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