Loading...
2005, 10-18 Special Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 77 meeting Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Councilmember Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Absent: Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Tuesday, October 18, 2005 City Staff: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer "Bing" Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Chris Armstrong, of the Valley Open Bible Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called roll. All councilmembers were present except Deputy Mayor Munson. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and unanimously agreed upon to excuse Deputy Mayor Munson from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Councilmember Denenny, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and unanimously agreed upon to approve the Amended Agenda as presented. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Schimmels: spoke of the Conversation with the Community he attended last week where they heard a presentation from Parks and Recreation Director Jackson; and that he also attended a Spokane Regional Transportation Council meeting last week and distributed a handout to Council concerning observations on "Policy Topic 5 Transportation." Councilmember Taylor: reported that he also attended the Conversation with the Community at CenterPlace; that he attended the Steering Committee meeting for the National League of Cities (NLC) Energy and Environmental and Natural Resources Committee where committee members discussed impacts of the new federal energy bill and NLC's policy toward that, along with discussion of emergency preparedness. Councilmember Flanigan: stated that he too attended the Conversation with the Community at CenterPlace; he attended the Valleyfest end -of -year get together to discuss this year's Valleyfest and make plans for next year's event. Councilmember Denenny: mentioned that he chaired last week's STA (Spokane Transit Authority) monthly meeting; and at that meeting they had an opportunity to pass a resolution to approve funding for police officers in the plaza, which now awaits the City of Spokane's approval; that he attended the STA's state auditor's exit interview /report and in that regard, discussion was held concerning a report that several STA employees received a bonus, but the finding was that it was a one -time salary adjustment; that he also attended a meeting on the Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) /Total Maximum Daily Load Council Meeting: 10 -18 -05 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: 11 -01 -05 (TMDL) and that they will be proceeding in coming up with scenarios to present to the DOE (Department of Ecology) for options for construction and agreement for users of discharges in the River. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that in addition to attending the Conversation with the Community, she also welcomed the Washington State Hospital Auxiliary Personnel who came to the Mirabeau Hotel for their convention; and she attended a hearing on emergency preparedness featuring Senator Kastama, who represents Piece County, and that she and the Senator also discussed Growth Management. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project List — Greg McCormick Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:14 p.m. and invited Mr. McCormick to give opening comments. Mr. McCormick explained the background information of this issue per his accompanying Request for Council Action Form, and stated that this hearing is a requirement in the CDBG process to give the public opportunity to comment on the proposed project list, and added that this issue is slated for next week's agenda to provide the final list for approval consideration. He also mentioned that the projects are not in any priority listing. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6:19 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: First Public Hearing, Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Recommended Draft — Marina Sukup Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:19 p.m. and invited Community Development Director Sukup to give opening comments. Director Sukup gave a brief background of the events leading up to this hearing, and mentioned that several members of the Planning Commission are present should there be questions for them. Mayor Wilhite invited citizen comment. Kerry Orcutt, 1304 N Evergreen Road: said he is in favor of the changing of zoning along Evergreen from residential to commercial office. Dave Gump, 1314 N Evergreen Road: said he is in favor of the proposed comprehensive plan in rezoning to an office designation on Evergreen, and that he thinks it is a good fit for the neighborhood. Phyllis Markham, 1519 N Barker Road: said they purchased property on the corner of Barker and Mission back in 1985 with the understanding that it had a commercial zoning on it and she failed to check it out; that they were notified by the County in 1988 that it did not have the proper zoning and that she did not have the proper permits to operate a business at that location; she said at that point they applied for the permits needed to operate a business there and never heard anything else from Spokane County and she therefore assumed they were fine; that it wasn't until 2000 when they tried to sell the property that they discovered for the past 12 years it had been sitting in a file someplace and had never been completed; they lost the sale on the property; at that point they tried several things and went through a zone change; that was approved in January of 2000; she said she paid all the money, went through the hearing and just recently found somebody else who wants to purchase the property and subsequently discovered that the County had changed the zoning back to residential without notifying them; she said she now has someone again who is interested in purchasing the property and has the funding, but the property is in a residential zone on a 3,000 square foot commercial building. She said they have been dealing with this since 1985; that it has been a business since the mid 40's; there has always been a business there for over 50 years, and she now sits on a property that she