The URL can be used to link to this page

Pre-Incorporation BRB 555-01: Exhibit 81 Attach A & B 1 1059 Attachment A Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Board of County Commissioners John Roskelley Phillip D. Harris M. Kate McCaslin Planning Commission J. M. Britton Bill Evans Clyde Haase Tom Hargreaves Pat Humphries Bev Keating Sandy McCauley Past Planning Commission Members Involved in Plan Development: Brenda Bodenstein Curt Messex Don Moore Mike Schrader Department of Public Works Gary Oberg, Director of Public Works Division of Planning Michael Needham, Director of Planning Contact Planning by: Mail: Spokane County Public Works Department Division of Planning 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Phone: (509) 477-7200 Fax: (509) 477-7663 Web Site: www.spokanecounty.org/planning Spokane County Comprehensive Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Urban Land Use 7 Chapter 3: Rural Land Use 33 Chapter 4: Natural Resource Lands 53 Chapter 5: Transportation 67 Chapter 6: Housing 91 Chapter 7: Capital Facilities and Utilities 99 Chapter 8: Economic Development 117 Chapter 9: Parks and Open Space 129 Chapter 10: Natural Environment 141 1/4 Chapter 11: Cultural Resources 171 Chapter 12: Subarea Planning 177 Glossary 189 Appendix A: Plan Implementation 201 Appendix B: Performance Measurement 211 Appendix C: Interim Regional LOS Standards 219 Appendix D: Essential Public Facilities Tech. Committee Report 221 7 Spokane County Comprehensive Plan List of Maps Urban Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map 10 Rural Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map 36 Natural Resource Lands 55 Arterial Road Plan 70 Pedestrian Bicycle Plan 71 Open Space Corridors 138 Wetlands 147 Contamination Susceptibility of Aquifers 154 Fish and Wildlife Critical Areas 160 Flood Hazard 164 Geologic Hazards and Constraints 167 Chapter 1 - Introduction Purpose Spokane County residents have expressed a vision for the future that includes a healthy environment, family wage jobs, convenient transportation, affordable housing, excellent schools, and abundant parks and open spaces. Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan serves as the blueprint for making this vision a reality. The Comprehensive Plan is a set of goals, policies, maps, illustrations and implementation strategies that states how the County should grow physically, socially and economically. The plan emphasizes innovative and flexible strategies to guide growth and development. One of the central themes of the Plan is the promotion of economic development that occurs in harmony with environmental protection and preservation of natural resources. The Plan recognizes the interests of the entire community and promotes cultural and ethnic diversity. The Comprehensive Plan establishes a pattern of land uses to shape the future in desirable ways. Map designations include residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use areas. Identifying and defining these land use categories ensures compatibility among uses, protection of property values, and efficient provision of infrastructure and services. The Plan's land use map also identifies urban growth area (UGA) boundaries. UGAs are intended to reduce sprawl and provide a clear separation between urban and rural areas. The benefits to Spokane County of developing and implementing a comprehensive plan include: • Identifying the major trends and issues that will affect the county's future form, livability, and overall health; • Assuring the protection and enhancement of the County's natural resources, environmental systems and neighborhood and community character in the midst of anticipated growth and change; • Using capital improvements, regulatory programs and incentives to guide new development and encourage appropriate redevelopment; and • Acting strategically to improve the County's economic future and its ability to attract and retain well-paying jobs. • 1 The Growth Management Act Rapid population growth in the late 80s and early 90s made planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) mandatory for Spokane County and its cities. GMA comprehensive plans for each jurisdiction are required to accommodate a proportionate share of the state's projected 20-year population growth. The plans must include elements addressing land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities and utilities. Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan includes the required elements as well as optional elements addressing parks, the natural environment, natural resource lands, cultural resources and subarea planning. The GMA was originally passed by the legislature in 1990 and later amended on numerous occasions. The GMA has changed Washington planning law in several ways: • Local governments must develop comprehensive plans and adopt regulations that are consistent with the plan. This changes the historic position in this state that the plan is to serve only as a "guide" to decision-making. • Land use authorized by the plan must be supported by adequate public facilities and services. • Local plans must comply with state planning goals and regulations and countywide planning policies. Plans that are not consistent with these requirements may be appealed. Penalties, imposed by the state, may be applied to communities whose plans do not conform to the state and regional requirements. • • Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) must be designated. The UGAs are intended to direct growth to areas with adequate facilities and services, to reduce sprawl and to provide a distinct boundary between urban and rural areas. • A process is required to accommodate essential public facilities (e.g. prisons, wastewater plants, etc.). GMA Planning Goals The GMA identifies thirteen broad goals to guide local governments in the planning process. Local plans must implement these goals in a balanced manner. The goals include: • Encouragement of development in urban areas with existing or planned public facilities and services; • Reduction of urban sprawl; • Adequate provision of efficient multi-modal transportation systems; • Availability of affordable housing for citizens of all income levels; • Promotion of economic opportunity; • Respect for private property rights; 2 • Predictability and timeliness of permit review processes; • Conservation of natural resources; • • Retention of open space and provision of recreational opportunities; • Protection and enhancement of the environment; • Citizen participation in the planning process; • • Adequate provision of necessary public facilities and services; and • Preservation of historic and archaeological resources. Coordination and Consistency Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan is required to have internal consistency among the plans various elements. The Plan must also be coordinated and consistent with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. The GMA directs local governments to attempt to resolve conflicts through consultation and negotiation. Perhaps the most far reaching of the GMA's impacts is the legal status it gives Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan. Until now, plans have largely been advisory and had less legal standing than regulations. Once the Plan is adopted, all new codes and programs subsequently adopted and implemented must be consistent with it. Countywide Planning Policies The development of countywide planning policies (CWPPs) is required by the Growth Management Act to ensure a coordinated and regional approach in the development of comprehensive plans. CWPPs provide an overall framework of policies within which each local government jurisdiction will develop or update its comprehensive plan. The Policies also guide how jurisdictions should interact with one another regarding specific issues. Developing the Countywide Planning Policies was coordinated by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials which consists of officials from Spokane County and its eleven cities and towns, along with representatives from water, school and fire districts, utility companies and the public. The Steering Committee had the difficult task of balancing often-conflicting ideas with developing policies which provide the greatest benefit for Spokane County and its citizens. The Countywide Planning Policies focused on the following areas: • Implementation of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). • Promotion of contiguous and orderly development of urban services. • Siting of countywide or statewide public capital facilities. • Parks and open space. • Countywide transportation facilities and strategies. 3 • Considering the need for affordable housing for all economic segments. • Joint county and city planning within UGAs. • Countywide economic development and employment. • Producing an analysis of the fiscal impact of GMA. Amendments The Growth Management Act makes the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations subject to continuing evaluation and review by the County. Initiation Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be initiated: 1. By the Planning Commission when changed conditions or further study indicate a need, or 2. By the Board of Spokane County Commissioners (Board) when it deems it necessary for the public interest or when it considers a change in the recommendation of the Planning Commission to be necessary. 