Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact FeesCITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 20-026
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON ADOPTING CHAPTER 22.100 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS 17.90.010, 17.110.010, AND 22.10.010 AND AMENDING THE SPOKANE
VALLEY STREET STANDARDS TO ADOPT, IMPLEMENT AND COLLECT
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR;
ADOPTING THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY AND THE SOUTH BARKER
CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY; OTHER MATTERS
RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted a Comprehensive Plan establishing the
intent to utilize available funding sources to pay for capital improvements necessary as a result of new
growth within the City, including use of impact fees for new developments to pay a proportionate share of
the cost of new facilities needed to serve such growth; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of
service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that those transportation facilities necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available
for occupancy and use, or shortly thereafter, without decreasing current service levels below established
minimum standards for the City; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to adopt, impose, and collect transportation impact fees pursuant
to RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110 and WAC 365-196-850; and
WHEREAS, in February, 2020, the City completed a transportation impact study of the South
Barker Corridor (the "South Barker Corridor Study") identifying traffic demands within the South Barker
Corridor through 2040, necessary capital transportation improvements to meet the traffic demands, and the
fair -share proportionate level of financial contribution that new development should pay for those
improvements; and
WHEREAS, in September, 2020, the City completed a transportation impact fee rate study for the
South Barker Corridor (the "South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study") based upon the
South Barker Corridor Study identifying the transportation impact fee rates for the South Barker Corridor;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) previously adopted Titles 17 and 22 of the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code and the Spokane Valley Street Standards relating to development regulations, and
has made subsequent amendments from time -to -time as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2020, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b), providing a notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley
development regulations; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, the City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance ("DNS")
for CTA-2020-0005. The DNS was not appealed; and
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees Page 1 of 36
WHEREAS, on October 16 and 23, 2020, notice of the Planning Commission (Commission) public
hearing was published in the Valley News Herald. In addition to legally required notice, the City provided
notice of the public hearing in media releases, multiple postings on all City social media outlets, email to
email subscribers for numerous City email lists, and created a transportation -specific impact fee website;
and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, the Commission held a study session; and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2020, the Commission held a public hearing, received evidence,
information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation, followed by deliberations; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2020, the Commission approved the findings and recommended
that City Council adopt the amendments; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2020, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments, Planning
Commission findings, and Planning Commission recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020 City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the
proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, the amendment set forth below is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, chapter 22.100 SVMC, sections 17.90.010, 17.110.010, and 22.10.010 SVMC, and
the Spokane Valley Street Standards, as amended, bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,
welfare and protection of the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt, impose, and collect
transportation impact fees by adopting chapter 22.100 SVMC, amending sections 17.90.010, 17.110.010,
and 22.10.010 SVMC, amending chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards, and adopting the South
Barker Corridor Study and South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study.
Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Commission
conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and
recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning
Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)
provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development
regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan.
B. Noticing of Public Hearing — The City provided notice of the public hearing on the
proposed amendments as follows:
1. Publication in the Spokane Valley News Herald on October 16, 2020, and October
23, 2020.
2. Press release to 320 media -related email addresses, multiple postings on all City
social media outlets, email to email subscribers for numerous City email lists, and
creation of transportation -specific impact fee website.
C. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies (SVMC 17.80.150(F)(1)) - The City of Spokane
Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees Page 2 of 36
Planning Policies. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan set forth below.
ED-G3 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal
sustainability
ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and
stability.
ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's
economic development priorities.
LU-G1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley.
LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure
improvements support economic growth and vitality.
LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts
associated with transportation corridors.
LU-P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non -
motorized transportation routes.
T-G1 Ensure that the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure
are designed to improve quality of life or support economic development priorities.
T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and
support identified growth opportunities.
T-G3 Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero.
T-P2 Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential adverse
impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting, and
construction phases.
T-P6 Work collaboratively with developers to ensure that areas experiencing new
development are well served by motorized and non -motorized transportation options.
T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that
provide a safe environment for all users.
CF-G4 Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources.
CF-P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards.
CF-P15 Evaluate a variety of capital funding sources including, but not limited to, grants,
local improvement districts, latecomer agreements, and impact fees to fund projects and
programs.
D. Substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment
(SVMC 17.80.150(F)(2)) -
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees Page 3 of 36
The proposed amendments implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
and ensure a safe and efficient transportation system that supports and maintains the
character and quality of life of Spokane Valley.
The improvements identified in the South Barker Corridor Study and Rate Study will help
maintain adequate levels of service for traffic along the Barker Road corridor over the next
20 years. The transportation impact fees will provide a regular and reliable funding source
for a portion of these improvements, and will be provided by developments that are directly
contributing to the need for such improvements. Further, the fees will be limited to the
proportionate impact from new development, so as new development causes impacts, those
impacts will be able to be addressed through necessary improvements.
The proposed amendments introduce a consistent and reliable fee schedule for new
development that establishes set rates across various types of new development, lending
itself to more efficient planning and budgeting for new development projects. The proposed
impact fee of $1,272 "per trip" is based on the Rate Study, which was conducted within
standard engineering principles and provides a reasonable and appropriate fee amount.
E. Conclusions -
1. The requirements for noticing of the public hearing pursuant to SVMC
17.80.150(D).
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive
Plan and the approval criteria pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(1).
3. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(2).
F. Compliance with RCW 82.02.050-.110 and WAC 365-196-850 -
1. The proposed amendments and fees are based on a traffic rate study conducted in
accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-.110.
2. The proposed fees and amendments are for public street and road system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed
the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably
related to the new development, and will be used for system improvements that
will reasonably benefit the new development within the South Barker Corridor, as
identified in the South Barker Corridor Traffic Study and South Barker Corridor
Traffic Rate Study.
3. The Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of
service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level
of service. The City has conducted a comprehensive study and plan of traffic
growth and necessary system improvements to support such growth for the South
Barker Corridor. Chapters 5 and 10 of the Comprehensive Plan identify use of
impact fees as a funding source for necessary improvements.
Section 3. Adoption. Title 22 SVMC is hereby amended by adding a new chapter, to be
designated "Chapter 22.100 Transportation Impact Fees," as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
Section 4. Amendment. SVMC 17.90.010 is hereby amended as follows:
17.90.010 General.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees
Page 4 of 36
A. Appeals and Jurisdiction. All final decisions shall be appealed to the authority set forth in Table
17.90-1. Specific procedures followed by the planning commission, hearing examiner, and city council are
set forth in Appendix B.
Table 17.90-1— Decision/Appeal Authority
Land Use and Development Decisions
Appeal Authority
Type I and II decisions
Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further
appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW)
Building permits
Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further
appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW)
Type III decisions except zoning map
amendments
Superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW)
Type III zoning map amendments
City council (SVMC 17.90.070); further appeal to
superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW)
Type IV decisions
Superior court
Matters subject to review pursuant to RCW
36.70A.020
Growth Management Hearings Board
Shoreline substantial development permits,
shoreline conditional use permits, and shoreline
variances
Shorelines Hearings Board (RCW 90.58.180)
Compliance and enforcement decisions (Chapter
17.100 SVMC)
Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further
appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW)
Order of dwelling, building, structure, or premises
unfit for human habitation or other use (Chapter
17.105 SVMC)
Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.105.050) pursuant to
the appeal procedures set forth in Chapter 17.105
SVMC; further appeal to superior court (SVMC
17.105.120)
Impact fee appeals pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC shall be heard by the Hearing Examiner. Such appeals shall be subject to the procedures
herein for Type I permit appeals, except as otherwise provided for by chapter 22.100 SVMC. Pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC, impact fee appeals
shall be heard concurrently with appeals of the underlying permit as applicable. Impact fee appeals shall be subject to all requirements of chapter
22.100 SVMC, including any necessary pre -appeal requirements.
Section 5. Amendment. SVMC 17.110.010 SVMC is hereby amended as follows:
17.110.010 Master fee schedule.
All fees, including but not limited to fees for development permits, code interpretations, impact
fees, all other applications allowed pursuant to SVMC Titles 17 through 24, and allowed appeals, shall be
set forth in the City master fee schedule. A copy of this schedule shall be available from the city clerk.
Section 6. Amendment. SVMC 22.10.010 is hereby amended as follows:
22.10.010 Purpose.
The following design and development standards are established pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020,
35A.14.140, Chapter 36.70A RCW (the Growth Management Act), Chapter 58.17 RCW, RCW 82.02.50
through 82.02.110, and WAC 365-195-800 through 365-195-865, as well as provisions of SVMC Titles 17
through 25.
Section 7. Amendment. Chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards is hereby amended
as set forth in Exhibit `B," attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees
Page 5 of 36
Section 8. Study Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the South Barker Corridor
Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study and the South Barker Corridor Study in support of the amendments
and transportation impact fees authorized by such amendments. The South Barker Corridor Transportation
Impact Fee Rate Study is attached as Exhibit "C", the South Barker Corridor Study is attached as Appendix
B to the Rate Study in Exhibit "C", and both Studies are incorporated by reference herein and chapter
22.100 SVMC as provided therein.
Section 9. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of the SVMC and Street Standards
not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 10. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shall 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 11. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by
law.
PASSED by the City Council this 15th day of December, 2020.
(i
Ben Wick, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Office of ty City
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
12-I g-olio
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees
Page 6 of 36
Draft
EXHIBIT "A"
Chapter 22.100
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
Sections:
22.100.010 Findings and Authority.
22.100.020 Definitions.
22.100.030 Applicability.
22.100.040 Assessment of Transportation Impact Fees.
22.100.050 Deferral.
22.100.060 Exemptions.
22.100.070 Credits.
22.100.080 Independent Fee Calculations.
22.100.090 Adjustments.
22.100.100 Creation of Impact Fee Fund.
22.100.110 Appeals.
22.100.120 Refunds.
22.100.130 Interlocal Agreements.
22.100.140 Existing Authority Unimpaired.
22.100.150 Review.
SVMC 22.100.010 Findings and Authority.
A. The City Council hereby finds and determines that new growth and development, including but not
limited to new residential, commercial, retail, office, cultural, educational, and industrial development, in
the City will create additional demand and need for public transportation facilities, including but not limited
to, public streets, roadways, multimodal, and related improvements within the City, and the City Council
finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed
to serve the new growth and development.
B. The City has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new
developments on transportation facilities, has prepared certain Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies,
including the South Barker Corridor Study, dated February, 2020, and South Barker Corridor
Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, dated September, 2020. All such studies are hereby adopted and
incorporated into this title by reference. Based on the foregoing, the City has prepared a formula and method
of calculating transportation impact fees to serve new development that provides a balance between
transportation impact fees, public funds, and other sources of funds. The data and method of calculating
contained in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies are consistent with the data collected as part of the
development of the comprehensive plan, the traffic impact analyses completed for projects, and data and
models developed by Spokane Regional Transportation Council and other jurisdictions. The Transportation
Impact Fee Rate Studies utilize a methodology for calculating transportation impact fees that fulfills all of
the requirements of RCW 82.02.060(1). Copies of all studies shall be kept on file with the City Clerk and
shall be available to the public for review.
C. Pursuant to chapter 82.02 RCW, the City Council adopts this chapter to adopt and assess transportation
impact fees.
D. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the City
Council in establishing the transportation impact fee program.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 7 of 36
Draft
SVMC 22.100.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings unless the context
clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to Appendix A of
the SVMC or RCW 82.02.090.
A. "Applicant" means a person who applies for a development activity permit and who is the owner of the
subject property according to the records of the Spokane County, or the owner's authorized agent. For
purposes of transportation impact fee deferral requests pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050, applicant includes
an entity that controls the applicant, is controlled by the applicant, or is under common control with the
applicant.
B. "Building permit" means the official document or certification that is issued by the City and that
authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation,
erection, tenant improvement, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure, as required and issued
pursuant to Title 24 SVMC.
C. "Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, or any
change in use of a building or structure, or any changes in the use of land, that creates additional demand
and need for public facilities. It does not include buildings or structures constructed by a regional transit
authority or buildings or structures constructed as shelters that provide emergency housing for people
experiencing homelessness, or emergency shelters for victims of domestic violence.
D. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the City that authorizes the
commencement of development activity.
E. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity,
or department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land
development activity that creates the demand for additional public facilities, and which requires the issuance
of a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for a transportation impact fee credit.
F. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development
approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably
related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a
proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit
the new development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, or the cost
for reviewing independent fee calculations or other traffic studies prepared for safety, SEPA, or other
purposes defined in the Spokane Valley Street Standards or in the SVMC.
G. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account(s) established for each service area for the system
improvements for which impact fees are collected. The accounts shall be established pursuant to this
chapter, and shall comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070.
H. "Independent fee calculation" means the impact fee calculation and or economic documentation
prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of schedule set forth
in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, or the calculations prepared by the City where none of the fee
categories or fee amounts in the schedules in this chapter accurately describe or capture the impacts of the
new development on public facilities.
I. "Interest" means the interest rate earned by local jurisdictions in the State of Washington local
government investment pool, if not otherwise defined.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 8 of 36
Draft
J. "ITE manual" means the current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, as amended from time to time and most current version of the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook as referenced therein.
K. "Pass -by trip rates" means those pass -by rates set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies,
as amended from time to time.
L. "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide
service for a particular development and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or
users of the project, and are not system improvements. An improvement or facility included in the City's
capital facilities plan is not considered a project improvement.
M. "Public facilities" means publicly owned streets and roads, including related sidewalk, bike lanes,
adjacent multiuse trails, and streetscape improvements required by the City's comprehensive plan and
related development regulations, including adopted Street Standards, within the public rights -of -way.
N. "Rate study" or "Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study" means the set of Transportation Impact Fee
Rate Studies adopted by City Council that define the methodologies, service standards, projects, costs,
deficiencies, fair -shares, and rate tables.
O. "Rate table" refers to schedule(s) containing the transportation impact fee rate per PM peak hour trip or
unit of land use (e.g., single family dwelling unit, square footage of leasable retail space, etc.) as defined
by the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, and as may be amended from time to time. The rate table
shall be incorporated into the City's adopted Master Fee Schedule, and shall be maintained by the City
Clerk and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours and/or electronically on the
City's website.
P. "Service area" means a geographic area defined by the City in which a defined set of public facilities
provide service to development within the identified area. The City has identified the service areas, based
on sound planning and engineering principles, but these service areas may change based on the nature of
development and the public facilities needs identified to support development across the City. The service
areas are defined in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies. Maps depicting the service areas are set
forth in the Rate Studies and shall also be maintained by the City Clerk and shall be available for public
inspection during regular business hours and/or electronically on the City's website.
Q. "System improvements" means public facilities included in the capital facilities plan and which are
designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project
improvements.
SVMC 22.100.030 Applicability.
Except as may otherwise be provided herein, all development activity within the geographical services areas
established in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies shall be assessed the transportation impact fee
applicable to the type of development in the amounts set forth in the current rate table as adopted by the
City Council.
SVMC 22.100.040 Assessment of Transportation Impact Fees.
A. Transportation impact fees shall be assessed at the issuance of a building permit for each unit in a
development, using either the current rate set forth in the adopted transportation impact fee rate table or an
independent fee calculation as approved by the City. The transportation impact fee rate table is incorporated
into the City's Master Fee Schedule, and is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in
full.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 9 of 36
Draft
B. Transportation impact fees shall be paid at the issuance of a building permit, except as otherwise
provided pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050.
C. For commercial development involving multiple users, transportation impact fees shall be assessed and
collected prior to issuance of building permits that authorize completion of tenant improvements for each
use.
D. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit
application pursuant to SVMC 22.100.070 shall submit, along with the complete building permit
application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the City pursuant to 22.100.070 setting forth the
dollar amount of the credit awarded. Transportation impact fees, as determined after the application of
appropriate credits, shall be collected from the applicant prior to issuance of the building permit for each
unit in the development unless deferred per SVMC 22.100.050.
E. For mixed use buildings or development, transportation impact fees shall be imposed based on the total
PM peak hour trip generation from each individual use, as defined in the rate table. Where internal trip
capture is expected based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual or Handbook, manual calculations may be
submitted for review and approval pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080.
F. The City shall establish the transportation impact fee rate for a land use that is not listed in the rate table
based on (1) the most similar land use category identified in the rate table, or (2) the base rate and the most
similar land use category identified in ITE Trip Generation Manual, as documented by a trip generation and
distribution letter in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards, all pursuant to
SVMC 22.100.080. The applicant shall submit all information requested by the City for purposes of
determining the impact fee rate pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080.
G. The City shall place a hold on permits for development approval and no permits shall be issued unless
and until the transportation impact fees required by this chapter, less any pennitted exemptions, credits or
deductions, have been paid or lien recorded.
H. An applicant may request that the transportation impact fee be calculated in advance of building permit
issuance, but any such advance calculation shall not be binding on the City and should only be used as
guidance by the applicant, except as otherwise provided pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050. There is no vested
right to pay a particular transportation impact fee in advance of building permit issuance. If the City Council
revises the transportation impact fee formula or the transportation impact fees themselves prior to the time
that a building permit is issued for a particular development, the formula or fee amount in effect at the time
of building permit issuance shall apply to the development.
SVMC 22.100.050 Deferral.
A. An applicant for single-family detached and attached residential construction may request deferral of
collection of transportation impact fees until certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of the
original building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. The following requirements shall apply to any
application for deferral of transportation impact fees:
1. The request for deferral must be made in writing prior to the building permit issuance, and
consistent with the requirements of this section, to defer payment of the transportation impact fee until
certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification.
2. To receive a deferral, an applicant must:
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 10 of 36
Draft
a. Submit a deferred impact fee application and acknowledgement form for each single-
family attached or detached residence for which the applicant wishes to defer payment of the
transportation impact fees;
b. Pay the applicable deferral application fee;
c. Grant and record at the applicant's expense a deferred transportation impact fee lien in
a form approved by the City against the property in favor of the City in the amount of the deferred
impact fee that:
i. Includes the legal description, tax account number, and address of the property;
ii. Requires payment of the impact fees to the City prior to Certificate of
Occupancy or equivalent certification, or 18 months from the date of the original building
permit issuance, whichever occurs first;
iii. Is signed by all owners of the property, with all signatures acknowledged as
required for a deed, and is recorded in Spokane County;
iv. Binds all successors in title after the recordation; and
v. Is junior and subordinate to one mortgage for the purpose of construction upon
the same real property granted by the person who applied for the deferral of transportation
impact fees.