cannot sell. She said she has a packet of information and photographs that she will give to the Clerk so the Clerk can distribute copies to each Councilmember. She said most councilmembers are probably familiar with the location; and that the County is looking to take the corner of that property for the road expansion; it is commercial across the street; there is a lot of Council Meeting: 10 -18 -05 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: 11 -01 -05 commercial in the vicinity, and has historically been used commercially, and she'd like to get the zoning that she paid for, back. She said she is not sure if there is any possibility before the Comprehensive Plan is completely firmed, if she can get an opinion if Council is sympathetic to her cause so she can potentially sell the property to the person who would like to purchase it; but to ask those people to wait six or eight months is almost unreasonable. N.A. Brown, 18915 E. Marietta, Otis Orchards: said he has a complaint about his neighbor who is apparently behind on taxes and that there will be a tax foreclosure on her property; so the neighbor filed bankruptcy and he doesn't know who owns it, but there is someone living there who insists on parking too many vehicles in his driveway and in front; normally anywhere from eight to twelve vehicles; he said this is a mobile home park and not a parking lot and he feels the City should do something about reducing his supply. Paul Pointdexter, 1423 E LaCrosse: he said that he is not a resident of Spokane Valley but is employed by Empire Health Services who owns the Valley Hospital and also owns ten undeveloped acres directly south of the facility; that in the near future they are planning to do something with that land; and he wants to make sure it doesn't get zoned in such as way as to prevent them from doing something like assisted living, or medical office space and other things that will serve the community. Richard Burdick, 1920 S VeraCrest Drive: said he is here in regard to his daughter's property located on the southeast corner of Margareet and Alki; he said he wasn't sure if this is the appropriate time or not, but her property is currently zoned residential; and she hopes it could have a consideration for some kind of a business zoning because it is business across the street and is business on the east end of her property and eventually she would expect there would be some business interest in that; her name is Lorrie Peterson, 8902 E Alki; and that they would like to have some consideration for that for ease in preparation of zoning it in the future. Jody Rosenbaum, 18520 E Norman Ridge Lane, Spokane: she said she is the one who is interested in purchasing the property referred to earlier by Ms. Markham, and would appreciate council considering Ms. Markham's request. Mike Redman, 19 N Blake: said he is here regarding his property at 19 N Blake, Parcel 45154.2519; that his property is surrounded on three sides by commercial and mixed use zoning, and they are planning to change that to private or low density residential for his property only and nothing around him; that he would like to see that at least mixed use so he could put his business in there, which is a financial services business which would not impact the neighborhood beyond his property; his property is positioned in a way that you can't see the neighborhood beyond, and he has now approximately 250 cars daily parked in front of his house due to the bank which is in front of his yard. Mayor Wilhite invited further public comment; no other comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite asked City Clerk Bainbridge if she had anything for the record. City Clerk Bainbridge stated that a letter was received today from Lamar Outdoor Advertising which they would like read into the record. Ms. Bainbridge read the following letter into the record: "Tuesday, October 17, 2005 Dear Mayor Wilhite and Council members, Please read this letter into the record for the meeting of Tuesday, October 18, 2005. We members of the Ad Hoc Sign Committee spent many hours to devise a sign ordinance that would benefit both business and the community. With regard to the language surrounding billboard use, we proposed a "Cap and Replace" ordinance. This assured the number of billboards would not increase, but the billboard industry would be allowed to keep the existing signs that were lawfully Council Meeting: 10 -18 -05 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: 11 -01 -05 constructed. The Planning Commission has called for the elimination of the Cap and Replace language from the sign ordinance currently under consideration. We feel this is unfair to a business that offers twenty family wage - paying jobs, offers additional employment to many area subcontractors, and compensates the landowners with whom we share lease agreements. We strongly urge the members of the County Council to consider the benefits of a Cap and Replace ordinance. The language of this ordinance includes strict spacing requirements with which the billboard companies will comply. With this ordinance, Lamar Outdoor Advertising will earn the ability and be willing to devote the resources to reconstruct older signs and replace them with modern steel structures. This will improve the appearance of the existing signage, but will not add additional structures. We feel the Cap and Replace ordinance is a fair compromise for all interested parties, insuring a win for both businesses and community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Duane Halliday General Manager, Lamar Outdoor Advertising" After reading the above letter, Ms. Bainbridge mentioned the following additional letters to be included in the record: (1) letter dated October 12, 2005, from Len Bouge, 304 S Conklin Road, Spokane Valley, Washington; (2) letter dated October 7, 2005 from Laurie Peterson; (3) letter dated October 14, 2005 from Empire Health Services; and (4) letter dated September 22, 2005, from Phyllis Markham. Mayor Wilhite then closed the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. Councilmember DeVleming mentioned that Mr. Brown's concern is likely more of a code enforcement issue for separate consideration. Councilmember DeVleming also asked if Director Sukup could give the definition of "office Space" as he has concerns about the medical zone around the hospital, and if the draft plan shows it as office space and whether a medical use would work there. Ms. Sukup said it is possible that a medical district with a special overlay would relate specifically to the uses supportive of the medical community. Mayor Wilhite asked for a list of definitions in order to assist in the next deliberation. Councilmember Deveming also requested if the draft comp map could be placed on the overhead as much testimony will focus on the map. Councilmember Denenny also requested the map legend of what is allowed in each zone shown on the map, and to have that available for the next deliberation. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the Following Vouchers — Mary Baslington: Voucher List Dated 11 -10 -2005; Voucher # 7770 -7823, Total Amount $561,209.50 b. Financial Management Policy — Ken Thompson It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming, seconded by Councilmember Denenny, and unanimously agreed upon to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. NEW BUSINESS 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -026 Amending Planned Unit Developments (PUD) — Marina Sukup After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to approve ordinance 05 -026. Director Sukup stated that the Planning Commission concluded their public hearing October 13, 2005, and recommended approval of the ordinance deleting the provision requiring direct access to an arterial/collector, by a vote of four in Council Meeting: 10 -18 -05 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: 11 -01 -05 favor with one abstention; with the chair not voting (who does not vote unless there is a tie). Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Tom Tabbert, 18505 E 4 Avenue, Greenacres: said that he has been pursuing this ordinance and the development for some time now; that he feels we got "muddled down" in legalities at the city planning meeting last week, where their decision on this was that the ordinance will be looked at when the projects are given to the city planning department for them to propose these; and concurrency issues and the engineering issues is where this law should be applied and not at the end; which he said is why this ordinance is in effect, so therefore the city planning committee recommends approval of this to remove it to do it earlier in the process so it doesn't get all the way through and get kicked out; but that Mr. Tabbert said there is a PUD about ready to be approved and it will side -step this particular ordinance, there will be 22 homes dumped in on a street 18' wide, and this is a main thoroughfare for an elementary school and a very dangerous area; that his concern is that if this is approved, are the PUDs which are up for approval now going to go back and get this considered earlier in the plan? Meg Arpin, 1117 E 35 Avenue, 99203: stated that she realizes there is not a formal resolution with the Bellevue Estates but does not want to address that project directly; that she appreciates Council's referral of this issue back to the Planning Commission for their consideration, and she appreciates the Commission's recommendation to Council for the amendment approval; and she wants to assure Mr. Tabbert and Council that concurrency is evaluated regardless of what type of project is being done; and that concurrency was evaluated for her client's project and a certificate issued; that there is no connection between this provision and the intent of the PUD ordinance as PUDs have unique characteristics; she said she agrees that the Planning Commission's concerns are valid and need to be looked at but in the context of concurrency of every project and not just this issue. Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin Avenue: stated that she doesn't believe the ordinance should be changed; her street is very narrow, and she wants to make sure there are better connections in roads; that she doesn't want it changed to an unsafe condition; that we are not doing infill development but are doing sprawl. After brief Council discussion, vote was taken by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. First Reading, Ordinance 05 -029 Adopting Budget for 2006 — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance Ordinance 05 -029 to a second reading. Finance Director Thompson explained that this is the first reading for the budget ordinance, he brought Council attention to the green updated pages for the budget document, and briefly discussed the minor changes on those sheets. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. Proposed Resolution: Amending Fee Resolution Ken Thompson [public comment] This item was removed from the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comments. Denise Thomas, 312 N University #1: she explained that she has a situation whereby she feels she was pulled over excessively by members of the Sheriff's Office, and the City Police; that she is an ACLU member and a member of the Gay & Lesbian Association; she wants to know who to complain to and who governs the Sheriff's Department as the Sheriff's Department feels the stops were justified but she feels they were frivolous. She wants this resolved as to why is she being constantly pulled over. Council Meeting: 10 -18 -05 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: 11 -01 -05 Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin Avenue: she would like us to start to work to become a Tree City USA ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7. STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Bus Shelters on Indiana Avenue at Spokane Valley Mall — Steve Worley Public Works Director Kersten, speaking for Steve Worley, explained that the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) requested permission to construct two bus shelters on Indiana Avenue at the Spokane Valley Mall; that they are proposed to be constructed on each side of Indiana Avenue near the Black Angus and TGI Friday's; and that the shelters will be constructed and maintained by STA He added that STA generally executes a site license and right -of- access agreement with jurisdictions for the use of the City right -of -way for these