -way between Argonne and University. 2. Make zoning business friendly. 3. Concern about complying with new regulations. 4. Should allow other uses, such as car lots, around the City Center "hub ". S. Should have separate meeting on prelocated street regulations. 6. Concern about temporary Core Street regulations. Issues and Concerns Analysis 1. City Center Core Street /Temp orary Regulations - Concern about the impacts to City Center properties if not located on Core Street. One of the critical components in developing a new City Center is to properly locate and develop a "Core Street." The Core Street is the basis for temporary regulatory restrictions on the entire City Center District. The restrictions insure that a critical mass of clustered, ground level retail shops is established along the main, Core Street before a more diffuse pattern of retail is allowed to development. Once building permits for development fully lining the Core Street are issued, the temporary restrictions will no longer be effective. It is important to note that the temporary restrictions go into effect only after a final Binding Site Plan (BSP) establishing the City Center Core Street is approved. Until that time, there are no restrictions on City Center Retail uses. Staff Response: The temporary regulations were adopted with the anticipation that the City would fully support and participate in the development of the City Center, including the construction of a City Hall. If the City no longer supports developing a City Center, then the temporary regulations may be removed with little overall effect on the SARP. Process Required: Code Text Amendment 2. Permitted Uses - The concern is that the City Center zone removed a number of permitted uses when compared to prior zoning, mainly auto oriented uses such as car lots, mini - storage and gas stations. City Center District Zone Issue Report to Council Page 3 September 14, 2010 Staff Response: The City Center is intended to be the most urban, active place in the City. Permitting auto - oriented uses throughout the City Center zone is counter to the intent of the Subarea Plan and would significantly impact its development. This restriction compliments and advances the Subarea Plan's policy direction to cluster auto oriented uses such as car lots in the Gateway Avenue and Gateway Center Commercial zones or the "Auto Row" area of the corridor. Process Required: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3. Prelocated Streets - Concern about the requirement to construct new streets. Staff Response: The SARP requires new streets to be constructed in all district zones if the development is larger than 5 acres or if the City's Development Engineer determines that a new street must be constructed due to the impacts of the development on the existing street and traffic circulation. A Prelocated Street Map shows the general, preferred location of new streets. The specific location would be determined during the development process. The Community Development Director may approve an alternative location if the proposal meets the goal of connectivity. The creation of smaller blocks and establishing a connected street network are key components in the corridor redevelopment strategy. A complete street network will enhance all modes of transportation, including cars, bikes, transit and pedestrians. The City recently adopted a Street Master Plan that establishes future street networks in the entire City. That Plan defers to the SARP for preferred future street locations in the corridor. A Code Text Amendment is currently being processed by Staff as a result of earlier SARP zone meetings. A complete overview of the prelocated street network can be visited during the comprehensive review of the SARP. Process Required: Code Text Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendment 4. Nonconforming Uses - Concern about complying with 2 year limit to replace a nonconforming use with another nonconforming use. Staff Response: The Spokane Valley Municipal Code allows property owners one year to replace a nonconforming use with another nonconforming use, except for properties located with the SARP boundary, which allows two years. It is typically understood that, over time, nonconforming uses will transition to uses that are permitted in the zone. Establishing regulations that limit the time allowed to replace a nonconforming use with another is a tool used to accomplish the goal. Increasing this allowance to five years far exceeds common zoning practice, which is typically one year. During previous discussions, Council decided to delay any changes to nonconforming use regulations. Process Required: Code Text Amendment City Center District Zone Issue Report to Council Page 4 September 14, 2010 S. One -way vs. Two Way -Concern about the impacts of one -way roads on businesses. Staff Response The SARP clearly establishes the intended future street network. Any changes to the future design of Sprague and Appleway must be considered during annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Process Required: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Council Options Council should consider the comments received as a result of the public outreach effort and direct staff on how to proceed. The Council may consider the following actions: 1. Identify issues and general language to forward to the Planning Commission for Code Amendments. 2. Identify specific issues to be addressed by Comprehensive Plan Amendments. 3. Take no action. 4. Other direction. City Center District Zone Issue Report to Council Page 5 September 14, 2010 4enort back to Cl Cc inter District Zone SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS 0 ------------ ----- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ •Notices sent to ALL property owners and Business operators Email notice to over 80o recipients • Notice Published in Newspaper • Attended by ~28persons Meeting Format Presentation Question and Answer • Purpose v Provide Information to public Receive comments Issue *1 Ci Core Street ations Temporary Regulations on City Center Retail until building permits are issued for Core Street Main Concern Impacts to City Center properties not on Core Street if temporary regulations are enacted. Center Tempor Core Street is critical to success of City Center Temporary restrictions become effective AFTER binding site plan is approved for Core Street. • City not currently working on City Center /City Hall project. W Process to consider change: CTA 10i Issue #2 Permitted Uses Permitted Uses in City Center zone t Main Concerns: Restrictions on certain types of retail uses in City Center when compared to prior zoning. nn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Uses no longer permitted largely auto oriented, or incompatible with City Center retail Process to consider change: Comp Plan Amendment Issue #3 Prelocated Streets r ---- V SARP requires new streets in all district zones if development exceeds 5 acres or if determined necessary by Dev. Engineer Main Concerns: Cost, land consumption, impacts to existing buildings. Fully connected street network creating smaller blocks is key to revitalization strategy. Integral to pedestrian making corridor oriented CD Direct may approve alternate street locations Process to consider change: Code Text Amendment or Comp Plan Amendment —Am Issue #4 Nonconforming Uses nonconforming use with another nonconforming use — 2 year limit Main Concerns Vacancy rates and current economy hstagiisning nme limits replace nonconforming uses is tool to transition Ire. nonconforming uses to permitted uses over time. Council previously decided to delay making changes to nonconforming use regulation. Process to consider change: CTA Replacing a Issue # 5 ne -way vs Main Concerns Impact of one -way streets o -way Streets SARP establishes intended future street network. Process to consider change: COri1n Plan Amendment Options: Consider the comments received and direct staff on how to proceed. • Options: o Select issues to forward to Planning Commission for Code Amendments; Select all issues, except those that require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, i.e. a portion of #q.. Take No Action Other — Direct Staff otherwise Comments from the City Center Community Meeting August 19, 2010 Director McClung welcomed the attendees (there was a head count of 22) and introduced staff. Senior Planner Scott Kuhta gave a presentation giving the background, intent and design of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan. This is the discussion that came after the presentation: Scott: We'll open the floor for questions at this point. Question — Scott, I want to ask that you remove the temporary restrictions to the city center on the binding site plan? (from the background and was asked to step to the microphone) Mike King: Request to remove the temporary restriction which has to do with the building until the binding site plan is put on. Scott: Any other questions or concerns? Dwight Hume: I have some concerns that I've expressed in previous meetings of this workshop type that we're dealing with symptoms and not the cause. You realize that the council was in the beginning of the year trying to repeal the SARP plan only to be advised legally that was something that had to follow a process of input. Unfortunately, the input that is being sought is an attempt to tweak the plan by putting in other uses that may or may not be acceptable to both; but none the less be brought in to it to make it more compatible with all concerned. Yet the real issue is the plan itself and to get rid of it but be that as it may, there are some issues here about the plan that I feel like we're treating a symptom and not the cause. The symptoms are allegedly the uses now allowed or not allowed and what we should do to add some back in and that doesn't really solve the problem of the plan itself. I think the plan is premature and it's not something that the economy can deal with and it isn't something that market forces will implement and well, the city center is the center piece of the plan. It has, as the gentleman just said, it has problems that are serious in nature. One in which is the moratorium or the defacto- moratorium the need to wait until the core street is fully permitted with building permits and everybody else waits indefinitely to put uses on their property. That has to change, that is not an incentive. That is a serious flaw in the plan. Second aspect of this is that well in 2007 there was a pre -SARP zoning matrix that says certain uses are allowed. Now it says 34 of those uses are not allowed but we're going to give you parks and medical supply sales and bed and breakfast, none of those are necessarily strong tenants to your properties. Based on the changes that have been made would be far better not to have had the SARP plan and have those other 34 uses again. The other aspect of this that is hardly mentioned and not today that the pre- designated streets affect numerous buildings that are already in place and probably cause us some traffic problems in terms of the introduction of intersections every 600 ft along Sprague and Appleway that are not in place right now. Appleway was originally sought as a bypass and the more intersections you create the more problems you create for traffic flow. So, I think I would suggest, I've even talked to people that received plans, maps, GPS base maps that show land use and show the streets on top of them the pre- designated streets. They show, therefore the reality what those pre- designated streets system does to existing land use. You've heard about some