B. The amount of transportation impact fees deferred shall be determined by the fees in effect at the time
the applicant applies for a deferral.
C. Prior to any required dates for payment, the applicant may pay the deferred amount in installments, with
no penalty for early payment. The City may set a minimum installment amount.
D. If closing of the first sale of the property for which transportation impact fees were deferred occurs
within 18 months of the building permit issuance, payment of all deferred impact fees is required to take
place prior to or upon closing, and the seller shall be strictly liable for payment of all deferred impact fees
to the City at that time. The City bears no responsibility for determining whether the seller and the buyer
have contractually agreed for the buyer to pay the deferred fees, and the City reserves the right to institute
legal proceedings against the seller, if necessary, to collect any deferred impact fees that remain unpaid
after closing. In addition, the City may withhold issuance of a certificate of occupancy, final inspection
approval, or equivalent certification required for occupancy of the residence until all impact fees have been
paid in full.
E. If closing of the first sale of the property for which transportation impact fees were deferred does not
occur within 18 months of the building permit issuance, then all deferred impact fees shall become
immediately due and owing to the City, and the applicant shall be strictly liable for payment of all deferred
impact fees to the City at that time. If the applicant fails, upon request by the City, to immediately pay all
deferred impact fees pursuant to this chapter, then the City may foreclose on the lien in the manner provided
for in chapter 61.12 RCW. In addition, the City may withhold issuance of a certificate of occupancy, final
inspection approval, or equivalent certification required for occupancy of the residence until all impact fees
have been paid in full.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 11 of 36
Draft
F. Upon receipt of final payment of impact fees deferred under this section, the City shall execute a release
of deferred impact fee lien for each single-family attached or detached residence for which the
transportation impact fees have been received. The applicant, or property owner at the time of release, shall
be responsible for recording the lien release at his or her expense.
G. The extinguishment of a deferred impact fee lien by the foreclosure of a lien having priority does not
affect the obligation to pay the transportation impact fees as a condition of certificate of occupancy or
equivalent certification, or at the time of closing of the first sale.
H. Each applicant for a single-family attached or detached residential construction permit, in accordance
with his or her contractor registration number or other unique identification number, is entitled to annually
receive deferrals under this section for the first 20 single-family residential construction building permits
on an annual basis.
SVMC 22.100.060 Exemptions.
For the purposes of this chapter only, the following are exempt from the payment of transportation impact
fees:
A. Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of the same size and use or a residential
structure with the same number of residential dwelling units, both at the same site or lot, where demolition
of the prior commercial or residential structure occurred within the prior two years. Replacement of a
commercial structure with a new commercial structure of the same size shall be interpreted to include any
structure for which the gross square footage of the building will not be increased by more than 100 square
feet and the primary use of the commercial space is the same. It shall be the feepayer's responsibility and
burden to establish the existence of a qualifying prior use.
B. Expansions of existing residential structures that do not add residential dwelling units.
C. Alteration of an existing nonresidential structure that does not expand the usable space, add any
residential units, or result in a change in use.
D. Miscellaneous improvements that do not create additional demand and need for public facilities,
including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs.
E. Demolition or moving of a structure.
F. Re -use or change in use of an existing structure that does not create additional demand and need for
public facilities. It shall be the feepayer's responsibility and burden to establish that no additional demand
is created by the re -use or change in use. For a change in use of an existing structure that does create
additional demand and need for public facilities, the City shall collect transportation impact fees for the
new use based on the schedules in rate table, less the fees that would have been payable as a result of the
prior use.
SVMC 22.100.070 Credits.
A. An applicant may request a credit for the total value of dedicated land for, improvement to, or new
construction of any system improvements provided by the applicant. Credits will only be given if the land,
improvements, and/or facility constructed are for one or more of the transportation projects listed in the
Rate Study as the basis for calculating the transportation impact fee.
B. Credits shall be based on appraised value made by an appraiser approved of by the City. The appraiser
must be a Washington State certified appraiser or must possess other equivalent certification and shall not
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 12 of 36
Draft
have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. A description of the appraiser's
certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser shall certify that he/she does not have a
fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. The applicant shall be responsible for payment
of the cost of the appraisal and all associated or related costs.
C. After receiving the appraisal, and where consistent with the requirements of this section, the City shall
provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for
the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and the legal description or other
adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must
sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating the applicant's agreement to the terms
of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the City before the impact fee credit will be
awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall
nullify the credit. The credit must be used within 72 months of the award of the credit.
D. Any claim for credit must be made prior to issuance of a building permit, provided any claim for credit
submitted later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a building permit shall
constitute a waiver and suspension of timelines established by state and/or local law for processing of permit
applications.
E. In no event shall the credit exceed the amount of the impact fees that would have been due for the
proposed development activity.
F. No credit shall be given for project improvements or right-of-way dedications for direct access
improvements to and/or within the subject development above and beyond what is proposed in the capital
facilities plan.
SVMC 22.100.080 Independent Fee Calculations.
A. If in the judgment of the City Manager, none of the land uses, fee categories or fee amounts set forth in
the rate tables accurately describe or capture the impacts of a new development on transportation facilities,
the City may prepare independent fee calculations and the City Manager may impose alternative fees on a
specific development based on those calculations. The default method for calculating such independent fee
calculations shall be based on the base rate and the most similar land use category identified in ITE Trip
Generation Manual, as documented by a trip generation and distribution letter in accordance with Section
3.2 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards; provided however, other methods may be used as determined
to be necessary to accurately capture the impact from development. The alternative fees and the
calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the applicant.
B. Alternatively, if an applicant believes that the applicant's proposed development activity does not fall
under one of the fee categories set forth in the rate table, the applicant may, at the applicant's option, prepare
and submit to the City an independent fee calculation for the development activity for which a development
permit is being sought. The documentation submitted shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer
and shall identify a development activity or land use code in the ITE manual that most closely resembles
the applicant's proposed development activity and calculate the applicant's fees based on the number of
trips assigned to that development activity by the ITE manual. The applicant may also choose to prepare
an independent trip generation rate/impact fee study to document why no ITE land use category is
appropriate as it relates to this chapter. In calculating such fees, the applicant may choose to incorporate
applicable pass -by trip rates or mixed -use internalization factors that are supported by evidence and/or
transportation engineering best practices. For any independent fee calculation prepared by the applicant,
documentation in the form of a report or memo is required to be submitted to the City that explains the
methodology, data sources, and calculations. Independent fee calculations shall use the same impact fee
rate per PM peak hour trip generated as documented in the rate table. The independent rate study shall be
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 13 of 36
Draft
limited to documenting the project's net PM peak hour trip generation rate and subsequent impact fee and
therefore shall not include travel demand forecasts, trip distribution, project cost, or fare -share cost
allocation results.
C. Any applicant electing an independent fee calculation pursuant to subsection (B) of this section shall
pay the City a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. No such fee shall apply to
calculations performed under subsection (A) of this section. The applicant shall remit all remaining actual
costs of the City's review of the independent fee calculation prior to and as a precondition of the City's
issuance of the building permit.
D. There is a rebuttable presumption that the calculations set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate
Studies and the adopted fees in the rate tables are valid. The City Manager shall consider the documentation
submitted by an applicant pursuant to subsection (B) of this section, but is not required to accept such
documentation or analysis which the City Manager reasonably deems to be inapplicable, inaccurate, or not
reliable. The City Manager may modify or deny the request, or, in the alternative, require the applicant to
submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The City Manager is authorized to adjust
the impact fees on a case -by -case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics
of the development, and/or principles of fairness. The City's decision shall be set forth in writing and shall
be mailed to the applicant.
SVMC 22.100.090 Adjustments.
Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the Transportation Impact Fee Rate
Study has included and accounted for adjustments for future taxes to be paid by the new development which
are earmarked or pro -ratable to the same new public facilities which will serve the new development. The
Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study has included committed and probable external funding in calculating
the impact fees.
SVMC 22.100.100 Creation of Impact Fee Fund.
A. There is created a special revenue fund in the treasury of the City termed the "Transportation Impact
Fee Fund" into which all transportation impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be placed and
used solely for the purposes identified herein and in conformance with applicable state law. Interest earned
on the fees shall be retained in the fund and expended for the purposes for which the transportation impact
fees were collected.
B. On an annual basis, the City shall provide a report on the transportation impact fee fund showing the
source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and system improvements that were
financed in whole or in part by the transportation impact fees.
C. Transportation impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within ten years of
receipt, unless there exists an extraordinary and compelling reason for fees to be held longer than ten years.
The City Council shall adopt findings identifying the extraordinary and compelling reasons in the event any
impact fees are held for longer than ten years and the additional time period fees shall be held.
SVMC 22.100.110 Appeals.
A. Applicants or feepayers may appeal an impact fee pursuant to the provisions of this section.
B. Any applicant or feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to
obtain a building permit or certificate of occupancy. Any appeal filed prior to the payment of impact fees
shall constitute a waiver and suspension of timelines established by state and/or local law for the processing
of permit applications.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 14 of 36
Draft
C. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be filed by the
applicant or feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur.
D. The applicant or feepayer must file a request for review regarding impact fees with the City Manager
and receive such determination, as provided herein, prior to filing an appeal of the impact fees.
1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the City and shall outline the legal and
factual bases for why the impact fee at issue should not be required or should be modified. The applicant
or feepayer requesting review shall bear the burden of demonstrating the fee is inappropriate or should be
modified.
2. The request for review shall be filed no later than fourteen calendar days after the feepayer pays
the impact fees at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek
such review.
3. No administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review; and
4. The City Manager shall issue a determination in writing and may uphold the impact fee, modify
the impact fee, or determine the impact fee is inappropriate and dismiss the impact fee. Any amount of an
impact fee paid in protest that is determined to be inappropriate shall be refunded.
E. Determinations of the City Manager with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given
development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the City Manager's decision concerning the
independent fee calculation, or any other determination which the City Manager is authorized to make
pursuant to this chapter, may be appealed to the hearing examiner subject to chapter 17.90 SVMC.
F. Appeals of impact fees shall be heard concurrently with any underlying appeal of the permit as
applicable.
SVMC 22.100.120 Refunds.
A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within ten years of receipt or such other time set
by City Council as allowed by law, the current owner of the property for which impact fees have been paid
may receive a refund of such fees, provided a refund is not required where extraordinary or compelling
reasons exist for holding the fees longer than ten years, as identified in written findings by the City Council.
In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered
expended or encumbered on a first in, first out basis.
B. The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States postal
service at the last known address of the claimants. A potential claimant or claimants must be the owner of
record of the real property against which the impact fee was assessed.
C. Property owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees
to the City Manager within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is
given, whichever is later.
D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within the one-year period shall
be retained by the City and expended on the appropriate public facilities.
E. Refunds of impact fees under this chapter shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the
City.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 15 of 36
Draft
F. A feepayer may request and shall receive a refund, including interest earned on the impact fees, when
the feepayer and/or the feepayer's successors and assigns do not proceed with the development activity and
there has been no impact to the City's transportation system. A request for a refund pursuant to this section
must be accompanied by an acknowledgement that the feepayer's underlying development approval,
including any associated permits, has expired and that any application to reinstate the development approval
shall be subject to the payment of impact fees pursuant to this chapter.
SVMC 22.100.130 Interlocal Agreements.
Consistent with other terms of this chapter and state law, interlocal agreements by and between the City
and other government agencies are permissible.
SVMC 22.100.140 Existing Authority Unimpaired.
Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the City from requiring the applicant for development approval to
mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental
Policy Act, chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying
development approval process, and/or chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that
the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW.
SVMC 22.100.150 Review.
The impact fee rate table set forth in this chapter shall be reviewed by the City Council from time to time,
as it deems necessary and appropriate in conjunction with review of the City's transportation improvement
plan and as necessary to address changes to travel demands, growth forecasts, or the project list.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit A Page 16 of 36
Draft
EXHIBIT "B"
CHAPTER 3 -TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
3.1 Introduction 20
3.2 Trip Generation & Distribution Letter Guidelines 21
3.2.1 Applicability 21
3.2.2 Minimum Elements 22
3.3 Limited Traffic Impact Analysis 23
3.3.1 Applicability 23
3.3.2 Scope 23
3.3.3 Methodology 24
3.3.4 Limited TIA Report Minimum Elements 25
3.3.4.1 Title Page 25
3.3.4.2 Project Description and Summary 25
3.3.4.3 Proposed Development and Trip Generation 25
3.3.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions 26
3.3.4.5 Background Projects 26
3.3.4.6 Other Analyses 27
3.3.4.7 Findings 27
3.3.4.8 Appendices 27
3.4 Traffic Impact Analysis 28
3.4.1 Applicability 28
3.4.2 Scope 28
3.4.3 Methodology 29
3.4.4 TIA Report Minimum Elements 30
3.4.4.1 Title Page 30
3.4.4.2 Introduction and Summary 31
3.4.4.3 Proposed Development 31
3.4.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions 31
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 17 of 36
Draft
3.4.4.5 Background Projects 32
3.4.4.6 Analysis Scenarios 32
3.4.4.7 Other Analyses 33
3.4.4.8 Findings 33
3.4.4.9 Appendices 33
3.5 Meetings 34
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 18 of 36
Draft
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 19 of 36
Draft
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the contents of the trip generation letter and traffic impact analysis
(TIA) submittals. All projects except those exempt pursuant to SVMC 22.20.020 shall be
subject to transportation concurrency review. This review is conducted to ensure that
adequate transportation facilities are provided in conjunction with new growth.
Transportation concurrency shall be measured using the concept of level of service (LOS).
Acceptable LOS thresholds are defined in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan.
This flowchart may be used to determine what type of transportation concurrency
document is required. The City shall not sign off on a project until transportation
concurrency has been determined.
Required for all projects outside of an
impact fee area that generate more than 10
peak hour trips or projects inside of an
impact fee area that do not match a land use
in the TIF table.
Limited TIA
Trip Generation & Distribution Letter
Required for all projects that generate more
than 10 peak hour trips (see section 3.2)
•
•
•
Required for qualified projects within a
SEPA Infitl Area that generate more than 20
peak hour trips at an arterial intersection
send • n 3.3
May be required for projects within a SEPA
Infill Area or impact fee area that generate
more than 20 peak hour trips at an
intersection of federally classified streets.
TIA
•
•
•
Required for all qualified projects that do not
qualify for a Limited TIA and that generate more
than 20 peak hour trips at an arterial intersection
(see section 3.4)
Required for all projects that generate more
than 20 peak hour trips at an intersection of
federally classified streets or add volume to
an area with a current traffic problem and
do not qualify for a Limited TIA
The table below summarizes the mandatory scope elements for each type of analysis
required by Spokane Valley:
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B
Page 20 of 36
Draft
Table 1— Summary of Traffic Analysis Scope Elements
Scope Elements Trip Limited TIA TIA
Generation
Letter
Engineering Seal X X X
Title Page X X
Project Description and Summary X X X
Proposed Development and Trip Generation X X X
Summary of Existing Conditions X X
Background projects and growth rate X X
Study Area
Intersections of Collectors or higher within 'z mile X
Intersections of Collectors or higher within 1 mile X
LOS Analyses X
Safety Analyses X X
Other Analyses (Operations, Sight Distance, Turn Lane X X
Warrants, etc.)
Analysis Scenarios (Peak Hours defined in scope)
Existing Conditions
Build -out year without project
Build -out year with project
Build -out + 5 years without project
Build -out + 5 years with project
Regional modeling — regional impacting development
Findings
Appendices
Public Meetings
3.2 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION LETTER GUIDELINES
All projects outside of an impact fee area which generate 10 or more new peak -hour
vehicular trips shall submit a trip generation and distribution letter. Projects within an
impact fee area with land uses that are not included in the impact fee rate schedule shall
submit a trip generation and distribution letter. The letter shall be based on the current
version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and
developed by an Engineer.
If a project is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, the trip generation
and distribution letter shall be submitted for review at the time of the SEPA application.
The letter is required to be approved by the City prior to submittal of a traffic impact
analysis report.
3.2.1 APPLICABILITY
a. A trip generation and distribution letter is required for most projects. However,
the following projects are typically under the peak -hour threshold and may not
be required to prepare a trip generation and distribution letter:
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 21 of 36
Draft
i. Residential short plats of 8 or fewer lots or dwelling units (the number
of trips from a duplex shall be equivalent to two single family homes);
ii. Drive -through coffee stands with no indoor seating;
iii. Multi -family projects with 13 units or less (for calculation purposes,
multi -family housing projects are defined as four or more attached units
in the ITE Trip Generation Manual);
iv. Changes of use from residential to commercial with no new buildings
or building additions;
v. Office projects of less than 2,500 additional square feet (ITE land uses
700-799); and,
vi. Industrial projects of less than 9,000 additional square feet (ITE land
uses 100-199).
b. For projects expected to generate less than 10 peak -hour vehicular trips the
project applicant is required to submit a letter with the following information
for all proposed development phases for the property:
i. Brief project description;
ii. Number of expected employees;
iii. Hours of business; and,
iv. The expected number of vehicular trips (customers and employees) to
the business during the AM and PM peak hours.
3.2.2 MINIMUM ELEMENTS
The trip generation and distribution letter for projects generating 10 or more peak -
hour trips shall include the following elements:
a. Project application and/or permit number
b. Project description, including proposed use;
c. Site plan with vicinity map;
d. Building size noted in square feet;
e. Zoning of the property;
f. Determination of whether the project is in a SEPA Infill Area (see following
section);
g. Determination of whether the project is in an impact fee area;
h. Proposed and existing access points, site circulation, queuing lengths for
driveways (and drive-throughs, if applicable) and parking locations;
i. Project phasing and expected build out year;
j. An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak -hour, and
PM peak -hour conditions. Supporting calculations and data sources shall
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 22 of 36
Draft
be shown. Any adjustments for transit use, mixed use internalization, pass -
by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated;
k. A comparison of the trip generation between the previous and the proposed
site use for projects involving a change of use. If the comparison shows a
net increase in trip generation, the project shall be subject to the TIA
requirements of a new development;
1. A preliminary distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network,
shown in a graphical format; and,
m. The engineering seal signed and dated by the engineer who prepared the
letter.