shelters, and a draft copy is included in the attached documents for Council review. Mr. Kersten said that staff has no objections to the proposal and asks for further council direction. Council discussion included marking the road better as it is very busy; that traffic is not accustomed to having pedestrians cross back and forth; that perhaps another location would be better; lighting and trash problems; timing of backing up into the mall and impacting routes; the possibility of re- routing the bus through the mall; and the need to discuss route alternatives. Councilmember Denenny mentioned he can bring these concerns (routes, timing, etc) to the attention of STA, and that he will obtain bus route information from the STA and will bring that back information concerning added routes. Staff indicated that they will contact STA staff regarding stripping, cross - walks, lighting, appropriate location, turnouts, trash, and options of stopping on Indiana or going into the Mall. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded by Councilmember Denenny, and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss pending litigation, that no decision thereafter is expected; and to have a 15 minute recess prior to adjourning into Executive Session. Council adjourned for a 15 minute recess at 7:16 p.m. Mayor Wilhite declared Executive Session in session at 7:33 p.m., and declared Council out of Executive Session at 8:37 p.m. It was then moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded by Councilmember Denenny, and unanimously approved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. 7 -.' (Christine Bainbridg , Ci Clerk f-cod1/4& 1k) 61,14, Diana Wilhite, Mayor Council Meeting: 10 -18 -05 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: 11 -01 -05 INTRODUCTION COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR SPOKANE COUNTY Policy Topic 5 Transportation Overview of Growth Management Act (CTMA) Requirements Regional transportation systems include major highways, airports and railroads, as well as bikeways, trails and pedestrian systems. The Growth Management Act (GMA.) encourages a variety of efficient transportation systems in order to reduce sprawl while J improving the efficient movement of people, goods and services. Therefore, close coordination is necessary between transportation planning and the land use element of each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. The Growth Management Act (GMA), as well as other state and federal legislation, requi.res transportation planning to be conducted on a regional basis. According to RCW 36.70A, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances Which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on the transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. The strategies could include increased public transportation services, ride - sharing programs, demand management strategies and other transportation system management 'strategies. Overview of Countywide P1an.ning Policies The Countywide Planning Policies propose that transportation planning in Spokane County be carried out by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. Consequently, each jurisdiction's land use plan should be consistent with the regional transportation system. The policies recognize -the need to preserve corridors capable of providing for high - capacity transportation such as commuter lanes, rail or dedicated busways. Through Policy "topic 5 - Transportation :Page 27 car r r GPI (4 Sc December 2004 Printing POLICIES Policy Topic 5 - Transportation COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR SPOKANE COUNTY their comprehensive plans, local jurisdictions will be responsible for planning for developments along these corridors that would support public transportation services. The Countywide Planning Policies also recognize the need to pre-serve our existing regional transportation system. New land developments would not be allowed to lower the adopted level of service of the existing transportation system. To accomplish this, developments would be required to pay for transportation improvements at the time of construction or to identify other transportation strategies to offset the impacts. These strategies could include increased public transportation services, ride -share programs and other alternative programs. 1. Regional transportation planning shall be conducted by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC). The SRTC shall coordinate with local jurisdictions and the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) to ensure that the regional transportation plan and local jurisdictions' land use plans are compatible and consistent with one another. 2. The regional transportation plan shall be developed in accordance with federal and state planning requirements in order to ensure that: a. coordinated, comprehensive and consistent transportation plans are adopted; b. air quality is evaluated and maintained; and c. the Spokane metropolitan area maintains eligibility for federal and state funding programs. 3. The regional transportation plan shall include, in addition to state and federal mandates: a. alternative modes of transportation to the automobile, including public transportation, pedestrian facilities, bikeways and air and rail facilities; b. an evaluation of the general environmental and economic impacts of the plan; c. coordination with land uses to reduce transportation demands; Page 28 December 2004 Printing 5 d. standards for accessibility to major institutions, manufacturing and industrial centers and air and rail terminals; e. incorporation of utility easements into transportation corridors; f. provisions for special -needs populations; and g. access management to regional arterials. 4. Comprehensive plans shall include, where applicable, the master plans of identified major transportation facilities to ensure that they are reasonably accommodated and compatible with surrounding land uses. Such facilities shall include, but not be limited to, airports, state highways, railroads and major freight terminals. 