of that in other workshops but there are different maps out there and they show different things and they all came out of the city. I'm going to suggest we have a workshop just on the entire SARP on pre- designated streets and maybe the public information that goes out is on a GPS base that shows the land use and those Comments from City Center Community Meeting August 19, 2010 Page I of 5 streets and just have a dialogue discussion with the land owners whether or not they want those streets. So, 3 things, 1st we lost 34 uses. Second, we've got this pre- designated street system on various exhibits that's sent out by the city or given out by the city that contradict each other. Some of them show pre- designated streets within the CC area on the north side of Sprague but your adopted plan doesn't have any, so there's misinformation out there and then 3rd issued addressed initially and that is the moratorium that's created by your building permit requirements along the strreet frontage of the core street. Thank you Scott: Just a little bit on the pre - located streets. The plan does call for new streets throughout the corridor. Certainly, this city center needs new streets if the city is going to develop new city's blocks and the core street would be one of those pre- located streets. It does allow those pre - located streets located other than where there shown on the plan if you can still show you can still meet the objectives of more connectivity and circulation with cars. One of the things we have a challenge with in the corridor is circulation for automobiles. I think that's one of the things we heard early on with the couplet and put more cross streets in and have more connections that would make things alot easier for people to move around. We have wide long stretches where you can't get from Sprague to Appleway throughout the whole corridor so that is one of the reasons and it also makes more the principal behind the pre- located streets is to make more developable blocks, manageable block sizes rather than the large suburban type blocks. That's one of the reasons why those pre - located streets are in. We have heard concerns about those pre - located streets that they are identified where they go through buildings. When we first laid out the pre - located streets we tried to avoid buildings where we could. The only way the buildings would be affected is if that street would be required to be built is if there was a redevelopment of that property. So, that is concerning to some people so one of the things were looking at right now is changing that regulations so that was brought up earlier in this process and were going to be working on a text amendment the way that works if you have a development that is 5 acres or greater the regulations say you are required to build a new street somewhere on that property meet the objectivity of objective to the connectivity so the council will be reviewing that as part of these tweaks initially and then we'll see there will be a full review of the whole plan in starting in November during the next year comprehensive plan amendment process. Jack Pring: First, I want to thank the council for taking a positive stand returning the zoning to make it the way it was in 2004. We've got some issues here. The city center, non - conforming, permitting, core streets going through buildings and so forth. I don't understand all this. We got to make this thing pretty simple. We got to make it easy to do business. We got to make it easy for customers to do business with us. We've got a little strip mall over on Sullivan Rd and the setback and we've got a tenant that's in the mall that's doing very well. But he's also has some space with us on that strip mall and I'm happy to say were out selling that mall deal completely. I'm happy for my customers and happy for my tenant. In closing how many buy /sell agreements have taken place on the zoning area we're talking about today? And why not? Thank you. Scott: Anyone else ? ? ?? Kirk Owsley: Just a couple of things, I agree with most of what Dwight said earlier. This is becoming more and more restrictive. Completely 34 less uses, taking away free trade, taking away the choices of land as far as business owners. Scott, one more thing, how do we determine the degree on non - conforming use? Comments from City Center Community Meeting August 19, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Scott: I'm not sure ofyour question? Kirk: Replace with a lesser degree of non - conforming would be ok, versus Scott: There are some criteria on the impact of the transportation system is one, noise, what we have to do is look at the NAICS code, it's a code that codes industrial and commercial uses, similar to another classification that is something we look at. It is an administration determination which the CD director makes. We gather the evidence and the nature of the business and look at the impacts and make a determination. Kirk: One thing this fails to address we look at buildings and new setbacks and it doesn't address the impact of undeveloped ground. I think really undeveloped ground really feels a pinch in this because of the restrictions in uses that they had when they purchased it. I think there was a memo out to council from Lori in 2008 when she talked to some appraisers and bankers. She stated there indeed would be an economic impact to undeveloped ground if this goes into effect. We have less choices. The last thing I would like to say and it is a questions Scott. If this does go through a city center, is city hall required to be there? Scott: - No, there is no requirement that a city hall be there. Jim Magnusson: I'm a part owner of University City. Regulations are way over my head and I think I need to speak on this. Perhaps the concept of when this started was a dream. The economics and the world were different. You could borrow money if you could build. People bought and sold things. What's happened and the design was by Freedman and those people out of San Francisco and it was fairy dreamy. Good goals but the world has changed. You can't borrow money. You can't sell property. You can't buy property. I think you really ought to step back from this SARP idea and make a fundamental, philosophical decision. Does the city want to go to some type of zoning where they're going to encourage growth or do they want to set something up for utopia 10, 20, 30 years down the line. I think the plan right now is sort of utopia goal oriented but it's not functional in the economy that we're here with today. I think you really have to look at where the city wants to go and just like Mr. Pring said, how many buy /sell agreements have happened in the past 4, 5, 6 years. It's impossible to sell your property. It's impossible to do anything with your property because of the uncertainty. That's going to stay here. The economy is not going to bounce back and it's not going back to 2007 or 2006. We don't know how long it's going to be here but for growth and development the vitality in the area there has to be a plan to encourage multiple uses and uses people can finance and be successful in this area. All I have to say. Karla Kaley: Good morning, KSP Management. My husband and I both own property in Spokane Valley. We also have our property management company here at 10516 E Main Ave. I'm a new comer. I do know one thing, we've been here over 7 years and focusing on growing our business. We relocated here from another state, born and raised in Alaska, lived in CA. for 18 years. There met and married my husband. He's from Oklahoma. We're here back in the pacific northwest which is where we want to die. So the bottom line is we've been in a lot of places. I've lived in cities. I've lived in the country. I've commuted from the country to the city. I have a few questions. Again, I do apologize because this planning process has been going on for many years before we were ever involved here and I know a lot of hard work and good work as gone on. I have a few larger picture questions which I thought would be important to keep in mind. One of the fundamental questions I have is: does the City of Spokane Valley actually have an identity? Do you know who you want to be because if you don't know who you want to be Comments from City Center Community Meeting August 19, 2010 Page 3 of 5 then you're not going to know how to pattern or flavor your city center. Your city center is going to be a direct reflection of your city identity. That's going to be a huge marketing tool. It's going to be a business draw or not. It's going to be a reason for people to come or not. It's going to be useful or not useful, so that's one thing. I happen to think a city center is essential for any community that is serious about its identity and serious about its economical growth and viability. Without a city center you don't have an identity. I don't know what the identity is and I apologize if everyone else knows what it is and I don't, that's my responsibility to get caught up. I'm not sure we do know what the city of Spokane Valley is. Are we recreational destination. Are we senior services retirement community. Are we gateway to a recreational area, Idaho /Washington inland northwest. Are we commercial. Are we light industry. What are we? Are we a satellite identity sitting next to the city of Spokane? I mean, I don't know. How many people like to do business in downtown Spokane? Ok. How many prefer to do business where you don't have parking challenges and have to do that sort of thing? So you're city people or you're country people. I think a lot of people in Spokane Valley are country people. That's kind of why we're here but you need city services. So were in favor of the city concept but we want to make sure the city center reflects what it is. What Spokane Valley wants to be and also how we're going to do business here. I disagree a little bit with some of my colleagues. You are concerned about the economy and planning takes a really long time. When the economy is down it is a great time to plan. I've done planning professionally in a former life. This is actually an ok time to plan as long as everybody is really smart about what your goals are and what you want to do because here is what's happening when you don't plan you get a hot economy. You get a hot economy and everybody wants to spend money and you push projects through that probably weren't well thought out because everybody wants to capitalize on the hot economy so because the economy is cool right now doesn't mean we shouldn't be working really hard on something for the city of Spokane Valley, for our city center or the corridor area. There are a lot of things we need to work on and I'm not going to go into all those details. There are smarter people who can handle from parking, to streets, to traffic patterns and all those sorts of things. But here is what I do know, I've lived in a community where literally the city center shut down at night because nobody wanted to stay there after their job was done. They went home. They had kids, grocery shopping, pick up dog from the vet, or whatever. If you don't put a lot of thought into your city center commercial business entities are going to be you have the potential to have something that shuts down at 5:00 and everybody vacates. So you have to look long and hard about how you're going to use your city center. Then, also; I don't know about anyone else but snow removal is a really big thing. We want to be really, really careful. I think we forgot who we are. We forgot we don't have building structures and traffic patterns and street layouts and sidewalks that you can see in CA, AZ or FL. We have to deal with 10 feet of snow. So this is something. I want to ask a question for the City Planners which I know have an incredibly challenging job. We have an opportunity to look at some of the other models. As you said, we are patterning our plan which looks wonderful after some other development. My question to the city is to the planners? Are they working? Since we have an opportunity to look at models, can we go back and see ones that have been built by other cities and see if there actually working and what their problems are? Does the city shut down at night and just have lots of places for panhandlers to stay overnight? That's one thing we want to consider. We want to be a little careful we're not playing God. Does everybody really know what everybody really wants? We have to make some decisions. You can't have a plan without some decisions but it you don't have an identity, you don't really know what we want for our city center. I think we need one. We Comments from City Center Community Meeting August 19, 2010 Page 4 of 5 need one or city of Spokane Valley is not going to be taken seriously. You're not going to be your economically vial entity that I think everybody wants to be. That's good for business for everybody. Looking at other successes and basically making sure that what we do put together makes good sense. There are restrictions in zoning in places. There lots of really practical reasons for that. I don't think anybody wants uncontrolled growth. I'm not a big fan of controlling anything. It's one of the reasons why we live and work where we do and we have the freedoms we have in this country. I don't like change. I don't like change for change in general and I don't like change as I get older. I like things I know about. I like things familiar but sometimes change is good but it has to be with an identity and a purpose. So, I'm interested in participating more certainly as a business owner in this community, but also we own a number of single family residential and my family lives here. I want to know what this is going to look like in 10 years. I want to know where they're going to park. I want to know whose going to be visiting our city center. How can you have a city center if you don't have city services? I think city hall should be in the city center. I mean things like that. If you just create a lot of boutiques retail places, I'm going to tell you right now, boutique retail places struggle in any economy. I lived in cities where it has, so I'm not going to take to much more time. I just wanted to make the point that I really, really, really hope that we have an identity because without an identity, without who we want to be, it's going to be very hard to design the buildings. I know we have big columns of wood or we do have a lot of concrete and brick, what are we? I don't just want to be a cookie cutter from some city in CA, because I don't think that will work up here. Thank you. Jim Bonuccelli I have an issue with a non - conforming use cannot be replaced with the properties that are abandoned or discontinued for 24 months. My reasoning is that as a property owner of commercial rental property, given the market place the way it is, Pm seeing anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of vacancies on my property. If I have a single use property, in fact it could be vacant for a year unless if I find a tenant that's a conforming use sign, a one year or two year lease, then I'm no longer to utilize the property in the non - conformed use that was prior to the vacancies. I guess my point is I like the 24 month limitation expand to a longer time period whether its 3 years actually 5 years but whether the council will approve that I'm not sure, I know that given the market place right now, I know we have Spokane Valley has multiple buildings along Sprague Avenue that are vacant and in fact those buildings are losing ability if in fact, a non - conforming use before to have that use in future. That's my point. Thank you. Scott: Sept. 7 is the deadline for the comments. Again, this process will be ongoing. Look for more notices and information coming out once we get through these individual zone meetings. Next year we will start a full review of the sub area plan. There will be a lot more opportunities to speak to us and council. Thank you for coming. Comments from City Center Community Meeting August 19, 2010 Page 5 of 5 RECEIVED D J HUME AUG 2 �J Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. MT. VIEW LANE Spokane, WA 99218 Y Vq�LE SPOKANE 509- 435 -3108 (V) 509 -467 -0229 (F) POKA EVALLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 08 -19 -10 Scott Kuhta, AICP Community Development Department E. 11707 Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Ref: City Center Comments SARP Dear Scott: I have three issues of concern about what is being proposed by the City Center regulations: 1) the elimination of 34 uses heretofore allowed by the Pre -SARP zones; 2) The contradictory information disseminated by the city to the general public showing different pre - designated street locations; and 3) the defacto moratorium for any development created throughout this category pending building permits for all CORE street frontages. My concerns are as follows: 1) Even though this category of SARP is stated to be the heart and sole of the plan intended to create a nodal point of new - urbanism; it nonetheless prevents 34 other uses from being used as interim services and tenants within all the properties from Walnut to Bowdish, 2 Avenue to Main when in fact the former U -City site is the epicenter of this earth shaking concept. Is there really an adverse impact to this "hub " if a car lot was opened for business 6 blocks from there? 2) Secondly, there are various maps given out by the City to the public showing different pre - designated streets. Now I realize that what is shown inside the cover of the adopted plan is supposed to be the Gospel, but others who took the time to seek out a copy of this map and received these erroneous or outdated exhibits from the City don't know it changed and they are expecting their copy to govern what they can and cannot do. Shouldn't we have a separate open house meeting just on the pre - designated streets throughout SARP and explain once and for all what is and is not the official map and more importantly get the public feedback on how this element of the plan impacts their existing businesses and proposed uses? 3) Last but not least, there has to be a better way to "encourage" CC uses to land along the Core Street frontage without freezing the development rights to everything else until the last building permit is issued on that frontage. The City can't afford the time and money needed to defend such a process when the law suits get filed. This is nothing more than socialistic bureaucracy, telling these land Owners not only did we take away 34 uses you were given back in 2007 but you won't get to use what you now have until the last building permit is issued along our Core Street. May I remind you that the City forgot to provide any incentives to get businesses to go there in the first place? It doesn't take too much research on the internet to discover that successful implementation of vertical mixed use is more than a pretty book of rules. Tax and mortgage incentives and partnering of public and private sectors are key pre - requisites to implementing this development concept. The question is, can the City afford to get into the development game to salvage this plan? Resp ctfully submitted, wigh J Hume Land Use Planning Services Copy; Harlan Douglass C Comment Sheet for City Center Zoning District Sc�f'olane = ..;oO Valleys The City of Spokane Valley is soliciting comments on the zoning requirements for the City Center Zoning District. If you cannot attend the community meeting on August 19 (8 -10 am), please provide comments below or contact Scott Kuhta, Sr. Planner at 509 - 720 -5334 or email dy,riffith o ,spokanevalley.org . Name: DAM I "TL?1 11 Mailing Address: 11.509 Email address: ' �vs,�/ & Phone number: 5)rIP7 01' I have the following comments about how to improve the Plan: ;,' l,Ll'e, 0/(/ 7H� IVOR 71-/ ,S / o 7 o - �, � , -L 4� CIZ -/4t) 1 / IVD T Al �l tv�L� pis � Ulf /UO ZD vC ; r VL A Q /VO T 11U c& ` - 4//c/ le C/C�r1� o - 7 — r 14- Dd - 12- '�cv�c. -r , _ f3 T� L. �i5 c� f �- - �- } Lc � / 41V Oe I still have questions, and would like a staff person to co act me: '!�tcll'7261111 Ooell -11;e-5 Dr�� . � [[ C Au report to the 26 to lu ed he re PLEASE PRt?VI�E Y�Q p � ci ° 1 on * 14&11�p tl� ylall =il to Avenue, #106; Spo caa, alley, WA 99206. , /�,{�[� '0 - � �#1 ARC :SPOKane ,;OO EdAitAE L9"E p ADDRESS Business NwnetPro a Owner E-MAIL ]Need follow-up? t Ea o V il IQQA n nrA . ci;r` 5 �9e ?J�SI� 'l LL - ' oA l' C �..• C� ��1r % fc u 2oz 6 C 14 `b V v , CI e r r.� e1n /jf N 7 u G�r U t G G 3S z 6 7 L " 4'�e � �'2L.. �.• fn.GI,C • � � • i a- � rQ.i S c.�;rae. C-�Sbt ' S`E `�'��' �— i DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of September 9, 2010; 2:45 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings September 21, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 13] ACTION ITEM: 1. Motion Consideration: City Manager Contract Approval - Mayor Towey (10 minutes) a. Oath of Office: Police ChiefRick hanLeuven, and City Manager Mike Jackson Non - Action Items 2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)- Greg McCormick (15 minutes) 3. Poe Winter Contract - Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 4. SRTC Public Works Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Projects - Neil Kersten (10 minutes) 5. SCRAPS, Proposed Animal License Fee Increase - Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes) 6. CenterPlace Leases - Mike Stone (10 minutes) 7. Code Revision, Assessment Reimbursement District - Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Pre -Call for Regionally Significant Projects - Neil Kersten (20 minutes) 9. Admin Report: Budget Comparisons - Ken Thompson /Mike Jackson (30 minutes) 10. Chickens in Residential Zones - Kathy McClung (10 minutes) 11. Advance Agenda [ *estimated meeting: 150 minutes] September 28, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 20] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget - Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendments (GCA & GCC Zone) - Lori Barlow (10 minutes) 4. Second Reading Ordinance adopting 2011 Property tax Levy - Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 5. Second Reading Ordinance property tax confirmation - Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 6. Second Reading Ordinance Pre - Treatment - Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 7. First Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget - Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 8. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Funds to Outside Agencies - Ken Tlompson (25 minutes) 9. Motion Consideration: Poe Winter Contract - Neil Kersten (10 minutes) 10. Motion Consideration: Interlocal, Pre - Treatment - Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 11. Motion Consideration: Lease Agreement with Community Colleges of Spokane - Mike Stone (10 minutes) 12. Motion Consideration: Lease Agreement with Central Valley School District - Mike Stone (10 minutes) 13. Admin report: Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Comm. Blvd - Lori Barlow (45 minutes) 14. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: 175 minutes] October 5, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 27] 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 2. Spokane Transit Authority Presentation - Susan Meyer (30 minutes) 3. Business License Amendments - Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 4. Public Record Ordinance Amendments - Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 5. Comp Plan Review /Update; SARP & Comp Plan Options - Kathy McClung (20 minutes) 6. Legislative Agenda Update - Mayor Towey (15 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 90 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 9/9/2010 4:53:13 PM Page 1 of 3 October 12, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2. Second Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget — Ken Thompson 4. Admin Report: Code Text Amendment CTA 08 -10 — Micki Harnois 5. Advance Agenda jdue date Mon Oct 4] (5 minutes) (30 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 60 minutes] (A WC Regional Meeting, Spokane: October 13, 2010, 6 -8 p.m. CenterPlace)) October 19, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Oct 11] 1. Report Back to Council: Community Blvd — Lori Barlow (30 minutes) 2. Law Enforcement Police Forensics — Rick VanLeuven /Carrie Johnson (20 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda [ *estimated meeting: 50 minutes] October 26.2010. Formal Meeting Format. 6:00 D.M. 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, CTA 08 -10 — Micki Harnois 3. First Reading Public Record Amendments — Cary Driskell 4. First Reading Business License Amendments — Cary Driskell 5. Advance Agenda 6. Info Only: Department Reports November 2, 2010. Studv Session Format. 6:00 D.M. 1. SARP Report to Council — Kathy McClung 2. Broadcasting Options — Mayor Towey 3. Admin Report: Fee Resolution Proposed Changes — Ken Thomason 4. Advance Agenda November 9.2010 Formal Meeting Format. 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2. Second Reading, Proposed Ordinance, CTA 08 -10 — Micki Harnois 3. Second Reading Public Record Amendments — Cary Driskell 4. Second Reading Business License Amendments — Cary Driskell 5. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution — Ken Thompson 6. Advance Agenda November 16, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda 2. Hotel /Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 November 23, 2010 Thanksgiving Week (tentative, no meeting) [due date Mon, Oct 18] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] [due date Mon, Oct 25] (45 minutes) (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 85 minutes] jdue date Mon Nov 1] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 65 minutes] [due date Mon, Nov 8] [ *estimated meeting: minutes] November 30, 2010, Tentative No Meeting: Council attends NLC in Colorado (Nov 30 -Dec 4) Draft Advance Agenda 9/9/2010 4:53:13 PM Page 2 of 3 December 7, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Nov 29] 1. Advance Agenda 2. Info Only: Department Reports (normally for the Nov 23 meeting) December 14, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 2. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Hotel /Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 3. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments (Planning Commission, etc.) [ *est December 21, 2010, Christmas Week (tentative, no meeting) [due date Mon, Dec 6] (5 minutes) - Ken Thompson (15 min) (15 minutes) imated meeting: minutes] December 28, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Dec 20] 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll (5 minutes) 2. Info Only: Department Reports January 4, 2011, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Dec 27] OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES /1V Affordable Housing Participation Alternative Analysis (contracts) Area Agency on Aging Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. — bidding exceptions) Capital Projects Funding Clean Air Agency Collaborative Planning Concurrency East Gateway Monument Structure 4 Jail Update Milwaukee Right -of -way ■ Overweight /over size vehicle ordinance Parking/Paving Options (Development paving options for driveways, etc.) Planned Action Ordinance Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Speed Limits Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ. Assessment Sprague Avenue: One -way vs. two -way Street Maintenance Facility Transportation Benefit District Interlocal Transportation Benefit District: (a). Establish ord.; (b) set public hearing; (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot language Transportation Impacts Wastewater Treatment Plant [EETINGS: WIRA, Water Protection Commitment, public education ■ = request for Council's early consideration 4 = Awaiting action by others * = doesn't include time for public or council comments Draft Advance Agenda 9/9/2010 4:53:13 PM Page 3 of 3 From: val@vicut.com [mailto:] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:07 PM To: mayor/ councilmembers Subject: Keeping of Backyard Chickens Dear Council Members, On Tuesday, August 24, 2010; I spoke briefly about the regulations on keeping backyard chickens in Spokane Valley and requested they be changed. Because I am a highly nervous public speaker, I wrote down all the points I wanted to touch on during my three minutes to speak; and still forgot to mention the things I'd like to mention regarding keeping backyard chickens. My understanding, after speaking to Chris Berg with Code Enforcement, is that, when Spokane Valley incorporated, they adopted all of the Spokane County codes. I would imagine some or many of those codes were written many years ago and were fitting for the times. But, the suburban ideal is a dynamic concept; as more people become interested in living a greener lifestyle in the suburbs, the idea of what is "ideal" evolves to reflect the commiumity's values. People have started to realize that maintaining a close connection to our food is a positive, not a negative, and is part of living a more sustainable lifestyle. Famiers' Markets are experiencing a revival, people are gardening more, and conununities around the nation are changing decades -old laws forbidding the keeping of chickens. It was mentioned by one of you that "Martha Stewart thinks it's a good idea to have backyard chickens ". But I think it's so much bigger than that. I'd ask that you just take a look at your local news stands and note all the magazines regarding sustainable living, greener Iiving, organic gardening, backyard chickens, urban homesteading etc_ and see that it's a huge movement in this country. There's a great website called thecitychicken.com that has a list of all the cities that allow residents to keep chickens that would also give you an idea of how big this movement is in this country. There are a few topics I wanted to touch regarding the potential negatives of chickens and the positives of chickens: Chickens are not a nuisance. They are not smelly. According to time OSU extension office, the average laying hen produces 2-3 lb of droppings per day. The average dog produces a pound a day. Unlike dog or cat feces which carry pathogens and cannot be composted; chicken manure provides a great free source of organic fertilizer when composted. Since the average chicken keeper is also a gardener, this is a great benefit. And speaking of compost, I have a large compost bin and my chickens spend hours every day turning it and finding bugs which is a wonderful side benefit, They're also good for time cnvirorunent because they cat bugs and weeds eliminating the need to use chemicals. Chickens are also great mousers and will catch anmd eat snakes, Hens are not noisy. They cluck for a few moments when they're laying an egg; but otherwise are very quiet. Their clucks are certainly no louder than that of a small dog. when you live in a neighborhood, there are Immi rowers running, motorcycles and trucks driving by, children laughing and screaming, dogs barking, birds chirping and there's no reason why a chicken clucking for 30 seconds should be considered a nuisance, They do not Iower property values, Some prospective home owners may be more attracted to a community with a progressive stance on green issues such as chicken keeping. Some cities with the highest property values allow backyard chickens such as Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Denver, CO, New York, NY, Washington D.C.; San Francisco, CA; San Diego, CA; & Los Angeles, CA. Some of your closest neighbors allow backyard chickens such as Spokane, WA & Millwood, WA. Lastly, of course, is that they provide us with fresh eggs every day. A hen matures and starts laying at around 4 months of age and will lay almost every day for about 3 years and then sporadically thereafter until she passes away. Most backyard chicken keepers consider their chicken a pet, and unlike a typical farm aninnal, would continue to be a loved member of the family until she dies. I hope you will consider some of these timings when making your decision. Thank you for your time, Valerie Dunn. From: Kathy McClung Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 10:29 AM To: val @v1cut.com Cc: Mike Jackson; Chris Bainbridge; City Council; Deanna Griffith Subject: RE: Keeping of Backyard Chickens Dear Ms. Dunn; I have been asked to respond to your comments regarding keeping chickens in residential zones. The current regulations permit chickens on lots of 40,000 square feet or greater. The number permitted is 1/3000 square feet. i also took a look at the City of Spokane code and although they do allow chickens in residential areas, they also limit them by the requirement that they have to be housed 90 feet from any property line or center line of any right of way. 5o the lot would have to be very large to accommodate them. Amendments to the city code can be initiated by any individual or the city council at any time. If an individual wishes to initiate an amendment there is an application and a fee ($1850.00). The amendment proposal is then taken to the planning commission for a public hearing and recommendation and then to the city council for final adoption. There are criteria for amending the code and there is no guarantee that it will be approved. The city council can also initiate a code amendment and in that case the city bears the cost of the amendment. If you decide to pursue an amendment, please call me and I will provide you with the application. You should also know that the city gets several complaints a year regarding chickens, so any amendment proposal probably wouldn't be a slam dunk. My phone number is 509.720.5300. Sincerely, Kathy McClung Community Development Director Spokane Valley Community Development Monthly Report July 2010 PERMIT CENTER Revenue Permits Permit revenue for July was $64,407. The revenue for the year is even with last year at this time. Permit Revenue $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 2010 Revenue 2009 Revenue AML AEL� Land Use Land Use revenue for July is $11,360. This is behind last year; however the drastic increase in May of last year is due to the receipt of payment from a street vacation, which has caused an unfair balance in the comparison to last year's numbers. Land Use Revenue $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 02010 Revenue 02009 Revenue = a in ift I A ow Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oc Page 1 of 8 Spokane Va11ey Community Development Monthly Report July 2010 e of inancutlr�ana�ementPermitl1 0r atioM /yermitslssuedl July 2010 Residential New Structures Separate Dwelling Units Demolition Permits Dwelling Units Demolished Single Family Residence 6 Duplex 2 Triplex 4 -Plex Apartments July 2010 Commercial New Buildings Tenant Improvements Additions 5 11 1 ' Per the currently adopted Master Fee Schedule, valuations reported above for commercial and residential construction permits are "assigned based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the International Code Council, whichever is greatest." Page 2 of 8 The valuation' for July was $5,363,548 Sp okane Community Development � ,r�l�� Monthly Report Y y July 2010 yel—M& (CtlNltll Certificate of Occupancy Ten Certificates' of Occupancy were issued in July including two mini storage buildings on Trent and a number of Change of Use Tenant Improvements Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 263 permits in July. Construction Permits Issued 350 , 300 250 200 150 100 I ■ 2010 Permits 1 158 1 200 1 259 1 256 1 241 1 284 1 263 ■ 2009 Permits 159 192 221 250 260 302 305 1275 1255 13311200 1243 Page 3 of 8 Spokane Valley Land Use Applications Community Development Monthly Report July 2010 In July staff issued 1 SEPA decision for a zoning text amendment. Commercial Pre - application Meetings During the month of July Community Development staff held 11 commercial pre - application meetings which included A building addition for FedEx at 4005 N. Moore, the Coffee Roaster at 14505 E. Trent, Evergreen Towing at 11915 E. Empire Ave, a daycare at 321 S. Dishman, 3 change of uses, 2 short plats and commercial antenna. Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner did not have any land use hearings in July Business Licenses Staff Approved 114 business licenses in July. Home Occupation Permits Staff approved 28 home occupation permits in July. Entertainers Licenses Staff processed 2 adult entertainment licenses for July. Express Permits Staff processed 8 Express Permits in July.. CustomerSeryke The Permit Center staff assisted 509 customers at the counter and handled 393 customers' inquires by phone in the Permit Center during July. The Permit Center staff provided an average target date of 10 working days for Commercial projects, 3 working days for Residential platted and 10 working days for Residential un- platted. This target date represents the time to first comments issued to the applicant. ��S1�eCtlD�f Right of Way The Right -of -Way inspector performed 957 inspections in July. 1200 Right -of -Wai Inspections 1000 0, 800' 600 400 200 0 O 0 0 0 O Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Y e O 2010 221 491 773 852 1007 941 957 0 2009 164 265 506 774 113710581058 641 860 718 555 174 Page 4 of 8 pol Community Development Valley Monthly Report July 2010 Building Plans Examiners reviewed 73 plans in the last month, 7 of which were for Airway Heights. There were 185 commercial inspections and 522 residential inspections in the same time frame. Attention It was noted this month that although the numbers above have been reported correctly, the chart to go along with it has been turned around and the commercial and residential numbers were graphing incorrectly. It has now been corrected. All year long, the number of residential inspections have exceeded the number of commercial inspections. 700 d � 600 Building LIN Inspections 500 — Performed 400�A' 300 200 100 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec X2010 Residential 393 387 397 557 498 522 531 0 0 0 0 0 ®2010 Commercial 229 187 274 180 163 185 201 0 0 0 0 0 2009 Residential 221 237 304 257 302 628 649 582 580 584 459 438 0 2009 Commercial F220 188 199 181 143 F189 222 219 202 322 166 253 Development Engineering During the month of July the Development Engineering Inspector performed 12 inspections. Development Engineering Inspections 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec — 2010 ■ 2009 Page 5 of 8 Spokane Valley UPDATES Planning Commission Community Development Monthly Report July 2010 In July, the Planning Commission held one regular meeting on July 22 in which two public hearings were held. The first hearing on file CTA -05 -10 was a privately initiated code revision that proposed to allow vehicle and boat sales and full service restaurants in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone; the second hearing on file CTA -07 -10 was a Council initiated text amendment to allow vehicle sales in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) The SCEO met on July 21, 2010. Items on the agenda for discussion included a presentation by SRTC on the Transportation Visioning project and an update from the Planning Technical Advisory Committee chair. Shoreline Master Program Due to other department priorities, work on the SMP update has been postponed until late summer /early fall. Subarea Plan Revisited On July 13 staff presented a report from the community meeting on the Mixed Use Avenue zone. Staff also presented an update regarding the progress on the SARP review process to Council on July 13 On July 20 staff presented information to Council on the Neighborhood Centers zoning district. Staff conducted a community meeting on July 22 on the Neighborhood Centers zoning district to solicit public input on this portion of the SARP Department yYfde Energy Grant Public Works continues transportation projects that will result in energy conservation and carbon footprint reduction. The Avista Utilities partnering project continued with 4 home energy audits. See the paragraph below for updates on the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. Washington State Energy Strategy Update Process The Washington State Energy Strategy update process continued this month with weekly webinars. The Building Official continues to participate in the conservation sector process and has been working with Commerce staff to improve access to the work group meetings. Participation in this process will be on -going through December 2010. ADA Study Staff is reviewing and entering all the department surveys that have been submitted. A public meeting is scheduled for August 3. Sidewalk inventories are on hold for the construction season. Bike /Pedestrian Plan (BPMP) Staff compiled responses from the non - statistical online survey. In addition, staff identified improvement concepts based on the connectivity assessment exercise from workshop number one. Staff prepared a department budget for July 13 budget retreat and subsequent follow — up information. Page 6 of 8 Spokane Valley Training Community Development Monthly Report July 2010 July 19 & July 24 — Eleven Staff attended Customer Service training. Following the training, the Director has worked with staff to develop policies on customer service standards, when to ask for back up and service recovery. Wellhead Protection No wellhead meetings were held in July. Regional Partnering The Regional Partnering Group met with respective staff to review the master application. Staff identified some procedural barriers that may not be resolvable. Building Officials will seek direction from Directors and Commissioners to determine what priority this project has. In the meantime, the building official group is working on identifying and prioritizing new partnering opportunities. FEMA New FEMA maps became effective in July. The CD Department hosted a celebration to recognize Dick Belm's effort in changing the maps. The Department received a number of citizen calls regarding FEMA — related issue. Code Cam !fie Citizen Action Requests Code Compliance officers received 44 Citizen Action Requests in July. Code Violation Totals Page 7 of 8 "" Community Development Spokane V�11� Monthly Report July 2010 These are the customer action requests by type of violation, 5 of which were no violation but still must be nvestigated 100% - L 80% L � 60% 40% 20% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 11 Clear View Triangle 2 0 7 5 1 5 2 ©Complaint - No Violation 3 2 3 9 2 6 5 ■Environmental 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 oJunkAuto 10 19 14 7 9 9 10 M Property 16 19 20 13 15 12 15 11 Signs 15 31 5 5 31 0 0 ■Solid Waste 16 26 26 12 12 11 12 2010 Code Total Violations Reported - by Category UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST T A IAITCMCOT August 3 f National Night Out, no council ADA Self Survey Public meeting August 12 Planning Commission — Subarea Plan Code amendments — Gateway August 17 City Council, City Center report August 19 City Center Community Meeting F August 26 Planning Commission — Subarea Plan Code amendments Public Heaaring Sept 9 Planning Commission — Study Session Code Amendments — Subarea Plan Sept 23 Planning Commission — Public Hearing Subarea Plan Code Amendments September 30 Community Boulevard Community Meeting November 1 Deadline for submittal of comprehensive plan amendments. Page 8 of 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 14, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: SRTC 2010 Pre -Call for Regionally Significant Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of the 2011 -2016 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan; BACKGROUND: Earlier this year the Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC) requested of SRTC (and other regional transportation planning organizations throughout the state) a list of the top twenty transportation projects in our area that would help identify statewide transportation needs. This request is based on a proviso included in the state's 2010 Supplemental Transportation Budget (ESSB 6381, Sec. 205 (8)). See attached memo from the WSTC. SRTC staff has since been working with the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC), the Transportation Advisory Committee JAC), and the SRTC Board on developing criteria in which to select and prioritize transportation projects in our region that are considered "regionally significant." See attached email and from SRTC which includes a copy of the Draft Regional Priority Criteria. Note that the attached email includes a "Pre -Call for Projects." Last year city staff prepared the attached list of "Regional Transportation Project Prioritization, 2010 Legislative Session." Staff will review this list along with other transportation needs within the city to identify up to five projects we would recommend submitting to SRTC in response to this call for projects. Staff will then discuss these projects and answer any questions at council's September 21S study session. OPTIONS: Information only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Information only STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Memo from WSTC dated June 14,2010; 2) Email from SRTC dated 8/30/10; 3) Letter to SRTC w/ attached "Regional Transportation Project Prioritization, 2010 Legislative Session. Current definition of "REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE" Transportation improvements of 'regional significance' are those transportation related investments that benefit two or more jurisdictions within the SRTBD, benefit the economic health of the region, or enhance the state or federal transportation system within the boundaries of the SRTBD. Transportation improvements of 'regional significance' may include investments for vehicular traffic, freight mobility, public transportation, passenger rail, or for bicycle - pedestrian accommodations. They may be for either a single transportation mode or multi - modal. DRAFT of 8/27/10 SRTC Prioritization Criteria and Scoring of Regionally- Significant Transportation Improvement Projects SAFETY — Total possible points 40 Reduce transportation - related fatalities and injuries and improve the security of transportation customers and the transportation system. Our GIS department is working on the accident /VMT ratio analysis and we'll have to figure out a way to incorporate that into the score sheet when it is complete This Project: _ Improves high accident locations, or