3.3 LIMITED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Pursuant to SVMC 21.20.040, portions of Spokane Valley had additional environmental
review performed as part of the Comprehensive Plan EIS. Because of the additional
environmental review within the SEPA Infi11 Areas, the majority of development projects
within these areas do not require a full TIA report if the Applicant adopts the subarea
environmental analysis and mitigation requirements identified in the SEPA documents.
However, to assess potential traffic safety or site access issues, a limited TIA is required
as set forth below.
3.3.1 APPLICABILITY
A limited TIA may be required for the following situations:
a. Projects adding 20 or more peak -hour trips through an intersection of
federally classified streets as identified in the current Arterial Street Plan,
and which are located within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area;
b. Projects within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area that contribute
volumes to local access intersections, alleys, or driveways located within an
area with a current traffic problem as identified by the City or previous
traffic study, such as a high -accident location, poor roadway alignment, or
area with a capacity deficiency; or
c. At the discretion of the City in lieu of a full TIA.
A full TIA (see Section 3.4) is required for land uses that exceed the total trip bank
established in SVMC 21.20.040. Applicants are encouraged to consult with City
staff if they are unsure if they apply for both SEPA relief and a limited TIA.
3.3.2 SCOPE
The scope of the limited TIA shall be developed by an engineer. A draft scope shall
be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submission of the limited TIA. The
scope of the limited TIA shall conform to the following:
a. The study area may include any intersections or streets within a 1/2 mile
radius of the site.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 23 of 36
Draft
b. A safety analysis may be required, as identified by City staff in the scope
review phase. If the analysis is required, the City shall assist by providing
crash data if available. Safety analysis at a minimum requires three years of
crash history showing the date and time, type, number of vehicles involved
in the crash, including weather and road conditions. Crash analysis shall
include bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Crash information shall be assessed
by the developer's engineer to identify possible impacts the proposed new
trips would add to the problem. Examples may include queuing that exceeds
storage pocket lengths or that extends to upstream intersections, recurring
left turn crashes, limited sight distance, or proposed project access
intersections that may be poorly placed.
c. If a safety and operational analysis reveals deficiencies, then mitigation
measures shall be developed with recommendations to fix the deficiencies.
d. Unless otherwise identified by the City, the analysis shall be performed for
the build -out year of the proposed development.
3.3.3 METHODOLOGY
The analysis shall be done using the following methodology:
a. Background growth rate — The background growth rate may be based on
historical growth data or the growth rate as calculated from Figures 30 and
32 of the Comprehensive Plan (the 2016 and 2040 average daily traffic
volumes). A minimal annual growth rate of 1% is required unless otherwise
approved by the City;
b. The LOS shall be determined in accordance with the methods reported in
the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM);
c. Use of the two -stage gap acceptance methodology for unsignalized
intersections is subject to City approval;
d. "Synchro" is the primary traffic software used by the City to model
intersection and turn pocket queuing analysis. Depending on the analysis,
the City may request other traffic analysis using other modeling software.
In addition to Synchro, the engineer may use the most current version of
Highway Capacity Software (HCS). Other analysis tools may be utilized
with City approval if HCM methodology cannot accurately model an
intersection;
e. Trip generation data shall be based on the latest version of the ITE Trip
Generation Manual. Trip generation data from studies of similar facilities
may be substituted with prior City approval; and,
f. Turning movement counts and crash diagrams may need to be developed to
document a safety or operations problem. If traffic counts are required, they
shall be taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday representing a typical
travel day. Counts shall not be taken during a week which contains a
holiday or during a week of a significant weather event. Projects near
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 24 of 36
Draft
schools may be required to collect turning movement counts during a typical
school day.
3.3.4 LIMITED TIA REPORT MINIMUM ELEMENTS
The limited TIA report shall include at least the following:
3.3.4.1 Title Page
The limited TIA shall include a title page with the following elements:
a. Name of project;
b. City project number/permit number;
c. Applicant's name and address;
d. Engineer's name, address and phone number;
e. Date of study preparation; and,
f. The engineering seal, signed and dated by the professional engineer
licensed in the State of Washington who prepared the report.
3.3.4.2 Project Description and Summary
The limited TIA shall include a brief description of project, location, study
intersections, findings, and mitigation.
3.3.4.3 Proposed Development and Trip Generation
The limited TIA shall include the following information for the proposed
development:
a. Project description, including proposed use;
b. Site plan with vicinity map;
c. Building size noted in square feet;
d. Zoning of the property;
e. Determination of whether the project is within a SEPA Infill Area
(see following section);
f. Proposed and existing access points, site circulation, queuing
lengths for driveways (and drive-throughs, if applicable) and
parking locations;
g. Project phasing and expected opening year;
h. An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak -
hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Supporting calculations and
data sources shall be shown. Any adjustments for transit use, mixed
use internalization, pass -by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be
clearly stated;
i. A comparison of the trip generation between the previous and the
proposed site use for projects involving a change of use. If the
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 25 of 36
Draft
comparison shows a net increase in trip generation, the project shall
be subject to the limited TIA requirements of a new development;
j. A preliminary distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street
network, shown in a graphical format; and,
k. Project phasing and timing.
3.3.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions
The limited TIA shall provide a brief summary of existing conditions for
the study area that includes at least the following:
a. Brief summary of the transportation network adjacent to the site
including a qualitative description of the facilities, speed limits,
presence of bike lanes/trails, bus stops, and on -street parking;
b. Figure or table of the peak hour turning movement volumes at the
study intersections;
c. Collision history — three years minimum;
d. Length of existing turn pockets at study intersections; and,
e. Other information as identified during the scoping process.
3.3.4.5 Background Projects
If background project traffic is necessary to assess build -out conditions, it
shall include the following:
a. Traffic from newly constructed projects;
b. Projects for which traffic impacts have been tentatively reserved;
c. Projects for which a Concurrency Certificate has been awarded;
d. Non -project, general background traffic increases; and,
e. Vested traffic for vacant buildings that are undergoing
redevelopment.
The limited TIA shall provide the following information for background
projects, as identified by the City:
a. Project descriptions;
b. Vicinity map;
c. Trips generated by projects and assigned to study intersections,
d. Figure or table of the build -out peak hour turning movement
volumes at the study intersections;
e. Planned transportation improvements (private development and
City); and,
f. Where required, safety and operations analysis results.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 26 of 36
Draft
3.3.4.6 Other Analyses
Other analyses may be required as requested by the City, including but not
limited to:
a. Queue lengths at driveways and drive -through windows;
b. Noise;
c. Air quality (typically required when physical improvements are
proposed and requires electronic submittal of Synchro files);
d. Intersection control warrant analysis (signal, roundabouts, four-way
stop, yield);
e. Auxiliary lane warrant analysis;
f. Parking study (including vehicles and/or bicycles);
g. Site access; and,
h. Pedestrian access study.
3.3.4.7 Findings
The following shall be addressed in the findings section:
a. Traffic and safety impacts;
b. Proposed project modifications; and,
c. Off -site mitigation or mitigation beyond that included with Impact
Fees.
3.3.4.8 Appendices
The following information shall be included in appendices:
a. Definitions;
b. Trip generation sources;
c. Passer-by and origin -destination studies (if applicable);
d. Volume and turning movement count sheets;
e. Analysis software (Synchro, HCS, SimTraffic, etc.) report printouts
(electronic submittal may be required);
£ Warrant analysis calculations; and,
g. References.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 27 of 36
Draft
3.4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
For developments that are not within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area, this section
outlines the requirements for a TIA. The intent of the TIA is to allow the City to properly
plan and improve the transportation system to meet the mobility needs of future growth
and to comply with SEPA requirements.
3.4.1 APPLICABILITY
A TIA is required for the following situations:
a. Projects adding 20 or more peak -hour trips to an intersection of federally
classified streets as identified in the current Arterial Street Plan, within a
one -mile radius of the project site as shown by the trip generation and
distribution letter; or,
b. Projects contributing volumes to local access intersections, alleys, or
driveways located within an area with a current traffic problem as identified
by the City or previous traffic study, such as a high -accident location, poor
roadway alignment or capacity deficiency.
3.4.2 SCOPE
The scope of the TIA shall be developed by an engineer. Prior to submittal of the
TIA, the City and other impacted jurisdictions/agencies shall approve the scope of
the TIA. The scope of the TIA shall conform to the following:
a. The study area shall include any intersections of federally classified streets
within a one -mile radius of the site that would experience an increase of at
least 20 vehicle trips during a peak hour. Some intersections may be
excluded if analyzed within the past year and are shown to operate at LOS
C or better. All site access points shall be analyzed. Additional federally
classified intersections outside of the one mile radius and intersections of
local streets may also be required at the discretion of the City;
b. If any of the study intersections are on a Major Arterial Corridor, a corridor
LOS analysis shall be conducted for all relevant corridors. For example, if
a project increases traffic by 20 vehicles at the intersection of Pines
Road/Mission Avenue, then a corridor LOS analysis shall be required for
Pines Road. If a corridor has been analyzed within the last two years and is
shown to operate at LOS C or better, the City may exempt the corridor LOS
analysis, although traffic counts on the corridor may still be required in
order to maintain an up-to-date database of counts along the Major Arterial
Corridors. Below is a list of the Major Arterial Corridors from the
Comprehensive Plan:
• Argonne/Mullan Road between Trent Avenue and Appleway Blvd
• Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue
• Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue
• Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 28 of 36
Draft
• Sprague Avenue/Appleway Blvd between Fancher Road and Park
Road
c. A PM peak hour LOS analysis shall be conducted for all study area
intersections (and corridors if applicable). An LOS analysis of the AM peak
hour, Saturday afternoon, or other time period may be required at the
discretion of the City;
d. As identified by City staff in the scope review phase, a safety analysis may
be required, which may include intersection queuing, turn lane warrants and
LOS, sight distance, and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts to identify potential
safety issues; and,
Additional analysis may be required by other reviewing agencies.
e.
The Intersection and corridor (if applicable) LOS shall meet or exceed the
thresholds pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan — Chapter 4: Capital
Facilities, Table 4.3 Spokane Valley Level of Service Standards.
In the event that the LOS standard is not met, the project applicant shall work with
the City to identify appropriate mitigation measures, which could include
modification of intersection designs, constructing/funding improvements to City -
owned intersections, or changing the scale of the development.
A safety analysis may be required, as identified by City staff in the scope review
phase. If the analysis is required, the City shall assist by providing crash data if
available. Safety analysis at a minimum requires three years of crash history
showing the date and time, type, number of vehicles involved in the crash, weather
and road conditions. Crash analysis shall include bicycle and pedestrian crashes.
Crash information shall be assessed by the developer's engineer to identify possible
impacts proposed new trips would add to the problem. Examples may include
queuing that exceeds storage pocket lengths or that extends to upstream
intersections, recurring left turn crashes, limited sight distance, or proposed project
access intersections that may be poorly placed. Safety issues shall be mitigated to
the satisfaction of City staff
3.4.3 METHODOLOGY
The analysis shall be done using the following methodology:
a. Background growth rate — The background growth rate may be based on
historical growth data or the growth rate as calculated from Figures 30 and
33 of the Comprehensive Plan (the 2016 and 2040 average daily traffic
volumes). A minimal annual growth rate of 1% is required unless otherwise
approved by the City;
b. The LOS shall be determined in accordance with the methods reported in
the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) or as further
defined by City staff;
c. Corridor LOS shall be determined by calculating the volume -weighted
average intersection LOS of all signalized arterial/arterial intersections
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B
Page 29 of 36
Draft
along the defined length of the Major Arterial Corridor) With all
intersection LOS calculated along the corridor, the control delays of all
intersections shall be averaged to calculate total corridor LOS. The same
control delay thresholds defined for individual intersections shall be used to
assign corridor LOS (e.g., corridor average control delay of 38 seconds
would correspond to LOS D). Based on City input, WSDOT ramp terminal
intersections may or may not be included as part of the corridor LOS
calculation, and may be evaluated separately as individual intersections.
d. Use of the two -stage gap acceptance methodology for unsignalized
intersections requires prior City approval;
e. "Synchro" is the primary traffic software used by the City to model
intersection and turn pocket queuing analysis. Depending on the analysis,
the City may request other traffic analysis using other modeling software.
In addition to Synchro, the Engineer may use the most current version of
HCS. Other analysis tools may be utilized with prior City approval if HCM
methodology cannot accurately model an intersection;
£ Trip generation data shall be based on the current version of the ITE Trip
Generation Manual. Trip generation data from studies of similar facilities
may be substituted as approved by the City; and,
Turning movement counts shall be recorded less than one year prior to
submitting a traffic study. Counts less than two years old may be used if no
significant development projects or changes to the transportation network
have occurred. Counts shall be taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or
Thursday representing a typical travel day. Counts shall not be taken during
a week which contains a holiday or during a week of a significant weather
event. Projects near schools may be required to collect turning movement
counts during a typical school day. Given the potentially large-scale of
corridor LOS evaluation, counts older than one year may be used for
intersections along a corridor that are more than one mile away, so long as
they are factored using the growth rate identified above. However, the City
may request, at its discretion, that the project collect new traffic counts at
any intersection along a relevant Major Arterial Corridor in an effort to
maintain a relatively current database for TIA review.
g.
3.4.4 TIA REPORT MINIMUM ELEMENTS
The TIA report shall include at least the following:
3.4.4.1 Title Page
The TIA shall include a title page with the following elements:
a. Name of project;
' To clarify, unsignalized project driveway intersections within the Major Arterial Corridor are not part of the corridor
LOS calculation since they are not arterial streets.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 30 of 36
Draft
b. City project number/permit number;
c. Applicant's name and address;
d. Engineer's name, address and phone number;
e. Date of study preparation; and,
f. The engineering seal, signed and dated by the engineer who
prepared the report.
3.4.4.2 Introduction and Summary
a. Purpose of report and study objectives;
b. Executive summary;
c. Proposed development description;
d. Location and study area;
e. Findings; and,
f. Recommendations and mitigation.
3.4.4.3 Proposed Development
The TIA shall include the following information for the proposed
development (this is the same information that is required for the trip letter):
a. Project description;
b. Location and vicinity map;
c. Site plan with building size (square feet);
d. Proposed zoning;
e. Land use;
f. Access points, site circulation, queuing lengths, and parking
locations;
An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak -
hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Any adjustments for transit
use, pass -by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated;
h. A distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network,
shown in a graphical format; and,
i. Project phasing and timing.
3.4.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions
The TIA shall provide a summary of existing conditions for the study area
that includes the following:
a. Transportation network description, including functional
classification, bike/pedestrian facilities and transit routes;
b. Existing zoning;
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 31 of 36
g•
Draft
c. Existing traffic volumes including percent heavy vehicles;
d. Collision history —three years minimum;
e. Posted speed limits (and if known the 85 percentile speed
determined from a speed study);
f. Length of existing turn pockets at signalized intersections;
g. Location of the following:
i. On -street parking,
ii. Bus stops, and,
iii. Private and public schools in the area,
h. LOS and safety analysis results.
3.4.4.5 Background Projects
Background project traffic shall include the following:
a. Traffic from newly constructed projects;
b. Projects for which traffic impacts have been tentatively reserved;
c. Projects for which a Concurrency Certificate has been awarded;
d. Non -project, general background traffic increases; and,
e. Vested traffic for vacant buildings that are undergoing
redevelopment.
The TIA shall provide the following information for background projects,
as identified by the City:
f. Project descriptions;
a. Vicinity map;
b. Trip generation;
c. Trip distribution;
d. Planned transportation improvements (private development and
City); and,
e. LOS and safety analysis results.
3.4.4.6 Analysis Scenarios
The TIA shall include the following analysis scenarios:
a. Existing conditions;
b. Build -out year without project;
c. Build -out year with project;
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 32 of 36
Draft
d. Build -out + five year analysis if project is expected to proceed in
phases, take more than six years to complete, or if the study
intersection is included on the City's Six -Year TIP; and,
e. Major developments with regional impacts may be required to use
the current version of the SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model and
the associated horizon years for analyses, as determined by City
staff.
3.4.4.7 Other Analyses
Other analyses may be required as requested by the City, including but not
limited to:
a. Queue lengths at driveways and drive -through windows;
b. Noise;
c. Air quality (typically required when physical improvements are
proposed and requires electronic submittal of Synchro files);
d. Intersection control warrant analysis (signal, roundabout, four-way
stop, yield);
e. Auxiliary lane warrant analysis;
f. Parking study (including vehicles and/or bicycles);
g. Site access; and,
h. Pedestrian access study.
3.4.4.8 Findings
The following shall be addressed in the findings section:
a. Traffic impacts;
b. Compliance with level of service standards;
c. Proposed project modifications; and,
d. Offsite mitigation.
3.4.4.9 Appendices
The following information shall be included in appendices:
a. Definitions;
b. Trip generation sources;
c. Passer-by and origin -destination studies;
d. Volume and turning movement count sheets;
e. Synchro report printouts (electronic submittal may be required);
f. Warrant analysis calculations; and,
a. References.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 33 of 36
Draft
3.5 MEETINGS
A public meeting(s) may be required for any residential project generating over 100 PM
peak -hour trips, commercial projects generating over 100 PM peak -hour trips impacting a
residential area, or for other projects at the discretion of the City. The intent of the public
meeting is to let the public know about the proposed project and to allow for public input
to determine the scope of the TIA. Notice of date, time, place and purpose of the public
meeting(s) shall be provided by the following means:
a. One publication in the City's official newspaper at least 15 days prior to the
meeting;
b. A mailing to adjacent residents, property owners, neighborhood groups,
jurisdictions, and/or organizations within a 400-foot radius of the project
boundaries, not less than 15 days prior to the public meeting. Other persons or
entities outside of the 400-foot radius may be required to be notified if the City
determines they may be affected by the proposed project or have requested such
notice in writing; and,
c. A sign shall be erected, on the subject property fronting and adjacent to the most
heavily traveled public street, at least 15 days prior to the meetings with formatting
consistent with SVMC 17.80.120B. The sign shall be at least four feet in width and
four feet in height and shall have letters three inches in size. The sign shall be easily
read by the traveling public from the right-of-way. This sign shall announce the
date, time and place of the traffic meetings and provide a brief description of the
project.
a. Proper notification and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the
Applicant. Notification shall be considered satisfied upon receipt of an
affidavit provided by the Applicant to the City stating the above
requirements have been completed.