3. By the Planning Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70 and RCW 36.70A. Timing The Growth Management Act allows amendments to the Comprehensive Plan no more often than once a year, except under the following circumstances: 1. The initial adoption of a subarea plan; 2. The adoption or amendment of a shoreline program; 3. The amendment of a capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county budget; 4. To resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court; or 5. Whenever an emergency exists (RCW 36.70A.130). Proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan map will be accepted at any time, and will be considered along with all other proposals as part of the annual comprehensive plan review and amendment process. All proposals to amend the plan will be considered at the same time so that their cumulative effect can be evaluated. The Board sets December as the month in which amendments to Comprehensive Plan may be adopted; however, the Planning Commission may commence its review at the regular September 4 agenda to allow full consideration of the various amendments in order to make a timely recommendation to the Board during the annual budget cycle. The Planning Commission will receive applications for amending, supplementing or modifying maps of Comprehensive Plan up until July Pt. Applications received after that date will need to wait until the next year's plan amendment cycle. Map amendments will be reviewed for consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The adopted Guidelines for Public Participation (BOCC resolution # 98-0144 and 98-0788) will be used to ensure adequate public participation. Emergency situations that require amendments outside of the normal schedule must be based on findings that show that the amendment was needed to deal with an emergency situation affecting a neighborhood, community or the County as a whole, and not a personal emergency of a particular applicant or property owner. Before it considers whether or not to allow an emergency amendment, the Board must approve written findings that document the nature of the emergency. The Division of Planning will evaluate Comprehensive Plan amendments for consistency internally, with the plans of other jurisdictions and with the development regulations. The results of this review will be provided to the Planning Commission for its consideration as part of its regular September agenda pursuant to WAC 365-195-630. Spokane County is required to review its designated Urban Growth Areas at least every five years and revise the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the urban growth projected for the next 20 years Adoption After due notice and public hearing, the Board may amend, supplement or modify the text and maps of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption procedures shall comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70 and RCW 36.70A. Documentation The record that accompanies any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or development regulations will be similar to the record for the adoption of the initial plan and regulations. This means that whenever a provision of the Comprehensive Plan or development regulations is based on factual data, that data or a clear reference of its source will become part of the record of adoption. Also, the record will describe how public participation requirements were met pursuant to Spokane County's adopted Guidelines for Public Participation. 5 Chapter 2 - Urban Land Use The Urban Land Use Chapter provides policy guidance for the development of Spokane County's unincorporated urban areas. The policies in this chapter strive to improve quality of life,provide opportunities for innovative approaches to land use and protect our community character. The policies work in tandem with the Comprehensive Plan map, which illustrates the location of various land use categories. The Comprehensive Plan map illustrating the urbanized areas in Spokane County is located on page 15. Planning Principals The following planning principles, developed through citizen participation efforts, form the basis for development of the Urban Land Use Chapter • Compact urban forms should be encouraged that create a greater sense of"community," with pedestrian/bicycle-friendly settlement patterns. • Neighborhood character should be preserved and protected. • Jobs, housing, services and other activities should be within easy walking distance and shorter commute times