improves routes where potential conflicts between modes are high. — score on accident /VMT ratio OR _ reduces potential for accidents in known hazardous area _ Adds intersection improvements such as: curb extensions, lighting, raised median, crosswalk enhancements, signs, signals, roundabouts or mid -block crossing treatments or other improvements where feasible _ Provides safe routes to transit and /or schools, employment, and retail centers by constructing bicycle lanes or paths and /or pedestrian walkways. — Eliminates ADA and language barriers and /or addresses special mobility needs of disabled, children and elderly population _ Eliminates at -grade crossings; Reduces or limits access points _ Includes ITS for security purposes and improves emergency management capabilities Up to 15 points for high accident or accident potential criteria Up to 5 points for each of the remaining five criteria ECONOMIC VITALITY — Total possible points 40 Stimulate economic competitiveness by developing transportation systems which improves the reliable and timely movement of people and goods. PRESERVATION —Total possible points 30 Maintain, preserve and extend the life and utility of prior investments in transportation systems and services. Ensure that our region's transportation infrastructure remain in a state of good repair. "State of Good Repair" is defined as: A condition, in which the existing physical assets, both individually and as a system are functioning as designed within their useful lives and are sustained through regular maintenance and replacement programs. This Project: _ improves employment /development potential in the corridor _ reduces commute time or improves workforce mobility _ reduces freight travel time and /or improves freight capacity _ reduces conflicts between people and freight movements This Project: _ exists as a priority on the jurisdictions maintenance program _ score on TTC's pavement condition report or the state's bridge inventory _ meets the lowest cost possible to achieve the desired performance outcome _ leveraged investments or matching funds _ meets lowest life cycle cost Up to 10 points for each criterion Up to 6 points for each criterion MOBILITY & CONNECTIVITY —Total possible points 30 Enhance the reliable movement of goods and people and increase transportation choices. (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, transit, vehicles and freight) ENVIRONMENT — Total possible points 30 Improve our region's quality of life through transportation investments that recognize and enhance the environment. STEWARDSHIP - - Total possible points 30 To continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the regional transportation system through coordinated policies, leveraged investments, and collaborative projects This Project: Increases connectivity by: _ Creates /improves connections between trip generators _ Creates /increases connections between modes of transportation _ Increases transportation choices between trip generators Up to 3 points for each criterion Contributes to the efficient movement of commerce and freight by: _ Improving connections between shipping centers and freight corridors and connectivity among freight routes — Separating high - volume mid- and long - distance shipping corridors from local traffic where feasible Improves arterial efficiencies by: _ Creating grade separated facilities for slower modes, bicycles and pedestrians on high volume, medium to high speed corridors _ Reducing barriers to pedestrian and bicycle travel _ Improves roadway design on freight routes to accommodate trucks _ Incorporating universal design principles for way finding Enhances transit investments by: _ Improving convenience, speed and reliability of transit vehicles and bus stop performance through connectivity to other modes This Project: _ supports infill and transit oriented development in urbanized areas _ makes use of best available design to manage storm water runoff (up to 3 points each) includes vegetation management includes culverts for aquatic life _ improves environment by (up to 2 points each) _ improving air quality _ reducing traffic noise _ improving aesthetics _ has received SEPA /NEPA environmental clearance _ Addresses State climate change goals (up to 3 points each) _ reduces Green House Gases reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled This Project: — was coordinated with a other jurisdictions and agencies where applicable _ is in an adopted land use plan or program with a documented transportation system need _ users contribute financially to a portion of the construction costs, debt service or operations costs and /or leverages mitigation Up to 6 points for each criterion Up to 6 points for each criterion fees to offset costs _ demonstrates the project cost effective based on a cost benefit analysis allowed public input on design of project DRAFT DATE: June 14, 2010 TO: Directors, Statewide Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations FROM: Reema Griffith, Executive Director, Washington State Transportation Commission RE: Instructions for Submitting Regional Priority Projects to the Washington State Transportation Commission The enacted 2010 Supplemental Transportation Budget contained a proviso directing the Transportation Commission (WSTC) as follows (ESSB 6381, Sec. 205 (8)): "As part of its developnaent of the statewide transportation plan, the commission shall review prioritized projects, including preservation and maintenance projects, from regional transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to identify statewide transportation needs. The review should include a brief description and status of each project along with the funding required and associated timeline from start to completion. The commission shall submit the review, along with recommendations, to the house of representatives and senate transportation committees by January 2011. " The WSTC is requesting your organization submit a list of up to 20 priority projects (in no particular order) located within your region. Do not submit more than 20 projects. In cases where there are two regional organizations coexisting within one boundry, we ask that one list be submitted for both organizations. The following mega projects are already high priority state projects and therefore do not need to be included in your list of 20: SR 520 bridge replacement; Viaduct replacement; Columbia River Crossing; and the Spokane North /South Freeway. Road projects can include those located on city streets, county roads or state highways and can be any type of road project such as but not limited to preservation, maintenance, safety or improvement. Projects may also be multi -modal projects such as but not limited to transit, air, or intermodal freight. For each project, the following information will be needed: • Project name & description Identify what each project is, where it is located, what the intended outcome and benefit is, etc. • Project status & timeline identify where the project is at in development and a complete timeline of the project from start to completion, identifying the major phases (i.e.: right of way acquisition, preliminary engineering, construction, etc.) • Project funding needed • Identify the total cost of the project and the funding needed in year of expenditure dollars (YOE). For purposes of this request (and not for budgeting purposes) please apply an inflation factor of 4% in determining your YOE costs. • Per the project timeline, identify the funding need in terms of state biennia (for example: July 1, 2011 —June 30, 2013; July 1, 2013 —June 30, 2015; etc.) • Project funding needs should be identified in whole dollars estimates, but small ranges may be acceptable if whole dollar estimates are not available. • Project categorV & type o Category 1: Road projects: identify type of project and whose jurisdiction it falls under (i.e.: city, county, state). For preservation and maintenance projects, please identify the discrete activity you are seeking funding for (for example: sealcoat, 20 miles on Jones St.). Please use the following list to determine the "project type" and indicate the corresponding number(s) a given project falls under: 1. Preservation 2. Maintenance 3. Safety 4. Reconstruction 5. New Construction 6. Adds Capacity 7. Adds Multi -Modal Facility o Category 2: Multi -modal projects: identify the type of project and whose jurisdiction it falls under (ie: port, transit agency, etc.) • Statutory policy goals For each project, identify which statutory policy goals it will address (please refer to the correlating policy number listed below). The statutory policy goals are as follows (RCW47.04.280): 1. Economic Vitality: To promote and develop transportation systems that stimulate, support and enhance the movement of people and goods to ensure a prosperous economy 2. Preservation: To maintain, preserve and extend the life and utility of prior investments in transportation systems and services 3. Safety: To provide for and improve the safety and security of transportation customers and the transportation system 4. Mobility: To improve the predictable movement of goods and people throughout Washington State 5. Environment: To enhance Washington's quality of life through transportation investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities, and protect the environment 6. Stewardship: To continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the transportation system Two templates addressing the above informational needs are enclosed (note: the Excel file is set up for 8.5 x 14 paper). Please use these templates to provide the information we have requested. If you would like to offer additional detail on any of your projects, please do so as an appendix. The WSTC requests that this project information be submitted to the Commission Offices by no later than October 29 th , 2010. The information should be submitted electronically to the following email address: transc @wsdot.wa.gov Please put in the subject line: "Regional Project List" From: Donna Lively Subject: Draft Regional Priority Criteria for upcoming call for projects Date: Monday, August 30, 2010 3:33:35 PM Attachments: Final Draft Criteria matrix.doc To: TTC Members From: Jeff Selle, Manager of Government Affairs Date: August 30, 2010 subject: Draft Regional Priority Criteria gar TTC, as you know SRTC staff formed a subcommittee earlier this year to review our oring criteria for "regionally significant" projects and to prioritize them for advocacy and 'iding. We briefed the TTC on our progress in July, as well as the Transportation tvisory Board and the SRTC Board. ie input we received from those briefings has been incorporated in the final draft of the teria that we intend to recommend to the Board at their September 9 meeting. We are , nding out the draft criteria (attached) to TTC members for final review and to provide the bcommittee with any final comments. YOUR COMMENTS ARE DUE BY END OF USINESS ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1 ST. ifortunately, we did not have an opportunity to present this draft in a timely manner, as TTC meeting was cancelled in August. However, we do plan to present the final teria at the next TTC meeting September. the way, a call for projects -- using some form or variation of the draft criteria -- will be leased as soon as the Board approves the criteria and the process that will be used to ore the projects. LEASE CONSIDER THIS A PRE -CALL FOR PROJECTS. We will have a short ndow to submit projects into the selection process once it begins in September, so the bcommittee felt the jurisdictions should be given the