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 34 of 36
Draft
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIALLY LEFT BLANK
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit B Page 35 of 36
Draft
EXHIBIT "C"
Ordinance 20-026 South Barker Transportation
Impact Fees — Exhibit C Page 36 of 36
South Barker Corridor
Transportation
Impact Fee Rate Study
Prepared for:
City of Spokane Valley, Washington
September, 2020
SE20-0748
FEHRk PEERS
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Study Area 1
Methodology 3
Project List 4
Travel Growth 5
Cost Allocation 7
Existing Transportation Deficiencies 8
Committed External Funding 8
Fair -Share Cost 8
Impact Fee Schedule 10
Trip Generation 10
Pass -By Trip Adjustment 10
Schedule of Rates 10
Appendices
Appendix A — Expanded Impact Fee Schedule
Appendix B — South Barker Corridor Study
List of Figures
Figure 1: Transportation Analysis Zones Included South Barker Corridor Study Fair -Share Analysis 2
Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology 3
Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation 7
List of Tables
Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) 4
Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) 6
Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area 8
Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 9
Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule 11
Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule 12
This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction
This report documents the methods, assumptions, and findings of a transportation impact fee (TIF) rate
study for the South Barker Corridor in Spokane Valley. The need for a TIF is identified in the South Barker
Corridor Study (Feb 2020), which documented the growth along the corridor, projected how that growth
will degrade traffic operations along Barker Road, and identified several transportation capacity projects
to support growth and ensure adequate level of service through the year 2040. That study identified the
needed future improvements along the corridor, completed project cost estimates, and included a fair
share cost analysis to separate project costs between growth in southeast Spokane Valley and growth
from other parts of the region. This TIF rate study builds on the South Barker Corridor Study and identifies
a Growth Management Act (GMA) compliant impact fee rate schedule per development unit. Using this
rate schedule, developers in southeast Spokane Valley can quickly identify their fair share contribution
toward new transportation projects, facilitating development and reducing the cost and complexity of
traffic studies associated with project permitting and transportation concurrency requirements.
Except as otherwise identified herein, the South Barker Corridor Study provides the basis for all TIF rates
calculated in this rate study. As part of adoption of any TIF rates, both the South Barker Corridor Study
and this TIF rate study will be adopted as supporting documents.
Study Area
The South Barker Corridor extends along Barker Road from Mission Avenue to the south city limits of
Spokane Valley. The South Barker Corridor Study defined the impact fee area for the South Barker Corridor
as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the portions of Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and unincorporated
Spokane County near the South Barker Corridor where development would have the greatest impact on
traffic in the corridor. The area was defined in that study using a select zone analysis from the Spokane
Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model to quantify the impact of the
transportation analysis zones (TAZs) near the corridor. Combined, this area is expected to contribute
between 45% and 52% of future traffic on South Barker Road (depending on the segment of Barker Road).
It should be noted that the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) was excluded from the
analysis as the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) is already utilizing a Planned Action Ordinance to assess
SEPA mitigation fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90.
The South Barker Corridor TIF rate provided in this study would apply to any new development in the
Spokane Valley TAZs identified in the South Barker Corridor Study, which is the area shaded in pink on
Figure 1. This includes the following TAZs: 325, 326, 327, 328, 334, 369, 388, 389, 391, and 392. This area
will be referred to in this report as the South Barker Corridor TIF area. Based on the analysis provided in
the South Barker Corridor Study, future development in the South Barker TIF area of Spokane Valley is
expected to contribute between 18% and 26% of future traffic on the South Barker Corridor - depending
on the segment of the corridor. Based on the select zone analysis, areas in Spokane Valley outside of this
area generate less traffic on South Barker Road and do not need to pay an impact fee.
1
fa z W 2
3. ec
;s JUTE
y5 om,
.0d 0ak Dr
S Barker Corridor
n u '�7� * -- iu 9
tm ■a v T.
0 -
E-P >1�-u ' ��� z Z y 1-` ':Z 388 326
a _w �_c
s z ?Tr c-o I� o �' n I. � --0 Q.
n o
F9�� ' a` gar --, 7I-Spokane r .,, 0 334
AvR___ in-z - I. z I I , i, Walley zC° o� ���
=� 1 1 I I - �Spr�ve I T-1 I Z"� 0_.-.
y
�Sprague,,A�.e� _ R .,-.1.- E.4thrAre
Abandoned•RR
E`44th A
0
Z. c
E8thcAve
South Barker Corridor Travel Shed
�— Transportation Analysis Zones by Jurisdiction
J Spokane Valley TAZs
ri Liberty Lake TAZs
- Spokane County TAZs
�
0
-
U
0)
cC
v 2a
a I arc R`�� a h2G /.p
1
-q P
.� z�; E EuclidjAee z 1 �
4 �.ml . 1 u -� z �pQ
d Z2_�
a li Libe Indiana Ave�N�
--
Lake 448-�oNi�,
Sprague Av
73
Sprague Av
Figure 1
Transportation analysis zones included in the South Barker Corridor Study fair -share cost analysis.
Mohawk
Methodology
The impact fee for the South Barker Corridor was developed to establish the fair share of transportation
improvement costs that may be charged to new development in the area. Revised Code of Washington
Section 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the GMA to impose
impact fees for system improvements that are reasonably required to
support and mitigate the impacts of new development. Fees may not
exceed a proportionate share of the costs of improvements and cannot
be used to fund existing deficiencies.
The following key points summarize the process for developing the
impact fee structure (refer to Figure 2):
The South Barker Corridor Study identified a list of future
projects and estimated costs along Barker Road that will be
needed to support future growth through the year 2040.
The South Barker Corridor Study also accounted for any existing
deficiency (intersections/roadway segments that do not meet
current level of service standards) or committed outside funding
sources by deducting the costs of those deficiencies/external
funds from the total project cost.
• The South Barker Corridor Study next assigned the fair share of
each project to southeast Spokane Valley and nearby areas
outside the City.
• The forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in southeast
Spokane Valley was estimated by converting the forecast land
use growth in the SRTC regional travel demand model using the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual, 10th Edition.
• A cost per PM peak hour trip was calculated by dividing the fair
share cost of each project by the growth in vehicle trips in
southeast Spokane Valley.
• Lastly, a land use -based fee schedule was developed using the
cost per PM peak vehicle trip calculated above. Trip rates for
multiple land use categories were estimated using vehicle trip generation rates from the ITE Trip
Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual will provide consistency
between a project trip generation letter or traffic impact study and the impact fee rate.
Figure 2. Impact Fee
Methodology
Projects and costs
identified (from the South
Barker Corridor Study)
1
Eligible project costs
identified (from South
Barker Corridor Study)
1
Fair share of each project
to southeast Spokane
Valley identified (South
Barker Corridor Study)
Forecast growth in PM
peak hour vehicle trips in
southeast Spokane Valley
Growth cost allocation
(cost per PM peak hour
vehicle trip)
The following sections describe in detail these elements that that are integral to the final impact fee
schedule.
3
South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study
September 2020
Project List
The South Barker Corridor Study, completed in July 2019 and updated in February 2020, included an
analysis of traffic demand through the year 2040 to identify potential traffic improvement projects on the
segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south City limits of Spokane Valley. That study
identified a total of eight projects that will be needed by 2040 along the corridor to accommodate future
growth and maintain level of service standards. Those projects, and costs in 2020 dollars, are shown in
Table 1. Three of the projects include improvements to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange that will
primarily be the responsibility of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). At this time,
there are no anticipated costs to the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) for these projects. Therefore, the five
projects identified in the South Barker Corridor Study for which COSV would be responsible for funding
total approximately $18.8 million in 2020 dollars (note: these costs have been updated from the cost
estimates in the South Barker Corridor Study to account for construction cost inflation and/or more
detailed estimates by COSV).
Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page)
Description Program
Agency COSV Cost
Responsible Estimate (2020
dollars)
Constructed in 2020
1-90 Eastbound Ramp/
Barker Road Interchange
Interim Improvements
1-90 Westbound Ramp/
Barker Road Interchange
Interim Improvements
Reconstruct intersection with single -
lane roundabout and two eastbound
approach lanes; realign east leg of
Broadway
Reconstruct intersection with single -
lane roundabout and two southbound
approach lanes; convert Barker/Boone
to right-in/right-out
Horizon 2040
Plan (#12)
Horizon 2040
Plan (#12)
WSDOT
WSDOT
N/A
N/A
Near -Term (2021-2024)
Sprague/Barker
Intersection
Improvements
Reconstruct intersection with single -
lane roundabout
2021-2026
TIP (#28)
COSY
$ 2,139, 000
Mid- Term (2025-2030)
-90/Barker Road
Interchange Long -Term
Improvements
Barker Road
Improvement Project —
Appleway to 1-90
Replace Barker Rd. Bridge, widen to 4-
lanes from Boone Ave. to Broadway;
reconstruct both intersections to 2-lane Horizon 2040'
roundabout; reconstruct Barker/I-90 Plan (#12)
WB ramp intersection to six -leg
roundabout with Boone Avenue
Widen and improve to 5-lane urban 2021-2026
section; roundabout @ Broadway TIP (#44)
WSDOT
Not anticipated
at this time
COSV $6,501,000
r's
4
Project
Description
Program
Agency COSV Cost
Responsible Estimate (2020
dollars)
Barker Road
Improvement Project —
Mission to 1-90
Widen and improve to 5-lane urban
section
2021-2026
TIP (#61)
COSY
$3,146,000
Long -Term (2031-2040)
Barker Road
Improvement Project —
Appleway to South City
Limits
4th Avenue/Barker & 8th
Avenue/Barker
Intersection
Improvements
Reconstruct and widen north of
Sprague to 3-lane urban section, and
south of Sprague to 2-lane urban
section
Reconstruct 4th Ave. and 8th Ave.
intersections with single -lane
roundabouts
2019-2024
TIP (#20)
2019-2024
TIP (#21)
COSY $3,500,000
COSV $3,500,000
Source: South Barker Corridor Study (February 2020). Costs were updates to 2020 dollars based on the
projects except Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90. Cost for that project was updated
rates.
Note: Horizon 2040: SRTC Long Range Transportation Plan; TIP: City of Spokane Valley Transportation
Travel Growth
TOTAL $18,786,000
COSV 2021-2026 TIP for all
using construction inflation
Improvement Plan.
Determining the growth in travel demand caused by new development is a key requirement for a TIF
program. In nearly every TIF program across Washington and the country, the total eligible costs of
building new transportation capacity is divided by the total growth in trips to determine a cost per trip. All
developments pay the same cost per trip, but larger developments that generate more trips pay a higher
total fee than smaller developments. In this way, the cost to provide the new transportation infrastructure
is fairly apportioned to new development. Moreover, in setting the boundary for the TIF, a select zone
analysis was performed to validate that all the areas within the TIF area contributed a meaningful amount
(at least one percent) of total traffic to Barker Road. The amount of traffic varies somewhat based on
which segment of Barker Road is evaluated and which TAZ the project resides in, but in all cases each of
the ten identified TAZs within the TIF area contribute at least 5% of the total COSV traffic along the
corridor.
For the South Barker Corridor TIF, the future growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips was estimated using
the change in land use in the study area from the 2015 and 2040 SRTC regional travel demand model as
well as trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The SRTC travel demand model
includes 11 land use categories: two residential and nine non-residential categories. For each land use in
the SRTC model, an associated ITE trip rate was identified. Total PM peak hour vehicle trips within the
study area were calculated by multiplying the PM peak hour trip rate identified by ITE by the forecast
growth (from 2015 to 2040) in dwelling units, employees, or hotel rooms, depending on the land use.
Table 2 summarizes the calculation. It should be noted that COSV directs developers to apply the trip
5
South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study
September 2020
calculation methodology based on the process detailed in Section 4.4 of the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, 3rd Edition when estimating trip generation for developments. In some situations the best -fit
curve would be used instead of average trips rates. That methodology is applicable at the development
scale where developments of various sizes can impact trip rates. However, in this situation given growth
forecast in the model will occur among developments of various sizes over a 25 year period, using
average trip rates is more appropriate and was applied to forecast growth in trips in the Barker TIF area.
Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040)
SRTC Land Use (LU) 2015-2040 Unit of
LU Growth Measure
ITE Code ITE Description
ITE Average
Trip Rate 1
(PM peak hr.)
Growth in
Trips (LU
growth x
trip rate)
Single Family
Residential
Dwelling
917 Units
Multi -Family 1,070 Dwelling
Residential Units
Hotel/Motel 200 Rooms
Agriculture, Forestry,
Mining, Industrial,
Manufacturing,
Wholesale
Retail Trade (Non -
Central Business
District)
Services and Offices
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate
Services (FIRES)
Medical
Retail Trade (CBD)
Education Employees
University Employees
0 Employees
210 Single -Family Detached
Housing
220 Multifamily Housing
(Low -Rise)
310 Hotel
N/A N/A
280 Employees 820 Shopping Center
654 Employees 710 General Office Building
62 Employees 710 General Office Building
503 Employees 630 Clinic
0 Employees N/A N/A
35 Employees 520 Elementary School
0: Employees N/A N/A
0.99 908
0.56 599
0.60 120
N/A 0
1.62
0.40
454
262
0.40 25
0.85 428
N/A 0
1.78 62
0.40 0
Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 2,8572
1. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10' Edition; average trip rate of adjacent street traffic 4-6 PM was used for all land uses given growth
will occur among developments of various sizes.
2. Estimated growth in trips differ from the findings in the South Barker Corridor Study because estimates in this study are based on
the ITE trip generation rates as opposed to trip growth outputs of the SRTC regional travel demand model.
Using this methodology, it is forecast that the South Barker Corridor TIF area would generate about 2,857
new PM peak hour vehicle trips by 2040. This total PM peak hour vehicle trip growth will be used in the
6
calculation of TIF rate. Note: the trip growth by 2040 differs from the trip growth estimated in the South
Barker Corridor Study as the estimate in this report is based on ITE trip rates derived from forecast land
use growth, while for the South Barker Corridor Study trip generation was pulled directly from the SRTC
regional travel demand model. ITE Trip rates were used to develop the TIF rate in accordance with
development requirements defined in the Spokane Valley Street Standards.
Cost Allocation
Three steps were used to allocate costs per PM peak hour trip, see Figure 3. First, the TIF methodology
must separate the share of project costs that address existing deficiencies from the share of project costs
that add transportation capacity and serve new growth. Second, dedicated funding from non -City
sources must be removed from the project cost as funds generated by the TIF can only be used for
projects identified to have an impact from the development being assessed a fee. Third, resulting growth -
related improvement costs are then further separated to identify the share of growth related to land
development in Barker Road TIF area.
Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation
STEPS
City Funds
$18A M
Project List
$18.8 M
Future Growth
$18.8 M
Inside TIF Area
$3.6 M
Eligible Impact Fee
$3.6 M
Existing Deficiency
$0
Non -City Funds
5350 K
Outside TIF Area
$14.8 M
Other Funds Needed
$14.8 M
7
South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study
September 2020
Existing Transportation Deficiencies
An existing conditions analysis was conducted as part of the South Barker Corridor Study, which identified
existing level of service deficiencies at the Barker Road and 1-90 intersections. A deficiency at an
intersection is defined as a level of service rating of E or lower at a signalized intersection or level of
service F at an unsignalized intersection as established in the Comprehensive Plan. Since the three
projects at the Barker Road and 1-90 interchange are expected to be funded by WSDOT, the cost of these
projects was not included in the total project cost for the South Barker Corridor. No other locations along
the corridor were identified as having an existing deficiency. Therefore, no costs were deducted from the
total project cost on account of an existing deficiency.
Committed External Funding
Of the five projects whose cost are included in the South Barker Corridor TIF, only one currently has
dedicated funding from a non -City source, the Sprague Avenue/Barker Road intersection improvement
project. This project has $349,000 dedicated from a Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality grant. Therefore,
this cost was deducted from the total cost of this project. Table 4 (on the following page) illustrates the
eligible project costs that were applied to the South Barker Corridor TIF, totaling $18,437,000.
Fair -Share Cost
With deficiencies and external funding accounted for, all the remaining project costs are related to
supporting new growth in trips that will be funded by COSV. However, not all the growth comes from
development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area — there is a portion of growth that comes from other
parts of Spokane Valley and surrounding jurisdictions. To ensure that the costs assessed to development
as part of the TIF are fair and proportional to the impact, a fair share percentage was used. The South
Barker Corridor Study identified the percentage of traffic growth in three different segments of the South
Barker Corridor that are expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area.
This was done using a select zone analysis in the 2040 SRTC travel demand model. The percentage ranges
from 18% in the south end of the corridor to 26% in the north end of the corridor as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area
Segment of Barker Road Southeast Spokane Valley Study Area (TIF Area)
North of 1-90
1-90 to Appleway Avenue
South of Appleway Avenue
Source: South Barker Corridor Study
26%
19%
18%
The fair share percentages were multiplied by the eligible cost of each project in the corridor to get the
cost of growth -related transportation improvements on the South Barker Corridor that is expected to be
attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area. This equates to $3,635,350. Lastly, this
8
cost was divided by the forecast new PM peak hour trips generated by new development in this area
(2,857) to arrive at a cost per new PM peak hour vehicle trip of $1,272.
Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations
Project
Cost to
Project Cost Address
(to COSV) Existing
Deficiencies
Non -City
Dedicated
Funds
Cost
Eligible Project TIF Area Fair Attributable
Cost Share Percent
to Study
Area
1-90 Eastbound Ramp/
Barker Road
Interchange Interim
Improvements
1-90 Westbound Ramp/
Barker Road
Interchange Interim
Improvements
Sprague/Barker
Intersection
Improvements
I-90/Barker Road
Interchange Long -
Term Improvements
Barker Road
Improvement Project —
Appleway to 1-90
Barker Road
Improvement Project —
Mission to 1-90
Barker Road
Improvement Project —
Appleway to South
City Limits
4th Avenue/Barker &
8th Avenue/Barker
Intersection
Improvements
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A N/A
$2,139,000
Not
anticipated
at this time
$6,501,000
$3,146,000
$3,500,000
$3,500,000
$0 $349,000
N/A
26%
N/A 26%
$1,790,000
$0 $0 None anticipated
at this time
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$6,501,000
$3,146,000
$3,500,000
$0 $0 $3,500,000
N/A
N/A
18% $322,200
None
26% anticipated
at this time
19% $1,235,190
26% $817,960
18%
$630,000
18% $630,00
TOTAL $18,786,000
$0 $0 $18,437,000 Varies $3,635,350
PM Peak Trips
Cost Per PM Peak Trip
2,857
$1,272
When taking all the above calculations into consideration, the South Barker Corridor TIF would contribute
up to 20 percent of the total $18.4 million eligible cost of the improvement projects on the South Barker
Corridor. City matching funds, new grants, and other sources would provide the remaining 80 percent of
the total project costs.