of each other. • Communities should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses. • Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully connected routes. • Communities should have a diversity of housing and job types that enable residents from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to work and reside within their boundaries. General Goals UL.Ia Provide a healthful, safe and sustainable urban environment that offers a variety of opportunities for affordable housing and employment. UL.Ib Create a future rich in cultural and ethnic diversity that embraces family and community values and recognizes the interests of the whole community. • 7 Urban Land Use.Categories Residential Categories Three separate categories for residential use are established, ranging from low- to high-density. Low- density residential includes a density range of t to and including 6 dwelling units per acre, medium density residential includes a range of greater than 6 to and including 15 dwelling units per acre and high density residential shall be greater than 15 dwelling units per acre. Design standards ensure neighborhood character and compatibility with adjacent uses. Commercial uses, with the exception of office use in high-density residential areas, would only be permitted through changing the land use category with a comprehensive plan amendment or through a neighborhood planning process. Mixed-use Categories Mixed-use areas include "centers" and "corridors." Urban centers and corridors provide focus points to the design of urban areas. Urban centers distributed spatially throughout the urban area provide for retail sales, services, government and business offices, recreation facilities, higher-density residences and other high-intensity uses to serve the needs of surrounding residential areas. The Comprehensive Plan provides for three types of mixed-use centers, Neighborhood, Community and Urban Activity. The three types of centers are distinguished by scale and intensity. Neighborhood Centers are the smallest and least intensive and Urban Activity Centers are the largest, most intensely developed and provide for the widest range of uses. Mixed-use categories include the following: Neighborhood Centers—Mixed-use centers for neighborhoods will ideally have identified neighborhood centers containing a civic green or park, a transit stop, neighborhood businesses and services, a day care center and perhaps a church or school. These centers will be identified and defined through neighborhood planning efforts. Community Centers - Community centers are higher-intensity mixed-use areas designed to serve two or more neighborhoods. Community centers will generally serve an area equivalent to a junior high or high school attendance area and may have a mix of uses, including commercial, civic, high-density residential and recreational uses. Urban Activity Centers- Urban activity centers are planned residential and commercial areas. The boundaries of an urban activity center are generally sized with a one-quarter-mile radius so that the entire center is walkable. Convenient bus and/or light rail service and pedestrian/bicycle paths are important transportation features of urban activity centers. Residential types found in urban activity centers include single-family homes on small lots, duplexes, apartments and condominiums. Housing densities are generally higher than the community average. Residential populations in urban activity centers will generally range from 2,500 to 5,000 people. Offices, recreational and cultural facilities, shopping and services are all found in urban activity centers. Mixed-use Area—Mixed-use areas are intended to enhance travel options, encourage development of locally serving commercial uses, medium-density apartments and offices along transportation corridors identified on the Land Use Plan Map. Mixed-use areas discourage low-intensity, auto-dependent uses and focus on a pedestrian orientation with an emphasis on aesthetics and design. 