draft criteria, so they have an �portunity to prepare projects. IT IS LIKELY THAT JURISDICTIONS WILL BE MITED TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PROJECT ENTERIES. The bcommittee is going to recommend a limit of five per jurisdiction. If you have any questions, please contact me at jselle a srtc.orq or 343 -6377. Thank you. Jeff Selle, Manager of Government Affairs SRTC SRTC _VP0 #kvir Gmeed Donna Livery Administrative Secretary Spokane Regional Transportation Council Kootenai County Metropolitan Planning Organization 221 W First Avenue, Suite 310 Spokane, WA 99201 509.343.6370 Email: dlively @srtc.org; Website: www.srtc.org Sptikane ,,,;,oOValley, Public Works Department Capital Improvement Program 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevalley.org Regional Transportation Project Prioritization 2010 Legislative Session Bridging the Valley — Barker Road Overpass ($47,500,000) Barker Road is a north -south principal arterial in the City of Spokane Valley. It crosses the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline near SR 290 (Trent Avenue). Barker Road currently carries approximately 4,290 vehicles per day. The BNSF line carries between 30 and 50 trains per day. Barker Road lies between the Sullivan Road overpass and Flora Road at- grade crossing to the west, and the Wellesley Avenue overpass to the east. Barker Road is currently protected by standard railroad gates and signals. This project will reconstruct Barker Road to pass over three BNSF tracks and SR 290 Trent Avenue). Wellesley Avenue will be re- routed to connect to the new Barker Road, on the south side of the railroad tracks. SR 290 will be accessed with on -and off ramps similar to the Sullivan Road interchange. Regional Significance: Score = 30 Points • Meets local LOS needs by fixing a currently failing intersection, which is currently preventing industrial development in this area of the city (5 points); • Meets multi - jurisdictional needs; the project proposes a safe crossing of a state highway (SR 290) and a realignment of Wellesley Avenue in Spokane County. It also allows transportation concurrency for proposed development of Liberty Lake's River District (5 points) • Meets regional needs by providing efficient movement of vehicles and freight (trucks and trains) through the Spokane Region. (5 points) • Meets statewide by providing efficient and safe movement of vehicles (SR 290) and freight (trucks and trains) through the Spokane Region to the ports on the west side of the state. (5 points) • Meets multi -state needs. Barker Road is used as an alternative route to avoid the congestion on Highway 95 through Coeur d' Alene, Idaho for both passenger and freight vehicles desiring access to 1 -90 (5 points). • Meets national needs as it would promote the consolidation of rail activity into one corridor and provide a safer more efficient rail system for the movement of freight through the region from ports in western Washington to the midwest states. (5 points) Project Readiness: Score = 20 Points Preliminary engineering is 30% complete (5 points) Environmental clearance has been received (5 points) Regulatory permitting is complete (5 points) Regional Transportation Project Prioritization 2010 Legislative Session 9/17/2009 Page 2 of 8 • Right -of -Way Plans are complete (5 points) Access and Mobility: Score = 20 Points • Provides for vehicular access and mobility (5 points) • Bike accommodations will be provided (5 points) • Pedestrian facilities will be provided (5 points) • Truck /Freight accommodations will be provided (5 points) Community support: Score = 25 points • The City Council supports this project as does the public through several open houses related to the project (5 points) • The Local Chamber of Commerce, Regional Chamber Alliance (WA & ID) and other local business organizations support this project (5 points) • The Monte Del Ray subdivision residents support this project as providing a safer access to and from their neighborhood (5 points) • This project is one element of the Inland Regional Hub project supported by many local and regional businesses and advocacy groups (5 points) • The Bridging the Valley Project has legislative support as evidenced through prior earmark funding. The City also employs a full time lobbyist to promote the City's interests in the Legislature. (5 points) Reduce VMT /GHG: Score = 10 Points • Project includes bike and pedestrian facilities that support alternative travel modes and trip reduction. (5 points) • Removal of the existing at -grade crossing will reduce travel times on this arterial by reducing intersection delay (5 points) Local Financial Support: Score = 10 Points • Spokane Valley and the BNSF Railroad proposes to contribute a 5% each of local match for a total of 10% of the project cost (10 points) Financial Plan: Score = 10 Points A financial plan /strategy has been indentified and documented for this project. (10 points) Total Project Estimate (2009) = $47,500,000 Anticipated Funding (there are no funds currently allocated to this project): WA State $10,000,000 TIB $ 2,000,000 City $ 2,375,000 BNSF RR $ 2,375,000 Federal $30,750,000 Total Regional Transportation Project Prioritization Score = 125 Points Regional Transportation Project Prioritization 2010 Legislative Session 9/17/2009 Page 3 of 8 Appleway Extension University to Tschirley ($25,500,000) The City intends to implement phased street network improvements by extending Appleway Avenue in a way that will balance automobile, transit, bike, and pedestrian needs. The proposed improvements are intended to maximize ways of reaching and moving through the corridor and maintain the circulation system's capacity to move commuters during peak hours in a configuration that complements the envisioned land use and development pattern as outlined in the adopted Sprague /Appleway Subarea Plan. Regional Significance: Score = 10 Points • Meets local needs by providing a secondary east -west arterial through Spokane Valley allowing for economic revitalization of the Sprague /Appleway corridor and encouraging redevelopment (5 points) • Meets regional needs by providing an alternative east -west arterial through Spokane Valley reducing local trips on 1 -90. (5 points) Project Readiness: Score = 10 Points • A Subarea Plan with conceptual designs has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council (5 points) • The Environmental Assessment for this project is complete. (5 points) • Right -of -Way plans have been preliminarily developed; ownership of the right -of -way is currently being challenged. (0 points) Access and Mobility: Score = 25 Points • Provides for vehicular access and mobility (5 points) • Provides transit accommodations and future Light Rail (5 points) • Bike accommodations will be provided (5 points) • Pedestrian facilities will be provided (5 points) • Truck /Freight accommodations will be provided (5 points) Community support: Score = 20 Points • The City council has identified this project as one of its highest priorities to guide future development of a City Center as described in the Sub -Area Plan. (5 points) • There has been an extensive public involvement process related to this project. Spokane Valley residents and businesses support the extension of Appleway. (5 points) • The Spokane Valley Chamber supports the extension of Appleway (5 points) • The City employs a full time lobbyist to promote the City's interests in the Legislature. (5 points) Reduce VMT /GHG: Score = 15 Points Provides Trip reduction by including bike and pedestrian facilities. (5 points) Provides travel time reductions by relieving congestion at several busy intersections along Sprague Avenue (5 points) Supports alternative to single occupant vehicle utilization by providing bike lanes and sidewalks along the entire Appleway corridor. Includes provisions for future mass transit corridor. (5 points) Local Financial Support: Score = 15 Points • The City plans to financially support this project at a level of 15% or higher (15 points) Regional Transportation Project Prioritization 9/17/2009 2010 Legislative Session Page 4 of 8 Financial Plan: Score = 15 Points • The city currently has $4.2 million in federal funds committed to this project. A preliminary strategy to finance the remainder of this project has been outlined in the adopted Sub -area plan. (15 points) Total Regional Transportation Project Prioritization Score = 110 Points Sullivan Corridor Project - Indiana Rd to Wellesley Rd ($54,000,000) Sullivan Road is a north -south principal arterial in the City of Spokane Valley that connects 1 -90 to SR290 and the Bigelow Gulch Corridor project being developed by Spokane County. It includes overpasses for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline near SR 290 (Trent Avenue) and the Union Pacific Railroad mainline north of the Spokane River. Sullivan Road directly serves the Spokane Industrial Park and adjacent industrial zone which includes multi - modal connections to both railroad lines. Sullivan Road currently carries approximately 23,000 vehicles per day with truck traffic volumes of 18% to 24 %. The Bigelow Gulch Corridor Project is expected to become a new primary route between the north side of the City of Spokane and northern Spokane County and Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, eastern Spokane County and Idaho. This will redirect significant volumes of traffic onto Sullivan Road at Wellesley Ave. It is located between Argonne Road to the west, and Barker Road to the east. This project will reconstruct Sullivan Road from Wellesley to Indiana Rd. The Corridor project includes 4 parts. Part 1 involves implementation of the Bridging the Valley Improvements to the overpasses at SR290 and the BNSF Railroad crossing. This will replace the existing bridges with wider and longer bridges to increase traffic capacity, add pedestrian and bike facilities, provide room for an additional railroad line and improve the geometric section of the roadway for improved traffic safety. Part 2 will reconstruct the entire length of the project in Portland Cement Concrete. The existing pavement is in fair to poor condition with significant areas of alligator cracking, severe rutting especially at intersections and many patches to repair failed sections. Recent Falling Deflectometer testing determined that pavement needed additional asphalt overlay thicknesses of 2.0 to 6.2 inches to adequately serve the projected ESAL counts of 6,000,000. Reconstructing in PCC is roughly equivalent in cost to an HMA pavement section of the same structural strength and will last twice as long. This will accommodate the high traffic volumes using the corridor and truck volumes serving the Industrial Park and adjacent businesses. Part 3 will replace west half of the Sullivan Road Bridge at the Spokane River. The current Bridge is over 40 years old and was determined to be structurally deficient during its last inspection. The bridge deck is experiencing delamination, spalling and concrete core samples had a very high chloride content. The bridge also uses a similar design to the Barker Rd. Bridge of the same age which is currently being replaced. The bridge will be widened from two to four lanes to accommodate current and project traffic volumes. Part 4 will resurface the bridge deck for the overpass to the Union Pacific Railroad. The bridge deck is experiencing delamination and spalling and was determined to be in marginal condition during its last inspection. The bridge deck is in need of repairs to maintain its structural integrity. Regional Transportation Project Prioritization 9/17/2009 2010 Legislative Session