9
South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study
September 2020
Impact Fee schedule
The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip to reflect
differences in trip -making characteristics for the general land use types forecast in the SRTC regional
travel demand model within southeast Spokane Valley. The fee schedule is a table where fees are
represented as dollars per unit for each land use category which makes it easier for developers to
calculate their impact fee rates. Table 5 shows the various components of the fee schedule.
Trip Generation
Trip generation rates for each land use type in the PM peak hour were derived from average trip rates for
selected land uses of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition to ensure consistent and repeatable
calculations across all land uses.
Pass -By Trip Adjustment
The ITE trip generation rates represent total vehicles entering and leaving a development. For certain land
uses (e.g., retail, convenience stores, etc.), a substantial amount of the motorized travel is already passing
by the property and merely turns into and out of the driveway. These pass -by trips do not add trips to the
surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the impact fee. The
resulting trips are considered "new" trips and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation. The pass -
by trip percentages are taken from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017).
Schedule of Rates
The proposed impact fee rates are shown in Table 5. An expanded table of land uses is provided in Table
6 in Appendix A. In the fee schedule, fees are shown as dollars per unit of development for various land
use categories. The impact fee program is flexible in that if a use does not fit into one of the ITE land use
categories listed, an impact fee can be calculated based on the development's projected PM peak hour
person trip generation and multiplied by the cost per PM peak hour trip of $1,272 as shown in Table 5.
Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or Table 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and
will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip.
10
Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule
City of Spokane Valley South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee
Adjusted Trips
PM Peak Vehicle Passby
ITE Code ITE Land Use Category z per Unit of
Trip Rate Measure 3
Rate Schedule
Impact Fee Per Unit 4 @
$1.272 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip
210 Single Family & Duplex 0.99
0%
0.99
$1,260 per dwelling unit
220 Multi -Family
0.56
0%
0.56
$713 per dwelling unit
310 Hotel (3 or More Levels)
0.70
0%
0.70
$891
per room
520 Elementary School
0.00137
0%
0.00137
$1.74
persq ft
630 Medical Clinic
0.00328
0%
0.00328
$4.17
persq ft
710 General Office
0.00115
0%
0.00115
$1.46
persq ft
820 Shopping Center
0.00381
34%
0.00251
$3.20
per sq ft
1 ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic (weekday 4-
6PM); This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive; see
Table 6 for a wider variety of uses; Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will
be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip.
2 New trips will exclude "pass -by' trips: see "ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition" (2017).
3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips
4 sq ft = square feet, room = available hotel/motel room
11
Appendix A - Expanded Impact Fee
Schedule
Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule
1 a•Iii%dPc, i«,•r,i•
City
rv, E Code
of Spokane Valley South Barker Corridor
ITE Land Use Category
Single Family & Duplex
Multi -Family
Transportation
PM Peak
Vehicle
Tn
Rate'
0.99
0.56
Impact
Passby%2
0%
0%
Fee Rate Schedule
Adjusted
Trips per Unit
of Measure 3
0.99
0.56
Impact Fee
$1,272 per PM
$1,260
$713
Per Unit @
Peak Vehicle Trip
per dwelling unit
per dwelling unit
Residential
210
220
310
Hotel (3 or More Levels)
0.70
0%
0.70
$891
per room
Services
492
Health Club
0.00345
0%
0.00345
$4.39
per sq ft
912
Bank
0.02045
34%
0.01350
$17.17
persq ft
520
Elementary School
0.00137
0%
0.00137
$1.74
persq ft
Institution
522
Middle School
0.00119
0%
0.00119
$1.51
per sq ft
530
High School
0.00097
0%
0.00097
$1.23
per sq ft
925
Drinking Establishment
0.01136
43%
0.00648
$8.24
per sq ft
Restaurant
934
Fast Food Restaurant (with drive-thru)
0.03267
50%
0.01634
$20.79
per sq ft
937
Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru
0.04338
89%
0.00477
$6.07
per sq ft
820
Shopping Center
0.00381
34%
0.00251
$3.20
per sq ft
Retail
841
Automobile Sales - Used/New
0.00375
0%
0.00375
$4.77
persq ft
853
Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps
23.04
66%
7.83
$9,968
per pump
110
Light Industry/High Technology
0.00063
0%
0.00063
$0.80
per sq ft
Industrial
140
Manufacturing
0.00067
0%
0.00067
$0.85
per sq ft
151
Mini -Storage
0.00017
0%
0.00017
$0.22
persq ft
710
General Office
0.00115
0%
0.00115
$1.46
per sq ft
Office
720
Medical Office/Clinic
0.00346
0%
0.00346
$4.40
per sq ft
750
Office Park
0.00107
0%
0.00107
$1.36
persq ft
'ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic (weekday 4-6PM); This worksheet
represents only the most common uses in southeast Spokane Valley and is NOT all-inclusive; Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or 6 shall prepare a trip
generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip.
2 New trips will exclude "pass -by" trips: see "ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition" (2017).
3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips
sq ft = square feet, pump = vehicle servicing position/gas pump, room = available hotel room
FEHR/S' PEERS
Appendix B - South Barker Conador
V,ItaY
[Add S Barker Corridor Study]
FEHR'3' PEERS
FEHRkPEERS
*Wane
FINAL REPORT 1 UPDATED FEBRUARY 2020 .•0°Valley
Contents
Introduction 3
Methods & Assumptions 5
Existing Conditions 9
1-90 Interchange Interim Improvements Summary & Findings 13
2040 Analysis & Findings 15
2040 Recommendations 23
Implementation 26
Conclusions 32
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study Area Intersections 4
Figure 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections 8
Figure 3. Existing conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations 10
Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay. 11
Figure 5. Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange 12
Figure 6. Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange 12
Figure 7. Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT 13
Figure 8. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection — revised Interim Concept 14
Figure 9. Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the "hook ramp" concept at the Barker Road/I-90
westbound ramp 15
Figure 10. 2040 conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations 16
Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept (same as Barker Road IJR preferred
alternative) 18
Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR
preferred alternative) 18
Figure 13. 2040 conditions level of service and delay. 19
Figure 14. Volume -to -capacity ratio in 2040 for Barker Road/I-90 interchange roundabouts. 19
Figure 15. Volume -to -capacity ratio, LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations. 20
Figure 16. Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue
intersection. 21
Figure 17. Diverging roundabout concept. 22
Figure 18. 2040 volume -to -capacity ratio and 95% queue with a single -lane diverging roundabout. 22
Figure 19. Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three -lane configuration south of Appleway 25
Figure 20. South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040. 26
Figure 21. Transportation analysis zones by jurisdiction included in the fair -share cost analysis. 28
Figure 22. Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction. 29
Figure 23. Fair -share cost by jurisdiction and project 30
Figure 24. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) in Spokane Valley 31
Figure 25. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) by jurisdiction. 32
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings and recommended improvements of the South Barker Corridor Study.
The purpose of the South Barker Corridor Study is to analyze traffic demands through year 2040 and
identify potential traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue
and the South City Limits in Spokane Valley, Washington. The study includes planning -level cost estimates
of improvements and an estimate of the proportion of traffic along segments of the corridor from adjacent
jurisdictions (Liberty Lake and Spokane County) to assist in developing potential mitigation fee payments
for the new development that is occurring in this part of the Spokane region. In addition, this study
analyzed traffic operations at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange under the WSDOT interim concept (year
2020) and long-term concept (by year 2040) to verify that the proposed interchange improvements will
operate adequately and serve the planned growth in Spokane Valley and the surrounding area. Based on
the analysis, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long-
term improvements for the 1-90 interchange.
Study Area
The study area includes the Barker Road corridor between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits on
the east side of Spokane Valley. The following 10 intersections along Barker Road were included in the
study and mapped in Figure 1.
1. Barker Road/Mission Avenue
2. Barker Road/Boone Avenue
3. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue
4. Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp
5. Barker Road/Broadway (east)
6. Barker Road/Broadway (west)
7. Barker Road/Appleway Avenue
8. Barker Road/Sprague Avenue
9. Barker Road/4th Avenue
10. Barker Road/8th Avenue
City of Spokane Valley 3 I P a g e
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
Figure 1. Study Area Intersections
Mission
Maxwell Av
Sint° Av
Sharp AV
Broadway
croXi
Av
41,
Alki A
pv
Oz.ao Av
Broadway Av
Sprague Av 0
3rd Av
Ath Av
Sth Av
9th Av
i0tti Av
2nd Av
City of Spokane Valley 4 I P a g e
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vs 2/7/20
Updated Report
METHODS & ASSUMPTIONS
The following methods and assumptions were applied to forecast traffic and analyze traffic operations as
part of this Study.
Land Use Assumptions
Traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were estimated using the current version of the SRTC
2015 and 2040 regional travel demand models, which was last updated in December 2017. Fehr & Peers
received a copy of the SRTC travel demand model on January 9, 2018. Land use assumptions were
reviewed by the project technical advisory committee (TAC) on May 17, 2018 which is comprised of staff
representing Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Spokane County, WSDOT and SRTC. The TAC approved the land
use assumptions on June 1, 2018 with three comments, including providing a comparison to what is
assumed in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, incorporating impacts of new grade schools, and
future land use forecasts in Liberty Lake - all of which are addressed below.
Detailed land use data assumed in the model is provided in the following appendices:
Appendix A — Includes a summary of the forecast 2015-2040 change in dwelling units and
employees by transportation analysis zone (TAZ) near the Study Area.
Appendix B — Includes a summary of the difference in assumed land use for the TAZs around
Barker Road and 1-90 between the 2015 travel demand model used for the Spokane Valley
Comprehensive Plan Update (prepared in 2016) and the current 2015 SRTC travel demand
model used for this study.
New Grade Schools
In addition to the regional travel demand model, traffic forecasts also accounted for several new grade
schools planned in the vicinity by 2021. These schools are not specifically accounted for in the model and
include:
A new elementary school at Long Road and Mission Avenue in Spokane Valley (opens 2018)
A new middle school at Harvest Parkway and Mission Avenue in Liberty Lake (opens 2019)
A new high school near Sprague Avenue and Henry Road in Spokane County (opens 2021)
It was determined through analysis of existing and future school location and enrollment zone boundaries
as well as traffic studies completed for each school that the impact to traffic volume on Barker Road in
the study area from the new elementary and middle school would result in a net neutral change. It was
also determined that the primary impact from the new high school will be a shift in some traffic currently
making a southbound right at the Barker Road/Appleway intersection to instead make a southbound
through at that intersection and a southbound left at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. The
inverse movements at the two intersections' were also adjusted. In the southbound direction, 80 vehicles
in the AM peak hour and 17 vehicles in the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making a
south bound right at Barker Road/Appleway to making a southbound left at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue.
In the northbound direction 37 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 19 vehicles in the PM peak hour were
assumed to shift from making an eastbound left at Barker Road/Appleway to making a westbound right
at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue and northbound through at Barker Road/Appleway.
1 For example, at Barker Road and Appleway Avenue southbound right turns were reduced and southbound through
movements were increased by the same margin. Similarly, eastbound left turns were also reduced with northbound
through movements increased by the same margin.
City of Spokane Valley 5 (P a g e
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vs 2/7/20
Updated Report
Liberty Lake Land Use Forecasts
During the analysis stage, the City of Liberty Lake was in the process of updating their land use forecasts
for 2040 as part of their Land Quantity Analysis. Land uses are expected to be different from the forecasts
assumed in the current SRTC travel demand model, particularly in the Riverside District. Given this
information was not yet available at the time of analysis, the 2015 and 2040 land use assumed for Liberty
Lake in the current SRTC travel demand model was used. Assumptions regarding the future roadway
network in Liberty Lake are explained below.
Roadway Network Assumptions
The SRTC travel demand model was also updated to account for several recent changes to the assumed
2040 roadway network as well as minor changes to the 2015 model to ensure recent projects were
reflected. These changes are based on feedback provided by the project's Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), which included the City of Spokane Valley, WSDOT, Spokane County, and Liberty Lake. The changes
to the network include the following.
2015 Model Changes:
.
•
Chapman Road was connected from 32nd Avenue to Barker Road just south of 12th Avenue
to reflect existing conditions
The centroid connector at transportation analysis zone (TAZ) 369 was moved to load to 4th
Ave and 8th Ave instead of Barker Road, which better reflects where the driveways in the area
load onto the roadway network
The centroid connector at TAZ 392 was moved to load to 4th Ave instead of Barker Road
The centroid connector at TAZ 327 was moved to load onto Indiana Avenue (instead of the
intersection of Barker Road/ Indiana Avenue)
A second centroid connector at TAZ 327 connecting to Mission Avenue was deleted to match
the 2040 model
2040 Model Changes:
• Same changes made to the 2015 model
• Indiana Avenue was connected through from Barker Road to Harvard Road
• Instead of a new 1-90 interchange at Henry Road (as is currently in the 2040 model), Henry
Road was connected from Appleway Avenue to Mission Avenue via an overpass of 1-90, but
with no 1-90 interchange; the current partial interchange at Appleway Avenue was retained
• The preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project was assumed
for the intersection of Barker Road/Trent Avenue
• The south leg of the Flora Road/Trent Avenue intersection across the BNSF railroad track is
assumed to close (consistent with the preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade
Separation project)
• A new link was added between Flora Road and Barker Road north of Euclid Avenue and south
of Trent Avenue (to reflect the Garland Avenue connection assumed in the Northeast
Industrial Area PAO)
• The centroid connector from TAZ 600 is assumed to be more heavily weighted toward Barker
Road (reflecting the development potential in the Northeast Industrial Area assumed as part
of the Northeast Industrial Area PAO)
• Barker Road was assumed to be 5 lanes from Mission Avenue to 1-90 (to reflect planned
mitigations in the SEIS to the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Industrial Area PAO)
City of Spokane Valley 6 I P a g e
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
It should be noted that the following planned improvements are already assumed in the current SRTC
travel demand model:
The Barker Road/I-90 interchange would be reconfigured to a standard diamond interchange
with two-lane roundabouts plus slip ramps for right -turn movements at both ramps (as
reflected in I-90/Barker Rd Interchange Justification Report)
Barker Road between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue would be widened to five lanes as identified
in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
A new northbound lane would be added on Harvard Road across 1-90
Traffic Forecast Methodology
Near -Term Traffic Forecasts
An annual growth rate of 3.0% along Barker Road was used for near -term traffic forecasts through year
2020 (based on historic growth) and an annual growth rate of both 2.0% and 3.0% were used for traffic
growth on Barker Road between year 2020 and 2028 to capture an upper and lower range of potential
growth.
2040 Traffic Forecasts
Instead of using the traffic forecasts directly from the 2040 travel demand model, 2040 volumes were
estimated using an industry standard approach known as the difference method. The difference in traffic
volumes between the 2015 and 2040 models are added to observed counts at each of the study area
intersections to arrive at a 2040 forecast traffic. This method reduces model error by relying as much as
possible on observed data rather than model output data. Note: the difference in traffic volumes between
the 2015 and 2040 model will be multiplied by 0.88 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between
2015 and 2018 (22 years/ 25 years = 0.88).
Existing traffic data was collected during the AM and PM peak hour on Thursday, May 24th 2018 at all
study intersections (see Figure 1) except Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/8tn Avenue. Existing
traffic volumes at Barker Road/Boone Avenue are based on counts collected on Tuesday, February 14th,
2007 and existing volumes at Barker Road/8th Avenue are based on counts collected on Wednesday,
February 14, 2018.
Estimating AM Peak Volumes
The regional travel demand model forecasts PM peak hour turn movements, but only forecasts 3-hour
AM peak turn movements at each intersection. Therefore, the inverse of PM peak hour traffic growth
multiplied by 80% was used to estimate AM peak hour traffic growth. This is consistent with research
published in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 3652 and in observed peak hour
traffic count data collected in Spokane Valley. For example, 80% of growth in PM peak volumes for
southbound right turn movements at each intersection were applied to eastbound left movements to get
the AM peak traffic forecast.
2 Martin, W., N. McGuckin. Travel Estimating Techniques for Urban Planning. NCHRP Report 365. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., 1998.
City of Spokane Valley 7 l P a g e
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
Level of Service Standards
Spokane Valley LOS Standards
The City of Spokane Valley uses level of service (LOS) to describe and evaluate traffic operations along
major arterial corridors and intersections within the City. Levels range from LOS A to LOS F, which
encompass a range of congestion types from uninterrupted traffic (LOS A) to highly -congested conditions
(LOS F). The description and intersection delay thresholds of each LOS category are described in Figure 2.
These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual, which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley. The
LOS for signalized intersections and roundabouts is measured by the average delay per vehicle entering
the intersection from all approaches, while the LOS for unsignalized intersections is measured by the
average delay per vehicle on the approach with the highest average delay.
Figure 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections
Level
of
Service
Description
Signalized
Intersection
Delay (seconds)
Unsignalized
Intersection
Delay (seconds)
A
Free -flowing conditions.
0-10
0-10
B
Stable operating conditions.
10-20
10-15
Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists
are affected by the interaction with other motorists.
20-35
15-25
D
High density of motorists, but stable flow.
35-55
25-35
E
Near -capacity operations, with speeds reduced to a
low but uniform speed.
55-80
35-50
F
Over -capacity conditions with long delays.
> 80
>50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2016, Transportation Research Board
The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
• LOS D for major arterial corridors:
o Argonne/Mullan between the town of Millwood and Appleway Boulevard
o Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue
o Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue
o Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue
o Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Sullivan Road
• LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors
• LOS E for unsignalized intersections (LOS F acceptable if peak hour traffic signal warrant is unmet)
WSDOT LOS Standards
WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways. The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas
is LOS D. Within the Study Area this would apply to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange. This LOS standard
applies to roadway segments and signalized and stop controlled intersections.