5. Local jurisdictions shall develop and adopt land use plans that have been coordinated through the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) to ensure that they preserve and enhance the regional transportation system. These plans may include high capacity transportation corridors and shall fulfill air quality conformity and financial requirements of the Federal Transportation Laws and Regulations, the Clean A-ir. Act Amendments of 1990 and the Growth Management Act (GMA). 6. Local jurisdictions shall designate within land use plans areas that can support public transportation services. These areas shall include existing as well as new development. Each jurisdiction's land use plan, the regional transportation plan and the Spokane Transit Authority's (STA) Long Range Transit Plan shall support, complement and be consistent with each other. 7. In the long term, growth and change will necessitate the designation of specific transportation corridors which can support high capacity transportation. These corridors shall: a. be identified for the specific purpose of preserving the right-of-way necessary to implement a high- capacity transportation system and to provide a development density that will support such a system; b. be recognized in each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and development regulations. These plans and codes should provide the authority to establish high- capacity transportation activity centers and urban villages having a land use pattern of mixed use density and intensities; Policy Topic 5 - Transportation COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR SPOKANE COUNTY Page 29 t)ecember 2004 Printing 4 - COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR SPOKANE COUNTY c. be incorporated into capital facilities programs to provide a unified approach for preserving the character and quality of neighborhoods; d. be evaluated to identity both interim and ultimate transportation strategies for each corridor; c. encourage capital infrastructure investment to facilitate high - capacity transportation and supporting land uses; and f. be supported through a public education process. The regional transportation plan and comprehensive plan of each jurisdiction shall include roads, air and rail service that accommodates the need for freight and goods movement. Plans should identify specific routes that are, or could be, subject to available funding, designed and constructed utilizing a regional standard for heavy truck traffic to serve the movement of goods from industrial and rural areas to the market. Future land uses requiring heavy freight movement should be encouraged to locate along these routes. 9. Recognizing the need to maintain existing rail lines for shipments of commodities, which reduces the impacts of shipping commodities by roads, local jurisdictions should protect rail facilities to the extent possible. 10. Each jurisdiction should coordinate its housing and transportation strategies to support existing, or develop new, public multi -modal transportation systems. 11. Each jurisdiction shall address land use designations and site design requirements that are supportive of and compatible with public transportation, for example: a. pedestrian scale neighborhoods and activity centers; b. mixed use development; and c. pedestrian friendly and nonmotorized design. Policy Topic 5 - Transportation Page 30 December 2004 Printing 3 Policy Topic 5 - Transportation COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR SPOKANE COUNTY 12. Each jurisdiction should support the use of telecommunications technologies for telecornmuting, teleshopping and video conferencing as alternatives to vehicle travel.. 13. Each jurisdiction's transportation facilities shall be planned within the context of countywide, multi- county and bi -state air, land and water resources and shall not cause or contribute to exceeding federal or state environmental quality standards. 14. Each jurisdiction shall strive, through transportation system strategies, to optimize the use of and maintain existing roads to minimize the construction costs and impacts associated with roadway facility expansion. 15. In accordance with.regional minimum level of service standards specified by the Steering Committee, each jurisdiction shall establish roadway standards, level of service standards and methodologies and functional road classification schemes to ensure consistency throughout the region and to support the use of alternative transportation nodes. 16. Each jurisdiction shall address energy consumption/conservation by: a. designing transportation improvements for alternatives to the single - occupant vehicle; b. locating and adopting design standards for new development to support pedestrian or nonrnotorized travel; c. providing regulatory and financial incentives to promote efforts of the public and private sector to conserve energy; and d. reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled and number of vehicle trips. 17. The transportation element of each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, where transit service exists, will include level of service standards for transit routes and services. Bach jurisdiction will coordinate the level of service standards with all adjacent jurisdictions and appropriate agencies. Page 31 December 2004 Printing COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES FOR SPOKANE COUNTY 18. Each jurisdiction shall use its adopted level of service standards to evaluate concurrence for long -range transportation planning, development review and programming of transportation investments. 19. The annual process to update and approve the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) shall be used to prioritize regional transportation improvements and programming regional transportation revenues. 20. Transportation elements of comprehensive plans shall reflect the preservation and maintenance of transportation facilities as a high priority to avoid costly replacement and to meet public safety objectives in a cost effective manner. 21. Each jurisdiction, Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) and other transportation agencies shall identify significant regional and/or countywide land acquisition needs for transportation and establish a process for prioritizing and siting the location of transportation corridors and facilities. Policy Topic 5 - Transportation Page 32 December 2004 Printing 1