Page 5 of 8 Regional Significance: Score = 30 Points • Meets local needs by improving a critical corridor serving a major industrial area of the city (5 points); • Meets multi - jurisdictional needs; the project proposes a safe crossing of a state highway (SR 290), direct connection to Interstate -90, and allows for expansion of the BNSF railroad corridor. • Meets regional needs by providing efficient movement of vehicles and freight (trucks and trains) through the Spokane Region. (5 points) • Meets statewide by providing efficient and safe movement of vehicles (SR 290 & 1 -90) and freight (trucks and trains) through the Spokane Region to the ports on the west side of the state. (5 points) • Meets multi -state needs. Sullivan Road serves many businesses in the industrial park that ship products and materials nationally and receive products and materials from national sources. These products are transported using both trucks and rail lines (5 points). • Meets national needs as it would promote the consolidation of rail activity into one corridor and provide a safer more efficient rail system for the movement of freight through the region from ports in western Washington to the midwest states. The BNSF Railroad lines are a primary east -west trunkline that connects shipping ports in Puget Sound across several states to the major train hubs in Chicago and points east. (5 points) Project Readiness: Score = 20 Points • Preliminary engineering for the BTV section is 30% complete. Preliminary inspection have been to the UPRR overpasses and the Spokane River Bridge to determine their condition and identify recommended improvements (5 points) • Environmental clearance has been received for the BTV portion (5 points) • Regulatory permitting is complete for the BTV portion (5 points) • Right -of -Way Plans are complete for the BTV portion (5 points) Access and Mobility: Score = 25 Points • Provides for vehicular access and mobility (5 points) • Accommodations will be made for transit stops and bus shelters along the project route that serve employees commuting to and from adjacent businesses. (5 points) • Bike accommodations will be provided (5 points) • Pedestrian facilities will be provided (5 points) • Truck /Freight accommodations will be provided (5 points) Community support: Score = 25 points • The City Council supports this project as does the public through several open houses related to the project (5 points) • The Local Chamber of Commerce, Regional Chamber Alliance (WA & ID) and other local business organizations support this project (5 points) • The project is supported by area advocacy groups (5 points) • This project is one element of the Inland Regional Hub project supported by many local and regional businesses (5 points) Regional Transportation Project Prioritization 2010 Legislative Session 9/17/2009 Page 6 of 8 • The Bridging the Valley Project has legislative support as evidenced through prior earmark funding. The City also employs a full time lobbyist to promote the City's interests in the Legislature. (5 points) Reduce VMT /GHG: Score = 15 Points Project includes bike, pedestrian and transit facilities which supports alternative travel modes and trip reduction. (5 points) Improvements to the corridor will reduce travel times on this arterial by increasing capacity at the SR290 intersection and Spokane River bridge that currently act as congested choke points during peak traffic periods (5 points) Accommodations for bus stops to better serve commuters to and from adjacent businesses support alternatives to single occupant vehicle utilization. (5 points) Local Financial Support: Score = 5 Points • Spokane Valley plans to contribute at least 5% in local match. The BNSF Railroad proposes to contribute 5% of local match for the BTV phase of the project. (5 points) Financial Plan: Score = 5 Points • A financial plan /strategy is currently being developed for this project. (5 points) Part 1: (BTV @ SR290 /BNSF): $21,000,000 Part 2: (PCC Roadway): $14,000,000 Part 3: (Sullivan W. Bridge @ River): $18,000,000 Part 4: (Resurface UPRR Overpass): $ 1,000,000 Total Estimated Project Cost (2010): $54,000,000 Total Regional Transportation Project Prioritization Score = 125 Points STUDY- Urban Trail: Millwood to Spokane Valley ($300,000) The Millwood — Spokane Valley Trail is a five -mile separated pathway on abandoned railroad ROW and Spokane County sewer ROW to connect the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, and Millwood. This trail will provide a route though much of the City of Spokane Valley connecting 2 elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school. Funding would allow for the initial research and design of this project. Supporting documentation for this project can be found in the SRTC document entitled SmartRoutes Case Statement, 2010 Active Transportation Campaign, Spokane, Washington dated June 30, 2008. Regional Significance: Score = 10 Points • Meets local needs by providing multi -use trail for alternative forms of transportation through Spokane Valley (5 points) • Meets multi - jurisdiction needs by connecting the cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley and Millwood (5 points) Project Readiness: Score = 20 Points • This proposal is for a study of the initial design of the project. A preliminary design of this project has not been completed. However, the Scope of Work for the planning can be readily prepared. (5 points) Regional Transportation Project Prioritization 2010 Legislative Session 9/17/2009 Page 7 of 8 No Environmental is need for planning study. (5 points) No Regulatory permitting is needed for Planning Study. (5 points) No Right -of -Way plans are needed for Planning Study. (5 points) Regional Transportation Project Prioritization 2010 Legislative Session 9/17/2009 Page 8 of 8 Access and Mobility: Score = 15 Points • Trail supports transit mobility and alternative traffic modes. (5 points) • Bike accommodations will be provided (5 points) • Pedestrian facilities will be provided (5 points) Community support: Score = 20 Points • Local jurisdictional support (5 points) • Local School District Support. (0 points) • Advocacy support (5 points) • Regional organization support (5 points) • The City employs a full time lobbyist to promote the City's interests in the Legislature. (5 points) Reduce VMT /GHG: Score = 10 Points • Project supports transit mobility (5 points) • Supports alternative to single occupant vehicle utilization (5 points) Local Financial Support: Score = 15 Points • The City of Spokane Valley anticipates a commitment level of 15% or greater on an estimated $300,000 study. (15 points) Financial Plan: Score = 5 Points • A financial strategy is being developed. The project is included in the 2010 SmartRoutes Campaign in an attempt to secure funding through the next federal transportation bill. We anticipate applying for state and federal grants to support this project as well. (5 points) Total Regional Transportation Project Prioritization Score = 95 Points sPo�� jUalley September 18, 2009 Glenn Miles Transportation Manager Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Ave., Suite 310 Spokane, Washington 99201 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 1 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevalley.org RE: Regional Transportation Project Prioritization, 2010 Legislative Session Dear Glenn: Please find enclosed the City of Spokane Valley's regionally significant project list for the Regional Transportation Project Prioritization, 2010 Legislative Session. The projects submitted include the following: Resubmitted from 2009: 1. Barker Road Overpass — Bridging the Valley 2. Appleway Extension, University Rd. to Tschirley Rd. 3. Urban Trail Study — Millwood to Spokane Valley In addition to the previously submitted projects, the City has determined that the Sullivan Road Corridor from Indiana Ave. to Wellesley Ave is a project of regional significance and a high priority for improvements. Sullivan Road is a north -south principal arterial in the City of Spokane Valley that connects I -90 to SR290 and the Bigelow Gulch Corridor project being developed by Spokane County. It includes overpasses for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline near SR 290 (Trent Avenue) and the Union Pacific Railroad mainline north of the Spokane River. Sullivan Road directly serves the Spokane Industrial Park and adjacent industrial zone which includes multi - modal connections to both railroad lines. Sullivan Road currently carries approximately 23,000 vehicles per day with truck traffic volumes of 18% to 24 %. The Bigelow Gulch Corridor Project is expected to become a new primary route between the north side of the City of Spokane and northern Spokane County and Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, eastern Spokane County and Idaho. This will redirect significant volumes of traffic onto Sullivan Road at Wellesley Ave. The proposed project will reconstruct the Sullivan Road Corridor and provide much needed improvements from Wellesley Ave. to Indiana Ave. The corridor project includes 4 parts. Part 1 Glenn Miles 9/18/2009 Regional Transportation Project Prioritization — 2010 Legislative Session Page 2 involves implementation of the Bridging the Valley Improvements to the overpasses at SR290 and the BNSF Railroad crossing. This will replace the existing bridges with wider and longer bridges to increase traffic capacity, add pedestrian and bike facilities, provide room for an additional railroad line and improve the geometric section of the roadway for improved traffic safety. Part 2 will reconstruct the entire length of the project in Portland Cement Concrete. The existing pavement is in fair to poor condition with significant areas of alligator cracking, severe rutting especially at intersections and many patches to repair failed sections. Recent Falling Deflectometer testing determined that pavement needed additional asphalt overlay thicknesses of 2.0 to 6.3 inches to adequately serve the projected ESAL counts of 6,400,000. Reconstructing in PCC is roughly equivalent in cost to an HMA pavement section of the same structural strength and will last twice as long. This will accommodate the high traffic volumes using the corridor and truck volumes serving the Industrial Park and adjacent businesses. Part 3 will replace west half of the Sullivan Road Bridge at the Spokane River. The current Bridge is over 40 years old and was determined to be structurally deficient during its last inspection. The bridge deck is experiencing delamination, spalling and concrete core samples had a very high chloride content. The bridge also uses a similar design to the Barker Rd. Bridge of the same age which is currently being replaced. The bridge will be widened from two to four lanes to accommodate current and project traffic volumes. Part 4 will resurface the bridge deck for the overpass to the Union Pacific Railroad. The bridge deck is experiencing delamination and spalling and was determined to be in marginal condition during its last inspection. The bridge deck is in need of repairs to maintain its structural integrity. The Sullivan Road Corridor project impacts transportation of local, regional, state and national importance. The project will accommodate all modes of traffic, reduce travel times by eliminating congestion- causing choke points, and will provide transit facilities to commuters to adjacent businesses. It is a major artery serving the heart of the City business community and will generate wide community support. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Neil Kersten, AIA Public Works Director Enclosures