City of Spokane Valley 8( Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
Per WSDOT's recommended guidance, the primary measure of effectiveness (MOE) for roundabout
analysis is not LOS, but the overall intersection and approach volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. WSDOT
recommends that v/c ratios not exceed 0.85-0.9 for any approach or the entire intersection, which
typically corresponds to LOS D.
Traffic Analysis Methodology
In order to analyze traffic operations, including LOS, v/c ratios and/or impacts of queuing, the following
traffic engineering software was used in accordance with WSDOT Traffic Analysis policies and protocol':
• Synchro - Synchro software (version 9.2) was be used to evaluate AM and PM peak hour LOS at
most signalized and stop controlled intersections. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro. All settings were set to be consistent with
WSDOT Synchro Protocol. The observed intersection peak hour factor averaged for all approaches
was used for the existing conditions analysis and near -term traffic analysis. A PHF of 1.0 was used
for the 2040 analysis. A saturation flow rate of 1,775 vehicles per lane per hour was assumed in
order to be consistent with City of Spokane Valley practice along the Barker Road corridor.
• Sidra - Sidra software (version 7.0) was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour v/c ratios for
intersections with a roundabout configuration. All settings were set to be consistent with
WSDOT's Sidra Policy Settings (WSDOT, April 2018).
• SimTraffic—SimTraffic software was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour traffic operational
performance for closely spaced intersections in order to capture the impacts to traffic delay of
queuing. This includes the intersections with Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue and Barker Road/I-90
under the single -lane roundabout configuration proposed by WSDOT as an interim solution. All
settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT SimTraffic Protocol with the same PHF and
saturation flow rate used in the Synchro analysis. SimTraffic was not used to analyze operations
with two-lane roundabouts. Sidra software was used in those instances.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Within the 1.6 mile segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south Spokane Valley City
limits there are four signalized intersections. These are located where Barker Road crosses Mission
Avenue, Cataldo Avenue/I-90 westbound ramp, 1-90 eastbound ramp and Appleway Avenue. There is a
four-way stop at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. All other intersection are controlled by side -street stop
signs. The segment of Barker Road north of Boone Avenue is a three lane street with bike lanes, curb and
gutter and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. South of Boone Avenue Barker Road is a two-lane street
without curb, gutter, storm drain or sidewalks. South of Appleway there is an asphalt paved multiuse trail
on the west side of the street that extends to Chapman Road in unincorporated Spokane County. Existing
peak hour traffic volumes and lane configurations at the ten study intersections are shown in Figure 3.
3 www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Traffic/Analysis/
City of Spokane Valley 9'Page
E Mission Ave
p
tacres
IrM
ACRES EN,q eyve
r at�nrohtda..
E AYt1Av<
Greenacres
Shopping Center
c
o EPPPtor+eY Pvs:
Spesue Ave
s0,1
of
t
= s
OE Misrslon Ave
z
[Maxwell Ave s
T
n
E Soto Avr
V jv's9j
2 floe eaac
ay
E OerAe Avn
Lone wolf
Marley -Davidson
8
0
E AJk Avo
z
m
CCo.lee Avg t
o si Pye
O E PPP1
or
Cghvs E<-
O
O
E1nd Avr
E dlhAee
E fih Ave
N
Google
G
EI
0
Hub Sports Cellar
Freedon
Allsporl Polaris,
Hands Yamaha Indian__
BltMdtery Avo
\00"e
Nt.cn Ave
5
Eliotnvetelce Ave
Sprague Ave
n0A..
C /kin Avr
nthnrc
A
1. Barker/Mission
2. Barker/Boone
3. Barker/ B 1-90 Ramps
E... ;:7;
UNi v.N
r)1 L
�16 (27)
93 (123)
r 192 (100)
Com
� N
r I
✓�
45(13)
4- 4 (0)
22 (4) r
gY
f 453 (225)
214 (321)
— 22 (22)
475 (268) , I
260(582)—. Nrna
90 (69) -4 N e i
94
B
28 (154)
43 (136) -''rye
49 (71)
Tr
vYi8
44 (11)
11 (0) =
3 (0)
•
N d,
�N
Al
41 (73)
27 (21) -4
15 (22)
4. Barker/EB 1-90 Ramps
5. Barker/B oadway (N)
6. Barker/Broadway (S)
m a
188 (740)
37 (80)
•
31 (55)
2 (8)
N+
E%,
I
i✓�
o e.
cC
213 (433)
7 (12)
169 (532)
v
�' A
N v
ID
-Id%
v ,
E
N
3 (3) r
3 (3)
•
7. Barker Appleway
8. Barker/Sprague
•
9. Barker/4th Ave
O m
v M -
N
4 L
62 (84)
542 (654)
r 49 (136)
•
13N' 14(26)
N ? 4.- 154 (380)
• 44 40 (100)
Birter
76 (73) t •
378 (225) -4. 1 o 0
34 (32) o O1 m
•
-` 18(16)
3m 4- 177 (508)
• +2(19)
•
13 (11)
4- 1 (3)
1 (3)
m»'
0 (0)
101 (111)±'r
344 (490) -
25 (34)
) jr
ron�
...
n N N
rn
2^^
m n ,-
v
I
10. Ba ker/8th
1
N
P. nr o
��
•
32 (23)
1 4— 2 (12)
13(z1>
e^
LEGEND
Study0Intersection Lane Configuration
AM (PM) Peak Hour a Stop Sign
Traffic Volume
it Signalized
3 (13)
3 3) A'
•
'�j'
N N N
n
Figure 3. Existing Conditions
Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations
South Barker Corridor Study
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY
Updated Report
v8 2/7/20
Intersection Level of Service
The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the 10 study area intersections are summarized in
Figure 4. The intersections between Boone Avenue and Broadway were analyzed using SimTraffic to
account for the impact of queuing given the close spacing of intersections as well as the split signal phasing
currently used at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp. All other intersections were analyzed using
Synchro.
Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay.
Intersection
Control
AM Peak
PM Peak
Side
Street
Stop
Approach
Software
(all HCM
2010)
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Barker/Mission
Signal
12
B
13
B
Synchro
Barker/Boone
Side -Street Stop
>100
F
64
F
EB
SimTraffic
Barker/I-90
Westbound
Ramp/Cataldo
Signal
57
E
29
C
SimTraffic
Barker/I-90 Eastbound
Ramp
Signal
57
E
103
F
SimTraffic
Barker/Broadway (N)
Side -Street Stop
>100
F
>100
F
WB
SimTraffic
Barker/Broadway (S)
Side -Street Stop
60
F
43
E
EB
SimTraffic
Barker/Appleway
Signal
21
C
30
C
Synchro
Barker/Sprague
All -Way Stop
26
D
49
E
Synchro
Barker/4th
Side -Street Stop
16
C
17
C
EB
Synchro
Barker/8th
Side -Street Stop
23
C
23
C
EB
Synchro
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
Results show that under existing conditions, the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue
intersection operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection
operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Thus, both intersections
of Barker Road/I-90 do not currently meet WSDOT LOS standards. Additionally, the queue along Barker
Road from the two 1-90 intersections impacts the LOS at both Barker Road/Boone Avenue and the two
Barker Road/Broadway intersections, causing all three intersections to operate at LOS F during either the
AM or PM peak hours or both. Additionally the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is operating at
LOS E during the PM peak hour. This intersection has been identified by COSV as a location in need of
improvement to address existing congestion and multimodal operations. Results of the existing conditions
traffic analysis show this intersection is just two additional seconds of delay from operating at LOS F. A
small increase in traffic is likely cause this intersection to operate at LOS F without improvements.
The existing average and maximum queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange during the AM
peak hour are shown in Figure 5 and in the PM peak hour are shown in Figure 6. In the AM peak hour a
long queue forms in the southbound direction at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection. In
the PM peak hour a long queue forms in the eastbound direction at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp
intersection. It should be noted the distance between the gore point in the eastbound direction of 1-90
City of Spokane Valley 11 'Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
and the Barker Road intersection is about 1,700 feet and the average queue on this segment during the
PM peak hour is 1,200 feet and the maximum queue is 1,500 feet.
Figure 5. Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange
Intersection Direction
Average
Queue (feet)
Maximum
Queue
(feet)
Barker/ 1-90
westbound/Cataldo
EB
60
120
NB
300
510
SB
730 1,200
WB
100 170
Barker/I-90 eastbound
EB
150 260
NB
160 170
SB
170 260
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
Figure 6. Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange
Barker/ 1-90
westbound/Cataldo
EB
Average
Queue (feet)
70
120
NB
190
340
SB
420
630
WB
100 160
Barker/I-90 eastbound
EB
1,200 1,500
NB
160 180
SB
440 630
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
Corridor Level of Service
The existing corridor level of service within the study area is LOS D derived from average daily traffic (ADT)
on each roadway segment and weighted by the segment's length. Based on the posted speed and number
of lanes, the LOS D threshold for the corridor is 13,800 ADT (as defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity
Manual), and the length -average ADT-to-LOS D volume threshold ratio is 0.83. As long as the ratio is less
than or equal to 1.00, the corridor is defined as operating at LOS D or better even though some intersections
may experience greater congestion than LOS D.
City of Spokane Valley 12 'Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
I-90 INTERCHANGE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY & FINDINGS
The Barker Road/I-90 interchange is currently operating at LOS E or worse at one or both interchange
intersections in both the AM and PM peak hour, thus failing WSDOT LOS standards. WSDOT has proposed
an interim solution that includes single -lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection until the long-term
concept proposed in the 2014 IJR can be implemented. Traffic analysis was performed for the
intersections between Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/Broadway, including both ramps of
the Barker Road/I-90 interchange in years 2020, 2023, and 2028. The analysis was performed to determine
how well and for how long a single -lane roundabouts as depicted in Figure 7 would operate acceptably at
the two intersections.
Figure 7. Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT
diiieve
/11111I1,
Source: WSDOT
Ali
.1 te",".
1 r.' 4.740 ' %
'roadway
A subsequent revision to this interim concept, shown in Figure 8, shifted the northern single -lane
roundabout to the existing Cataldo Avenue/Barker Road/I-90 Westbound intersection, maintaining the
existing "hook ramp" configuration. According to the best available information at this time regarding
long-term plans for the interchange and replacement of the Barker Road Bridge, the advantage of this
configuration, as compared to the tight diamond configuration (shown in Figure 7 and originally proposed
as the interim solution) is that the proposed location of the Barker Road/westbound ramp intersection is
City of Spokane Valley
13'Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY
Updated Report
farther from 1-90 than what is proposed with a tight diamond configuration. This would allow WSDOT to
convert a single -lane roundabout at this location to a two-lane roundabout in the future when the Barker
Road Bridge over 1-90 is replaced without necessitating lowering the elevation of the 1-90 travel lanes in
order to achieve the required clearance under the bridge.
Figure 8. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection — revised Interim Concept
Source: WSDOT
v8 2/7/20
A summary of the key findings of this traffic analysis are presented below:
• A single lane roundabout will operate acceptably at Barker/I-90 Interchange in 2020 with:
o A 2nd southbound approach lane at the westbound ramp — This can be implemented
through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW.
o A 2nd eastbound approach lane at the eastbound ramp
• The eastbound ramp intersection will drop below LOS D sometime between 2023 and 2028
o Main constraint: sometime between 2023 and 2028 the northbound traffic demand
across the bridge will exceed the physical capacity of the bridge (1,000-1,100 vph)
• Regardless of the configuration (either what is shown in Figure 7 or Figure 8) westbound ramp
will operate at an acceptable LOS by 2028 because the eastbound roundabout will effectively
"meter" northbound traffic so that there will be gaps for the heavy southbound traffic to enter
Figure 9 summarizes the LOS results based on SimTraffic. It should also be noted that Sidra analysis was
also performed for both intersections in years 2020, 2023 and 2028 with results showing that the v/c ratio
would exceed the 0.85-0.9 threshold for both intersections sometime between 2023 and 2028, with the
eastbound ramp failing sooner. However, unlike the Sidra results, SimTraffic showed that the eastbound
ramp intersection would effectively "meter" traffic entering the westbound ramp intersection resulting
in acceptable LOS at that intersection through 2028.
City of Spokane Valley 14 'Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY
Updated Report
v8 2/7/20
Figure 9. Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the "hook ramp" concept at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp
Intersection Control
Barker/Boone
Side -Street Stop
66
E
30
D
Barker/Cataldo/I-90 westbound ramp Roundabout
40 D 17 B
Barker/I-90 eastbound ramp
Roundabout
84 F 88 F
Barker/Broadway
Side -Street Stop 107 F 218 F
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
The results of this analysis demonstrate that the interim solution (modified with a second approach lane
at one leg of each intersection and revised to maintain the existing location "hook ramp" configuration at
Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue/I-90 westbound ramp intersection) for the Barker Road/I-90 interchange
would last about 5-10 years before falling below WSDOT LOS standards. Given this, it is recommended
that the City of Spokane Valley work with WSDOTto secure funding within 5-10 years to replace the Barker
Road Bridge over 1-90 with a four -lane bridge.
2040 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
Traffic analysis of the Barker Corridor intersections was performed with the assumption that several
already planned transportation projects would be implemented. This includes:
• Barker Road from Mission Avenue to Appleway would be widened to five lanes (through a
combination of several projects).
• The Barker Road/I-90 interchange would be reconfigured into two-lane roundabouts at each
ramp intersection similar to the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, with some
modifications (as described below), including adding Boone Avenue into the westbound ramp
roundabout and preserving the existing hook ramp configuration for the westbound ramp.
• The east leg of Broadway would be realigned with the west leg of Broadway at Barker Road.
These changes would effectively consolidate the Barker Road/Boone Avenue intersection with the Barker
Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection and consolidate the two Broadway intersections
into one. Consolidation of these intersection means under 2040 conditions there would be eight study
intersections instead of ten. Traffic volumes and lane configurations assumed in 2040 at each of the study
intersections are shown in Figure 10.
City of Spokane Valley 15 1 Page
E Minion Ave
acres
Irk
ACRES EaAq
E ASi Art
Greenscres
Sh Center
0ypM1q
E ayplor°y pas
Sprague Ave
g 5
ear Ave a
IIIIIEMiaslon Ave
z 2
m
C AIA%wrll Ave t
ECM(' Ay*
Y endy's 9
EWma4va ECocna Ave
Lone Wolf Q
Harley-Davidson
Er
Hub Sports Center
Freedom
Allsport Polaris
Honda Yamaha Indian_.
E Brosnan Avq E
E Mk: Ave
c = E 'o1 ay A o
E Cawley A. I,
41
a
OE tIh AvC
QE eth Ave
N Q
GoogI
0 u
Ea:t {117g4710e Ave
Sprague Ave
t11.n Ave
EMaln Ave
1. Barker/Mission
2. Barker/WB 1-90 On/Off-Ramp
3. Barker/EB 1-90 On/Off Ramp
W 8
o v . 145 (135)
510 (445)
vlL 0-70(55)
,ao(ao)
v— 100 (175)
320 (225)
A4 NMSe
0 i*
7 (�o/ �r�+
1gy
��e°i9
,� lye
plA�ol
410Sl
bz(
L.
oy°\o e"
cil 0 (0)
a. 40 (8pJ
Isor)
r1i 1' -..
r I
_
f.
g�P
N 4m
o'
i+r
hw,m
,e oItr
ss
m
lNm
285
295
(595)
0(0) —Ths-
(810)
o
m
4. Barker/Broadway
5. Barker/Appleway
6. Barker/Sprague
Bm.a++y
N �m m N -�
m ro v
�� L
40 (55)
'ice 0 (0)
5 (10)
-� N
of $
..)14
l.,
0 (0)
140 (180)
375 (80) --yam
55 (80)
4,115 (115)
+- 625 (690)
'r 65 (150)
IT(
�00
..2....
En
N
C
•
0 N A
NN 25(40)
200 (525)
• 4, 145 (175)
•
205 ow)
4— 70 (65)
20 (50)
60 (75)
0 (0)�
15 (5)
•
III}}
o O1 ✓
g
m
T •
oOiri
c v 1
2�n
7. Barker/4thyy
8. Barker/8th
3
�.. gymo ry
PNN
.
15 (15)
5(5)
em
O N
n^� 10 (50)
4-- 165 (520)
•v 1 v 20 (55)
•
40 (40)
4—
em
25 (25)
5 (5) -4
5(5)
.m
t
Egg
N
'Tr
rM�
V
N V
Figure 10.2040 Conditions
Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations
South Barker Corridor Study
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Configuration
A conceptual layout in 2040 of the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 11
and a conceptual layout of the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 12. The
configuration of the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection would be largely the same as the
Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, including a roundabout with two circulating lanes and two
eastbound approach lanes on the 1-90 off -ramp.
However, the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection was modified from the Barker Road IJR
preferred alternative in order to preserve the "hook ramp" configuration at the same location as today,
with Cataldo Avenue on the east leg. Reasons for this change were to satisfy City of Spokane Valley and
WSDOT's desire to shift the interim solution to a location that better accommodates long-term
reconstruction of the interchange, as well as City of Spokane Valley's desire to find a solution with the
least impact to private property. Converting the 1-90 westbound ramp to a diamond interchange would
have either required Cataldo Avenue to be rerouted through private property to Boone Avenue or the
Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp intersection to be moved closer to 1-90. The original IJR preferred
alternative would also have necessitated lowering 1-90 in order to achieve adequate clearance under the
Barker Road Bridge. Preserving the hook ramp negates both of these potential issues. While the bridge
will still need to be replaced to achieve adequate clearance, the proposed configuration would allow
sufficient approach length to achieve adequate clearance without the need of lowering 1-90.
In addition, the east and west leg of Boone Avenue was added to the westbound ramp roundabout in
order to preserve full movement on Boone Avenue and reduce the potential impacts of loss of access or
additional ROW needed to provide access near the existing Boone Avenue intersection. These
modifications result in a roundabout with six legs. Without this configuration Boone Avenue would be
too close to the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp roundabout to safely operate with full movements. It
should be noted that the concepts shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 are schematic in nature and the
exact diameter of a future roundabout would need to be determined through a more detailed
engineering study. The assumed length of the roundabout diameter does not affect the Sidra outputs.