8 Commercial Categories Three distinct categories for urban commercial use include the following. Regional Commercial - The Regional Commercial classification designates intensive commercial areas intended to draw customers from the county at large and other outlying areas. Regional shopping centers and major commercial areas will be designated with this classification. Residences in conjunction with business and/or multifamily developments may be allowed, with performance standards that ensure compatibility. Small-scale industrial areas may be allowed in this category, provided neighborhood concerns are addressed through a public hearing process. Community Commercial - The Community Commercial classification designates areas for retail, service and office establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. Community business areas should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. Community business centers may be designated through the adoption of the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan amendments or through sub-area planning. Residences in conjunction with business and/or multifamily developments may be allowed, with performance standards that ensure compatibility. Neighborhood Commercial - The neighborhood commercial classification designates areas for small- scale, neighborhood-serving retail and office uses. Neighborhood business areas should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. Neighborhood business centers may be designated through the adoption of the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan amendments or through neighborhood plans. Industrial Categories Categories for industrial use include the following. Heavy Industry- Heavy industry is characterized by intense industrial activities that may have significant impacts to surrounding areas, including, but not limited to noise, odor or aesthetic impacts. Light Industry-The Light Industry category is intended for industrial areas that have a special emphasis and attention given to aesthetics, landscaping and internal and community compatibility. Light Industrial areas are comprised of predominantly industrial uses but may incorporate office and commercial uses that support and compliment the industrial area. Aesthetic Corridors Aesthetic corridors are intended to protect the visual appeal of the Spokane area along major transportation routes entering and exiting the County's urban areas. Aesthetic corridors provide special design standards for aesthetics along major transportation routes to help maintain a quality image of the Spokane Area. 9 Urban land use map 10 y 16 11 Spokane County _ ¢ I Comprehensive Plan 1• Ar -- ' -- - -- '' ate, ao + + • - LEGEND u n !•'T4RIJ t• = a 1 x.` ' 'urTtvi/ pr c�':',M • cm N j it., ,aq� Low Deruity I I Roel Adiuity Cern," a 1 •'--. a i , I` „4..,.. .. 4 1 r I :• Irtl_ _ Raidmiel ---{'-- - - /l la al - _ I L - - A _ _ `' 1 I Rune Traditional t,- 1 f” - r-' ----f -_- • I I Mecum Darkly ' a1 I. i� 1 - - - Rceidenial I I Rural 5 il. �.SO_V .rIN '�� '=, '� ii High tny I I RuwlConlmnam y��p- W 1 _ 1 � , iii , x I I small Tract Ag - _ - _ _ _ _ _T _ _ _ _- =I -- - - ... ! ,/ �." - o. - _ _-_____ -- __ I=Mixed Use Area .. _Large Tina Ag _ 7 ,. T ■ Cmmlm Cade 1.-- l ,{ y- r. i ®Forest tend \ r3 .a w � 5I '•� �.`�' �' •.I -F d a• .N al I=When Activity Center �Mmaal land M- �, Sr• �" a' �� .�I�t� V e. lel .. MN6IAFL _ ' .SCM y - ONeighbatoodCammercrai !nominated Urban -,\ v i y: r '�plll�I �q ?.• .,t • _ / l► NT Canmunlry Cammeciel Ch Areo j 0. "'BLVFF '/�• "lna CM1ek�_.. A / C:.J' T11-LOH RRON LST :S '.. .ztt~ Id yn+' p, q_I=Regiurad Commercial N Urban Cinrwd Arra /"1�v Gy , .-I (y7l j►' ■�1[�, I • a' SI 1 Light[nankin! 9a"daQy " I„71 . m,. ... ' 1V-,. _$9_•• 1-. .- .M�il.fi`L"T',>. _ . _.f;RDNV17r3T . . Fnq s1 �.bmtPlamu1gAm. 3 - - /wit 3t�r ;' � .1. __ NM Heavy Industrial Banditry [ I"�--• �- 1j� '-- 111 _ .� 3 -r ' I =Urban Reserve /�f Light Rail Ali viten 4 ` 4/hvia.'; •” .'. ) i a H �. `�1 ' N !'� ' ..� a ilf�! f: ., Ti 1 1. 17 NM IDACanmeicial/lndustd.l • u Rail Mop 4--0,20.,/ 4• _ • - - _ {_ ••ISIAN ! U.ttI1N¢TT ��■{ ', ,r\„ ' 1 �_ ... �` WA Raidndial M ''r 1 ),_ ! i H. C . to ' t; 4 1 , ,L��- iii.V I_y Zk _ fin MPkR. r -j1- �� it, : ' ''1 i1• _ 1FE7 ; 1 1 L� I . 4111 • 11�1 p AI! -- -4- :•\; .t204-2 -- .I .' a,i , - F--- T _J - � We 'J:tl - ;.;�1.ti .. _ __-4__ __ ___ _ , .. .•_ _. 1 1 •'. tW - }- �,`1 .- /I4�t ; lt� Qc• r' a AIM. " ' LOIAL_ 1- - --''�1- • -_ n - IBJ 1 I I r �, c •1• c. x 1 � II F L,,,-,. 1 n Ol} 1 - �, ri 3 T.. r ::. I 1 1. ✓�J2 _ �IN'I -• rl I f 35 1 n IA 1 ii,lk I _ _I c2 r YFlal'9ta.5 - _. 1_. rvl1. '. 4SWN 0 3r ='-I _ I p 'P:7 • 9 -,a -p3 ra Alll�t�'D 4 T �''` ice ',➢ 1` �.'r� ¢.!'Lsl., 1' �� < � . Did .- m ��n g Dl i ' ... I,. 1 1 - s ._ Gill• 1' l ; _ rc - •-- _� - - - �+��_ -- Fit•1![) �1 _ �kJfk - :1H'i.rtl u ,� 111 rYL. A] _.r J t. .1• .,-- 11 ' "!-tf c oA,u.r[t .. XF,`' u C mil -=.#. 1 ti� �it.l Ile ■ - r �k ■fir er: = 7;�� r %. .v KOLA • , ,Y .1•.� a.., i j TRJaro _ CI i. �"S�'L:r_c•� �. '?.' ,��,'g re a7r lliri iSA11S anwn+ _ +pp--"slo°}-- -- -, - _.�, , CI ty of�ST}E3k.1tIC _ - SION - �/�111:r�"�:.11� _ ... - _ -- - .5 :II +- o-. ' '� 1'RI?.Y -_S' � b �ii e' t. I! M � 9 /, , p1 0..,.: Off■ .....1.u =1��11�= �QC►i�,t,Y BAU! Ob a tY rpt awl Yr 1i'nr - I.moi:.