City of Spokane Valley 17 I P a g e
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept (same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative)
1"
Sao ®mi too
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative)
1N
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
City of Spokane Valley
181 Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY
Updated Report
v8 2/7/20
Intersection Level of Service Findings
The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) findings at the eight study area intersections are
summarized in Figure 13. The I-90 intersections were analyzed using Sidra. The more relevant measure of
effectiveness for these intersections per WSDOT policy is v/c ratio, which is shown in Figure 14. All other
intersections were analyzed using Synchro.
Figure 13. 2040 conditions level of service and delay.
Intersection
Control
AM Peak
PM Peak
Software (all
HCM 2010)
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Barker/Mission
Signal
20
B
25
C
Synchro
Barker/I-90 WB
Ramp/Cataldo/Boone
Roundabout
17
B
13
B
Sidra
Barker/I-90 EB Ramp
Roundabout
9
A
12
B
Sidra
Barker/Broadway
Side -Street Stop
71 (EB)
F
>300 (EB)
F
Synchro
Barker/Appleway
Signal
30
C
46
D
Synchro
Barker/Sprague
All -Way Stop
132 (NB)
F
>300 (SB)
F
Synchro
Barker/4th
Side -Street Stop
22
C
33
D
Synchro
Barker/8th
Side -Street Stop
17
C
33
D
Synchro
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
Figure 14. Volume -to -capacity ratio in 2040 for Barker Road/I-90 interchange roundabouts.
AM Peak
Intersection
PM Peak
Software (all
HCM 2010)
Barker/I-90 WB
Ramp/Cataldo/Boone
Roundabout
0.69
240 ft.
(SB)
0.54
110 ft.
(NB)
Sidra
Barker/I-90 EB Ramp
Roundabout
0.47
90 ft.
(NB)
0.70
150 ft.
(NB)
Sidra
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
Results presented in Figure 14 show that under existing 2040 conditions, the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound
ramp intersection and the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue/Boone Avenue intersection
as laid out in Figure 11and Figure 12, respectively, would operate acceptably. The v/c ratio would be meet
the WSDOT threshold of 0.85-0.90 for both intersection in both the AM and PM peak hour.
Results presented in Figure 13 show that the Barker Road/Sprague intersection (which had poor LOS under
existing conditions) would operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hour without improvements.
City of Spokane Valley
19'Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
Additionally, the Barker Road/Broadway intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak
hour and would meet the peak hour signal warrant in the PM peak hour, thus failing the City of Spokane
LOS threshold in 2040. Analysis shows that the Barker Road/4th Avenue and Barker Road/8th Avenue
intersection will with acceptable LOS through 2040 under the existing configurations with side street stop
control. These intersections would also operate acceptably with a signal or roundabout although the
forecasts do not indicate that either intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant in 2040.
Mitigation Measures
• Barker Road/Sprague Avenue - Traffic operations at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue
intersection were analyzed in Sidra assuming a single -lane roundabout concept and in Synchro
assuming a traffic signal with left turn lanes and protected left -turn signal timing for all
approaches. Results, shown in Figure 15, demonstrate that a single -lane roundabout or a traffic
signal with protected left -turn lanes would result in acceptable traffic operations at this
intersection in 2040. Figure 16 summarizes the pros and cons of implementing a traffic signal as
compared to a roundabout at this intersection. The primary differences in a traffic signal versus a
roundabout relate to traffic safety, cost, right-of-way impact, impervious surface and landscaping
opportunities. While this study recommends a roundabout at this intersection primarily due to
the safety benefits, the City will undertake a separate and more detailed design study as part of
implementation to determine the ultimate future intersection configuration.
Figure 15. Volume -to -capacity ratio, LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations.
PM Peak
Intersection Control Software
.. �. r►c v/c LOS Delay
Barker/Sprague
Roundabout
0.52
A
Delay
0.59
A
Sidra
Barker/Sprague
Signal
34
36
Synchro
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
City of Spokane Valley 20 'Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY
Updated Report
v8 2/7/20
Figure 16. Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection.
Factors
Roundabout versus Traffic Signal
Traffic Safety
The primary benefit of a roundabout over a traffic signal is
related to traffic safety. Research provided by WSDOT shows
that on average single -lane roundabouts result in 75% fewer
injury crashes and 90% fewer fatalities than signalized
intersections. Roundabouts mitigate the risk of moderate -to -
high -speed broadside crashes commonly caused by a driver
running the red light at a traffic signal.
Capital Cost
On average the capital cost of constructing a roundabout is
higher than the capital cost of constructing a signalized
intersection, but this can vary from location to location.
Operations &
Maintenance Cost
Long-term operations and maintenance costs associated with a
roundabout are typically lower than those associated with a
traffic signal (about $5,000 to $10,000 per year based on COSV
research), often enough to offset the higher capital cost of a
roundabout over the life of the project.
Right -Of -Way Impact
On average, the right-of-way (ROW) impact of a roundabout
can be greater than a traffic signal, but varies depending on the
location and number of turn lanes. At the Barker/Sprague
location the area of ROW impact would be similar with a
roundabout or a signal and neither would impact existing
structures.
Impervious Surface
A roundabout could result in more impervious surface than a
traffic signal depending on whether the center island is
landscaped or hardscaped.
Art & Landscape
Opportunities
Roundabouts typically have more opportunity for landscaping
or art (primarily because of the center island) than traffic
signals.
Noise & Air Pollution
Roundabouts typically result in less air pollution and noise than
a traffic signal due to less idling and fewer hard accelerations.
• Barker Road/Broadway — Additionally, a two-lane roundabout at the Barker Road/Broadway
intersection would result in acceptable operations in year 2040. A traffic signal is not advised at
this location due to the proximity of this intersection to the planned roundabout at the Barker
Road/I-90 eastbound ramp and the potential for queue spillback onto the 1-90 roundabout. An
acceptable alternative to a roundabout would be to convert this intersection to right-in/right-
out/left-in only configuration. However, this type of intersection configuration would result in
some degree of inconvenience for drivers trying to make a left -turn from either leg of Broadway
to Barker Road as they would have go out of direction to make that movement. If there is
substantial commercial development along the Broadway corridor in the future, the lack of left -
out movement could be a major impact to the viability of retail businesses. However, if the
Broadway corridor has similar land uses as today (or other lower trip generating uses like offices
or apartments), the lack of outbound left -turns would be less of an impact.
City of Spokane Valley
211 Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
Diverging Roundabout Concept
Given the high volume of northbound left turns from Barker Road onto I-90 westbound (700 in the AM
peak), WSDOT suggested that a "diverging roundabout" concept be tested to see if the interchange could
operate effectively with single -lane roundabouts. A diverging roundabout is a diverging diamond
interchange with roundabouts instead of signalized "crossover" intersections —see an example in Figure
17. The advantage of this concept is it eliminates all turning vehicle conflicts. The only point of conflict is
where through traffic must cross over to the other side of the road. A diverging diamond interchange
works best in situations where there are high volumes of vehicles turning off or onto the highway and not
a lot of through movement on the road crossing the highway.
Figure 17. Diverging roundabout concept.
Image source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSTv2_JPME
Sidra software was used to test the diverging roundabout concept in 2040 with one circulating lane at
both the eastbound and westbound 1-90 ramp intersections with Barker Road. Results are shown in Figure
15 and illustrate this configuration would meet WSDOT standards during three of the four conditions
tested. This configuration would result in unacceptable operations at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound
ramp in the PM peak hour due to the high volume of northbound and southbound through movements.
The primary other disadvantage of this configuration is it would require a diamond interchange, which
means the hook ramp would have to be removed and Cataldo Avenue would have to be rerouted to Boone
Avenue. It should be noted, however, that a diverging roundabout interchange would likely meet WSDOT
LOS standards if the roundabouts were dual -lane and there was a four -lane bridge over 1-90 (although this
configuration was not specifically analyzed).
Figure 18. 2040 volume -to -capacity ratio and 95% queue with a single -lane diverging roundabout.
AM Peak
v/c 95% Q
Barker/I-90 WB
Roundabout
0.49
80 feet
0.93
590 feet
Sidra
Barker/I-90 EB
Roundabout
0.65
120 feet
0.52
110 feet
Sidra
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
City of Spokane Valley
22'Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
2040 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended transportation improvements for the Barker Road corridor are organized by two distinct
segments of the corridor, the section between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue and the section
between Appleway Avenue and the south City limits.
Mission Avenue to Appleway Avenue
The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan identifies a five -lane urban section for Barker Road between
Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue. The segment between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue is also identified
in the Spokane Valley six -year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as a five -lane arterial. Furthermore
the segment between Mission Avenue and 1-90 is identified in the in the Northeast Industrial Area Planned
Action Ordinance (PAO), which is in the process of being adopted as a supplement to the Spokane
Comprehensive Plan EIS. WSDOT has allocated funding in 2019 and 2020 for implementing an interim
improvement to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange until a longer -term solution can be implemented as
identified in the SRTC Horizon 2040 Plan and I-90/Barker Road IJR. Based on these previously planned
projects and findings of the traffic operations analysis presented in the previous section of this report, the
following projects are recommended for Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue.
• Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Improvements — It is recommended that WSDOT convert
the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to single -lane
roundabouts as an interim measure to improve traffic operations and safety until funding for a
longer -term solution can be secured. Roundabouts would be implemented at the same locations
as the ramp terminal intersections are located today. As part of this project, a second southbound
approach lane should be added on Barker Road at the westbound ramp. This can be implemented
through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. Additionally, a second
eastbound approach lane should be added to the eastbound 1-90 off -ramp. WSDOT will also
realign the east leg of Broadway to match the location of the existing west leg. Traffic analysis
shows that this solution will operate effectively for about 5-10 years. Thus, it is recommended
that WSDOT and City of Spokane Valley work to secure funding for a longer -term solution within
the next 5 to 10 years.
• Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Long -Term Improvements — It is recommended that WSDOT
convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to two-lane
roundabouts as a longer -term solution to improve traffic operations through 2040. Consistent
with recommendations from the 2014 IJR, this would include two eastbound approach lanes at
the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection and an expansion of the roundabout to include
two circulating lanes. However, unlike the 2014 IJR, it is recommended that westbound hook ramp
be preserved and the roundabout at the westbound ramp be implemented as a six -leg
intersection with Cataldo and Boone Avenue (this would also require that the interim roundabout
be widened to include two circulating lanes). This project would include replacement of the Barker
Road Bridge over 1-90 with a four -lane bridge including a multiuse trail or sidewalk on both sides
to wide enough to allow for safe circulation of bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Barker Road — Mission Avenue to Boone Avenue Widening — It is recommended that Spokane
Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five -lane urban section. This project has been
identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Industrial Area PAO. It is
recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as (or shortly after) the long
term improvements are made to the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange.
City of Spokane Valley 23 I P a g e
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vs 2/7/20
Updated Report
• Barker Road —1-90toAppleway Avenue Widening - It is recommended that Spokane Valley widen
this segment of Barker Road to a five -lane urban section. This project is identified in the 2019-
2024 TIP. It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as the long term
improvements are made to the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange. Given that traffic analysis also
shows the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will need improvement by 2040, it is also
recommended that either a two-lane roundabout at Barker Road/Broadway be implemented as
part of this project or the intersection be converted to prevent left -out movements. A roundabout
at Broadway was included in the TIP.
Appleway Avenue to South City Limits
As identified in the traffic operations analysis, the South Barker corridor will operate acceptably in 2040
with either single -lane roundabouts or traffic signals at the major intersections (Sprague Ave, 4th Ave, 8th
Ave).4 The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and TIP identify a three -lane urban roadway section
between Appleway and the southern city limit. This roadway would consist of one travel lane in each
direction, a two-way left -turn lane, a sidewalk, and the existing multi -use trail.
Traffic signal control at the major intersections is entirely consistent with the three -lane cross section,
since left -turn lanes approaching the intersections would be required. This configuration is very common
in Spokane Valley. However, single -lane roundabouts do not require a turn -lane at the major intersections
and this configuration could be pursued with a narrower cross-section with just two travel lanes in each
direction. While it is true that traffic signals (with widening at the major intersections) could also be
accommodated with a two-lane segment, this configuration is less common in the Valley (existing two-
lane roads with traffic signals often do not have turn lanes at major intersections, which reduces the
capacity of the street).
Based on this finding, Spokane Valley may wish to consider a two-lane cross section for all or a portion of
the South Barker Road corridor. Figure 19 illustrates a few pros and cons of the three -lane versus two-
lane configuration. For purposes of this study, the cost estimates assume the full three -lane buildout to
capture the higher potential cost, which would lead to a cost savings if the two-lane design is ultimately
selected.
4 Note that in the near -term (next 5-6 years), only the intersection at Barker Rd/Sprague Ave will likely warrant a
traffic signal or roundabout to address poor traffic LOS. However, as development increases in the future it is not
unlikely that the intersections at 4th Ave and 8th Ave will eventually need to be upgraded from their current side -
street stop control. As of now, it does not appear that these intersections will require upgrades prior to 2040, but
that could change if a larger use (e.g., apartment, church) is permitted along one of these streets.
City of Spokane Valley 24 l P a g e
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY
Updated Report
Figure 19. Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three -lane configuration south of Appleway.
v8 2/7/20
Option
Pros
Cons
Two-lane
configuration
• 33 percent less paved area; results in
lower up -front costs and lower long-
term maintenance costs
• Less impervious surface reduces
stormwater conveyance and
treatment costs
• More space within the right-of-way
for wider sidewalks or landscaped
area
• No mid -block left -turn lane; may
require a median to prohibit left -
turns at larger developments or a
short widened section to
accommodate a turn lane
• Retrofitting a turn lane could be
costly if a parcel is rezoned at a
later date for a more intensive
use
Three -lane
configuration
• Once this configuration is in place,
there is no need to retrofit the road
to accommodate left -turns at larger
developments
• Better accommodates more trip -
intensive land uses like multifamily
residential
• Higher cost to build and maintain
• More impervious surface and
water runoff
• Less opportunity for landscaping
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
Given these pros and cons, along with the potential for rezoning of the land north of Sprague Avenue to
more dense residential, the following projects are recommended:
• Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements — Implement a single -lane roundabout
at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection to improve traffic operations and safety. This project
should be prioritized for this segment and can be implemented prior to making corridor -wide
improvements. A roundabout is recommended over a traffic signal at this intersection because
roundabouts tend to have lower numbers of serious traffic collisions and they cost less to maintain
in the long -run compared to traffic signals. In addition, with all the other roundabouts being built
by WSDOT farther north on the corridor, roundabouts will be a common and consistent traffic
control device on Barker Road.
• Barker Road —Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue Widening — Implement a three -lane cross
section between Appleway and Sprague Avenue; consider extending the existing northbound
right -turn lane at Appleway approximately 200 feet south to La berry Drive and converting this to
a northbound through -right lane when Barker Road is widened north of Appleway.
• Barker Road —Sprague Avenue to South City Limits Improvements — Implement a two-lane cross
section south of Sprague Avenue. In the design, set the multi -use trail and sidewalk in a position
that could ultimately accommodate a three -lane cross section. Build two lanes of a potential
three -lane configuration where one side of the street will have a final curb and gutter and the
other side of the street will have a shoulder and swale for drainage. In this way, the street can
more -easily be widened if it is ever necessary to accommodate a mid -block turn lane, but most of
the corridor will benefit from the narrower cross-section. Given the current single-family zoning
and the generally smaller parcels south of Sprague, it seems that this area is less likely to see
pressure for rezoning and the two-lane cross section will operate well in the future.
• 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue Intersection Improvements - Phase the construction of Barker Road
to include single -lane roundabouts at 4t' Avenue and 8th Avenue along with the two-lane
configuration.
City of Spokane Valley 25 'Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY
Updated Report
v8 2/7/20
IMPLEMENTATION
The recommended transportation improvements can be summarized into a total of eight projects along
the South Barker Road Corridor. A list of these projects, along with a brief description, timeframe for
implementation, and estimated cost in 2018 dollars for the portion Spokane Valley would be responsible
for are shown in Figure 20. Reference to the program and project number from previous plans, documents
or the City's TIP is also identified.
Figure 20. South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040.
COSV
Program y
Project Description (Project #) Responsiblec Cost Estimate'
(2018 $$)
IMMEDIATE (2019.2020)
1-90 Eastbound Ramp/
Barker Road
Interchange Interim
Improvements
Reconstruct intersection with
single -lane roundabout and two
eastbound approach lanes;
realign east leg of Broadway
Horizon 2040
Plan (#12)
WSDOT
N/A
190 Westbound Ramp/
Barker Road
Interchange Interim
Improvements
Reconstruct intersection with
single -lane roundabout and two
southbound approach lanes;
convert Barker/Boone to right-
in/right-out
Horizon 2040
Plan (#12)
WSDOT
N/A
NEAR TERM (2021-2024)
Sprague/Barker
Intersection
Improvements
Reconstruct intersection with
single -lane roundabout
2019-2024
TIP (#15)
COSV
$1,517,000
MID TERM (2025-2030)
I-90/Barker Road
Interchange Long -Term
Improvements
Replace Barker Road Bridge
and widen to 4-lanes from
Boone Avenue to Broadway;
reconstruct both intersections
to 2-lane roundabout;
reconstruct Barker/I-90
westbound ramp intersection to
six -leg roundabout with Boone
Avenue
Horizon 2040
Plan (#12)
WSDOT
Not anticipated at
this time
Barker Road
Improvement Project —
Appleway to 1.90
Widen and improve to 5-lane
urban section; roundabout @
Broadway
2019-2024
TIP (#22)
COSV
$6,477,000
Barker Road
Improvement Project —
Mission to 1-90
Widen and improve to 5-lane
urban section
NE Industrial
Area PAO
(Phase 2)
COSV
$2,950,000
LONG TERM (2031-2040)
Barker Road
Improvement Project —
Appleway to South City
Limits
Reconstruct and widen north of
Sprague to 3-lane urban
section, and south of Sprague
to 2-lane urban section.
2019-2024
TIP (#20)
COSV
$2,854,000
4th Avenue/Barker & 8th
Avenue/Barker
Intersection
Improvements
Reconstruct 41h Avenue and 8th
Avenue intersections with
single -lane roundabouts
2019 2024
TIP (#21)
COSV
$3,000,000
1. Costs do not include WSDOT's portion
City of Spokane Valley
26IPage
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20
Updated Report
Source: Fehr & Peers; City of Spokane Valley. Cost estimates are primarily derived from the City of Spokane
Valley 2019-2024 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Exceptions include the cost of the
Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90, which is derived from the estimate provided in the
Northeast Industrial Area PAO and adjusted for 2018 dollars and the 4' Avenue/Barker & 8th
Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements, which assume a cost of $1.5 million per intersection
comparable to the cost estimate for the Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements.
Projects are divided into four distinct timeframes: immediate (by 2020), near -term (3-6 years), mid-term
(by 2030) and Tong -term (2040). The timing of implementation is based on a combination of traffic analysis
findings of when the project is needed to meet LOS criteria, time for project development and anticipated
availability of funding.
Fair Share Analysis and Potential Funding
In order to offset the costs of the future infrastructure projects that will be needed to achieve acceptable
multimodal operations in the Barker Road Corridor, one option would be for Spokane Valley to collect
traffic impact mitigation fees based on a fair -share analysis. Fees could be collected from developments
in Spokane Valley around the Barker Road corridor, as well as from neighboring jurisdictions, including
Liberty Lake and Spokane County where development is expected to generate traffic that will utilize the
corridor, generate/exacerbate traffic impacts, and benefit from the future roadway widening projects.
The fair -share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic each jurisdiction is expected to
contribute in 2040 to locations in the Barker Road corridor where future transportation improvement
projects were identified.
The same regional travel demand model used to forecast 2040 traffic was used to estimate the percent
of traffic through various segments of Barker Road generated by a portion of each jurisdiction. This was
done by using a tool in the model called a "select zone analysis." The select zone analysis was set to
identify the traffic generated by the area in each jurisdiction where development is expected to have the
greatest traffic impact on the South Barker Road corridor and thus where a development fee could be
reasonably assessed. This includes the portion of Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River and east of
Flora Road, the area of unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley
City limits and the City of Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road as shown in Figure 21. Please note that the
Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) was excluded from this analysis as the City is
already utilizing a Planned Action Ordinance to assess fair -share fees for projects on Barker Road north of
1-90.
City of Spokane Valley 27 1 P a g e
c
J
T / -`�
eX my m
mac' v�' � ` -o - RR/V
M 2 �• E Wellesley Ave d}UR'. z l rff
p Z }mf- o I pntana� --DI
c 1
Man IIz_m �-a Kaiser
/� o
a "9° °�'°'Z a W - °, S Barker Corridor _ ;
mMillwOPVeM iratieaue� Z Z�, E EuclidjAve zSE
1,..----
r d� ' �1-E Indiana'
° m a ' dIndia•ri a Z <_:
' tel: • 325 3271' Lake" 448 a'"
. tom-K}— r o ■ i ,ci �_ z I ,,, _ II' —No P<�
a��CC
1 > �,9p �p FI
o w *0— h =�t- z_— JT z 388 326 28 I 447 lI
a
ii m-LL tt
d� F Z zL mLrn °o� g- � t _ 0 z I °U�try Vista
ez 5 �` _�� °'LQ ,— >< "Sokane- r I 1 ra i 334 ��°� 442
:_ 'Ave1��1Z z- `� —I. zC I I I 1 Valley = m I - o711 !- 91' r'
..ii -. - I � I I i r i l l i Sprague Av I Z o. �-
C� ;� .�� l a I IE 4th Aye o T To- - E Co 36 •, I
�L,Sprague Aye _
Abandoned -RR, `k3i IT} ach Dr i92 _ 11
L.oa-E'.8thcAve 'i y
E"6th Ave
.s N • N „cm,
{f EF12th`Ave 389 i ,
1-4;�.b:f.)\�N m" 5L-0 . II' r�, r E..1116t1 A,,e
a) efi.
o \ �� `n'-z o� �aa�> ET �,-'-EEt 4th Ave ipen� t 390
�= .-r—!_. -ram �a ',r� - ''.
S' ". �. �� i 0� -rf .03 i E,32nd Ave tt
rA L' coo
E`44th Oe.
-0 7,41 i
South Barker Road Travel Shed
Transportation Analysis Zones by Jurisdiction
( ) Spokane Valley TAZs
[1 Liberty Lake TAZs
1
N
5)
1 N'
Spokane County TAZs <.
12 I ,� \ 11 P , �a
0
0)
fP
prague Av
E- 3rd Ave
Sprague Av
Figure 21
Transportation analysis zones by juristiction included in the fair -share cost analysis.
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
To complete this analysis, the corridor was divided into three segments: north of 1-90, between 1-90 and
Appleway Avenue, and south of Appleway Avenue. The results of the fair share analysis are shown Figure
22. As an example, Figure 22 shows that by 2040 about 18% of traffic on Barker Road north of 1-90 will be
generated by Liberty Lake and 4% will be generated by unincorporated Spokane County immediately
south and east of Spokane Valley. South of Appleway Avenue, only about 2% of traffic on Barker Road will
be generated by Liberty Lake and 35% will be generated by development in unincorporated Spokane
County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley city limits.
It should be noted that the percentages represent the percent of trip ends, since all trips have two ends.
The select link analysis provides the origins and destinations by TAZ of all the PM peak hour trips traveling
in each direction of Barker Road. Since each trip has both an origin and destination, half of the trip was
assigned to the origin and half of the trip was assigned to the destination. For example, in the case of a
trip that begins in Spokane Valley and ends in Liberty Lake half of that trip would be assigned to Spokane
Valley and half to Liberty Lake, since both locations generated one end of the trip. Trips in the "other"
category include traffic that has at least one trip end outside the TAZs included in the travel shed (see
Figure 21). These include trips passing through the area or trips that have one end in the travel shed and
one end outside of the travel shed (e.g., a trip between southeast Spokane Valley and downtown
Spokane). Spokane Valley will need to use non -mitigation fee funding (grants, general funds) to cover the
cost of the "other" trips since they cannot be levied on developers in the study area.
Figure 22. Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction.
Segment of Barker Road,
Southeast
Spokane Liberty Spokane
Valley Lake County Other Total
North of I-90
26%
18%
4%
52%
100%
1-90 to Appleway Avenue
19%
16%
17%
48%
100%
South of Appleway Avenue
18%
2%
35%
45%
100%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
To estimate the fair share transportation impact mitigation fee for new development in each of the
jurisdictions, the cost of each project is multiplied by the percent of traffic from that jurisdiction that is
forecast to use the infrastructure. Given the relatively low volume of traffic generated by unincorporated
Spokane County north of 1-90 and the relatively low volume of traffic generated by Liberty Lake south of
Appleway Avenue it is recommended to exclude those jurisdictions from contributing to the cost of
projects in those respective segments. It is recommended that new development in Liberty Lake be
assessed a fair -share fee of 18% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Mission
Avenue and Boone Avenue and 16% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90
and Appleway Avenue. Similarly, it is recommended that new development in Spokane County within the
south Barker Corridor travel shed (see Figure 21) be assessed a fair -share fee of 17% of the capital cost of
infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue and a fair share fee of 35% of the
capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Appleway Avenue and the south city limits.
In addition to determining which jurisdictions use the new infrastructure, a fair share transportation
impact mitigation fee must consider "existing deficiencies." Impact fee case law clearly states that new
developments cannot be charged to fix existing deficiencies to the transportation system. Based on the
LOS analysis above, there are existing deficiencies at the 1-90 ramp intersections. Since WSDOT is funding
City of Spokane Valley 29 'Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
the bulk of the interim improvements at the Barker Road interchange, there is no need to take a credit at
that location.
When the percentages in Figure 22 are applied to the cost of the projects listed in Figure 20, the fair share
cost that can be applied to new development in each jurisdiction is listed in Figure 23. The total fair share
cost is estimated at about $1.57 million to Liberty Lake and $3.57 million to Spokane County. It should be
noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested
developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road. The agreement totals $116,411,
which was subtracted from the fair -share cost (specifically the Barker Road Improvement Project —
Appleway to South City Limits).
Figure 23. Fair -share cost by jurisdiction and project.
Segment of Barker Road
Total Project
Cost
Spokane
Valley
Liberty Lake
Spokane
County
1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road
Interchange Interim Improvements
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1-90 Westbound Ramp/
Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements
$1,517,000
$273,000
$0
$531,000
I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term
Improvements
Not anticipated at
this time
N/A
N/A
N/A
Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway
to 1-90
$6,477,000
$1,230,000
$1,036,000
$1,101,000
Barker Road Improvement Project— Mission to
1-90
$2,950,000
$767,000
$531,000
$0
Barker Road Improvement Project— Appleway
to South City Limits
$2,854,000
$514,000
$0
$999,000 minus
$116,411
4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker
Intersection Improvements
$3,000,000
$540,000
$0
$1,050,000
Total
$16,798,000
$3,324,000
$1,567,000
$3,565,000*
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
*Total was reduced by $116,411 to account for the existing mitigation fee agreement between Spokane
Valley and Spokane County for several vested developments in Spokane County.
Typically, costs to mitigate transportation infrastructure impacts are allocated based on PM peak hour
traffic generation. Using PM peak hour trips is typical, since it is the PM peak hour that typically has the
most -congested traffic and trips are a way to distribute costs in a way that is proportionate to the total
impact generated. In other words, larger developments that generate more trips pay proportionately
more than smaller developments that generate fewer trips.
To develop a per -trip fee, it necessary to estimate PM peak hour traffic that will be generated by new
development in the area that will use the South Barker Road Corridor. This includes portions of Spokane
Valley and unincorporated Spokane County with the Barker Road Corridor travel shed and Liberty Lake
east of Harvard Road (see Figure 21). Based on the 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand model, it was
found that about 5,033 new PM peak hour trips will be generated by new development in this area
between 2015 and 2040. This includes 2,212 new PM peak hour trips generated by Spokane Valley, 1,888
new PM peak hour trips generated by Liberty Lake and 933 new PM peak hour trips generated by
unincorporated Spokane County. To estimate a cost per PM peak hour trip, one would divide the total
City of Spokane Valley 30 I P a g e
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
eligible costs of Barker Road projects (project costs minus existing deficiencies) by the new PM peak hour
trips forecast to be generated in the study area.
As an example, Figure 24 illustrates the cost of each capital improvement project recommended on the
South Barker Road Corridor through 2040, along with the portion of the cost attributed to Spokane Valley
traffic and the corresponding cost per new PM peak hour trip generated by development east of Flora
Road and south of the Spokane River. The total cost of all projects (excluding WSDOT's portion) is about
$16.8 million. Using the fair -share estimate, about $3.3 million would be attributed to traffic generated
by Southeast Spokane Valley. When the fair share cost is divided by the number of new PM peak hour
trips expected from development in Southeast Spokane Valley between 2015 and 2040, the total cost per
PM peak hour trip would be $1,503.
Figure 24. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) in Spokane Valley
Project
COSV
Cost Estimate1
(2018 $$)
Percent
Attributed
to COSV
Portion
Attributed
to COSV
New PM Peak
Hour Trips
from Nearby
COSV
Development
Cost per
PM Peak
Hour Trip
1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road
Interchange Interim Improvements
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,212
N/A
1-90 Westbound Ramp/
Barker Road Interchange Interim
Improvements
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,212
N/A
Sprague/Barker Intersection
Improvements
$1,517,000
18%
$273,000
2,212
$123
I-901Barker Road Interchange Long-
Term Improvements
Not anticipated at
this time
N/A
N/A
2,212
N/A
Barker Road Improvement Project—
Appleway to 1-90
$6,477,000
19%
$1,230,000
2,212
$556
Barker Road Improvement Project —
Mission to 1-90
$2,950,000
26%
$767,000
2,212
$347
Barker Road Improvement Project —
Appleway to South City Limits
$2,854,000
18%
$514,000
2,212
$232
4th Avenue/Barker & 8th
Avenue/Barker Intersection
Improvements
$3,000,000
18%
$540,000
2,212
$244
Total
$16,798,000
-
$3,324,000
2,212
$1,503
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
Applying this same methodology to the other jurisdictions results in a total cost per new PM peak hour
trip of $830 for Liberty Lake and $3,821 for the area of unincorporated Spokane County within the South
Barker Road travel shed as shown in Figure 25. These fees represent potential fair -share costs that could
be levied on new development to help finance projects on the South Barker Corridor.
City of Spokane Valley
311 Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY
Updated Report
Figure 25. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) by jurisdiction.
Segment of Barker Road
Southeast
Spokane
Valley
Liberty
Lake
Spokane
County
North of 1-90
$347
$281
$0
1-90 to Appleway Avenue
$556
$549
$1,180
South of Appleway Avenue
$600
$0
$ 2, 640
Total
$1,503
$830
$3,821
v8 2/7/20
Vested Trips
According to data provided by Liberty Lake and Spokane County, a significant number of dwelling units
forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In the three TAZs in Liberty Lake
west of Harvard Road, about 1,490 of the 1,929 total new dwelling units forecast to be added between
2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In addition, a number of properties in Liberty Lake have already
been vested for commercial development (about 397,853 sq. ft. across the City). While there is no
mechanism to charge a mitigation fee to existing or vested trips, the number of vested trips does not
detract from the fact that Barker Road is not expected to meet the City of Spokane Valley LOS standard by
2040, nor does it detract that development and growth in Liberty Lake and Spokane County contributes
substantially to the traffic and congestion on Barker Road. One could recalculate a new impact fee that
specifically accounts for the vested trips. However, the resulting impact fee for the unvested trips would
be higher than what was calculated in this Study. This is because the total costs for the capacity expansion
would be the same, but there would be fewer growth trips to spread the cost of necessary transportation
improvements across. Based on a rough calculation, it's estimated the cost per PM peak hour trip for
unvested growth in Liberty Lake to be approximately $1,200 to $1,300 or about 50% higher than the PM
peak hour fee of $830 when vested trips are included. Therefore, Spokane Valley is suggesting that any
unvested trips be assessed the fee calculated in this study as its proportionate fair -share fee. This keeps
these trips from being additionally cost -burdened because of the inability to capture the costs of the vested
trips.
It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of
vested developments to pay a mitigation fe.e for improvements on Barker Road. The agreement totals
$116,411, which was subtracted from the fair -share cost for Spokane County.
CONCLUSIONS
This report provides a summary of recommended capital improvement projects and estimated costs on
the South Barker Corridor between Mission Avenue and the south City limits to be implemented by 2040.
Projects are recommended to meet City and WSDOT LOS standards as well as to improve multimodal
mobility in preparation for future development. This report also provides analysis of a fair -share cost
estimation associated with traffic generated by adjacent jurisdictions and potential development traffic
impact mitigation fees as one tool to finance projects. Lastly, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City
of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long-term alternative for the 1-90 interchange.
Analysis of existing conditions shows that both intersections of the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange are not
currently operating at acceptable standards and the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is close to
City of Spokane Valley 32 ( P a g e
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
failing COSV standards in the PM peak hour. Additionally, by 2040 the Barker Road/Broadway intersection
will fail City of Spokane Valley LOS standards. Traffic on Barker Road is expected to grow at a rate of about
1.4% per year through 2040, which will necessitate widening the corridor to five lanes between Mission
Avenue and Appleway Avenue.
In order to address traffic operations, traffic safety and multimodal mobility on the corridor a total of eight
capital improvement projects are recommended to be implemented between now and 2040. These are
listed below, organized into four different time frames for implementation based on when the project is
needed as well as other factors (including funding availability):
• Immediate (2019-2020)
o 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single -lane roundabout)
o 1-90 Westbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single -lane roundabout)
• Near -Term (2021-2024)
o Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements
• Mid -Term (2025-2030)
o I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements
o Barker Road Improvement Project —1-90 to Appleway Avenue (5-lane urban section)
o Barker Road Improvement Project— Mission Avenue to 1-90 (5-lane urban section)
• Long -Term (2031-2040)
o Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway Avenue to south City Limits
o 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements
In summary, the recommended improvements by 2040 would result in the following future condition.
Barker Road would have bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street and curb and gutter along
the length of the corridor. The road would be widened to five lanes from Mission Avenue to Appleway
Avenue, three lanes from Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue and two -lanes from Sprague Avenue to
the south City limits. South of Sprague, the area between the sidewalks on either side of the street would
be wide enough to accommodate a third center turn lane in the future if warranted by development. Two-
lane roundabouts would be implemented at both intersection of the 1-90 interchange. The Boone Avenue
intersection would be consolidated into a new six -leg roundabout with the 1-90 westbound ramp and
Cataldo Avenue. The bridge over 1-90 would be widened to four lanes with wide sidewalks on both sides
to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. The east -leg of Broadway would be realigned to meet
the west -leg and the Broadway intersection would be converted to a roundabout or reconfigured to
prevent left -out movements. New single -lane roundabouts or traffic signals would be implemented at the
Sprague Avenue, 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue intersections.
The combined costs of the projects, excluding the portion that would be funded by WSDOT, is estimated
to be about $16.8 million in 2018 dollars. A fair -share analysis of the corridor was also conducted to
highlight how development in Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and Spokane County could help to finance
these projects. By multiplying the eligible project cost with the fair -share percentage and charging that
fee, it would ensure that new development in each jurisdiction is contributing funding to the project
reflective of their use of/benefit from the improvement. The fair -share analysis demonstrated that traffic
from Southeast Spokane Valley developments will generate fairly equal demand on the length of the
corridor. Traffic from Liberty Lake is generally expected to use the section of Barker Road north of
Appleway Avenue and traffic from unincorporated Spokane County will generally use the section of the
City of Spokane Valley 33 'Page
SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20
Updated Report
corridor south of 1-90. Therefore, it is recommended that a fee program be implemented to collect fees
for projects on three distinct segments of the corridor based on the fair -share percentage:
• Mission Avenue to 1-90
• 1-90 to Appleway Avenue
• Appleway Avenue to south City limits
It should be noted that while developer impact fees can provide an important source of funding, after
negotiating with developers, elected officials, and neighboring jurisdictions, the impact fees are typically
set so that they only cover a portion of project costs (typically less than 50%). Thus, Spokane Valley will
need to use other financing strategies to pay for the remaining costs of the projects identified above.
Other financing strategies Spokane Valley might consider include implementing a local improvement
district or transportation benefit district, and applying for grants. Historically, Spokane Valley has had
strong success in seeking and winning external funding, which has kept the costs of expanding
transportation infrastructure relatively low for both developers and existing taxpayers compared to other
cities in the region and state.
City of Spokane Valley 34 I P a g e