■ •}yIFiir • I1 1 _ .. .. is • �: !I ��17�■Ld .TC;A'+, fi C,.: � 1AU.F.' mCo 1,-,,, • 1��.U�.• dsf.Mlan I + h +� 7 �_ _i - • _ -_ -- _. - nilll_, 111 , ■� 7i■C _ �,rN�''�' �k � x.11'-. - III1• �tl 'a I 1 �I� - _�a��1- j� i .Bert!{!!7 _ IIh , ` M ^' a� i �! • L r7■ �1�! � T Cr3iC! } � `� 1 i- • _• 1 1 \ r.61, 1z i /, gGyITB 1 v�kY 'R ' • t,,, Y b Pill. � ----. � I f _ ;..._ �vrH grH_- --- -- t- ,;s� I�JNd T■' -+---- +- t -- 31 3 r s _ .. � {meq t� r tr . IIIMA �.... a+ s �ItiT 3 •,. •',11�tI S 1 ) T • � IRA n ��.. � e NIP r AMEN _ siiio 11 le as az a, ti� _ - 11 �! -_# '..g. .441 r '., \ •ki�QSY a �I il� n de �'l " e o as i m ea m filigi mwr.L.,.., rry • , 1T L. .. -tL: 1 ! ' W$�j�"�1 4e 1A.IIop. 07 I w � t0 Ii / - . o� C3 to _ 19 07 an e4 II' . �+' ;r— > ,1 y WRfflF �All d! '� -----` 1 _ WlIIfE �' � - »_irT-- ' + _I._- =-t- - L . v�J •. Z , S it 1 1 1 a '9 Frj 16 1 , Z tl 1 1I1- • 7 1 ' q 1 .f • .ai .. tltDax't G gik V o•y- �I1•t r I , i' BCb.' - _ - - �'l -- I __ - s/ -- -- TAY •. TA LS: - +-•.. . [ i - 1 - . s - 1. ,. • , fi` k. .�: UYlQ9t 'gyp .. r , - I 4. S 14 This mgr mot p2hlishal by the SpoLlne Coady Division of Palming as n geneol _. - eiwom Spokane County Division of Planning 01mnn1g MN Ilk to the afctng qudity Of some document,the Diu in ion mania � �� necepl reponsdiIity.&Temvs or omissions,and d,ele[on,them me m worm Mich anoiwhich:,camgoiny this material. • Urban Character and Design The design of our urban environment has a significant effect on community identity. Well-designed communities contribute to a healthful, safe and sustainable environment that offers a variety of opportunities for affordable housing and employment. The Urban Character and Design section provides the goals and policies to preserve and enhance neighborhood character. Some of the concepts considered here include: • Community appearance, including signs and placement of utilities; • Neighborhood considerations in the review of development projects; • Integration of neighborhoods, including bicycle and pedestrian orientation; • The effect of traffic patterns and parking on neighborhood character; • Encouragement of exemplary development through planned unit developments; and • Considerations for public art. Goals UL.2 Maintain and enhance the quality of life in Spokane County through urban design standards. Policies UL.2.l Establish minimum performance standards within the zoning code for nuisances such as • noise, vibration, smoke, particulate matter, odors, heat and glare and other aspects as appropriate to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and neighborhoods. UL.2.2 The design of development proposals should accommodate and complement environmental features and conditions, and preserve and protect significant cultural resources. UL.2.3 Create a design review process that promotes flexibility and creativity but is prescriptive enough to achieve community standards and values. The design review process should provide for administrative review by staff for proposals of small scale and complexity. Larger, more complex developments should require review by a design review board. UL.2.4 Establish a design review board consisting of members from designated professional groups (architects, engineers, planners, developers, etc.), community representatives, and a representative from each of the affected neighborhoods or neighborhood associations. UL.2.5 Design review may be required for the following developments: Developments within designated mixed use areas. Planned unit developments. Government buildings intended for public entry and use (post office, libraries, etc.) Aesthetic corridors. Large scale commercial and industrial developments. 11 UL.2.6 Develop urban design `guidelines"that provide consistency of application for the design review process. The guidelines should focus on the functional interrelationships between land use, site design, neighborhood character and transportation systems. UL.2.7 The design review process shall not increase the length and shall run concurrent with the land use approval process. UL.2.8 Encourage developers to work with neighborhoods to develop plans that address neighborhood concerns, such as, environmental protection, historic preservation, quality of life, property values and preservation of open space. UL.2.9 Develop neighborhood, subarea and community plans with specific design standards that reflect and preserve community character. UL.2.I 0 Mixed use or mixed density developments should be encouraged where they would be compatible with neighborhood character. Residential Design UL.2.1 1 Promote linkage of developments with open space, parks, natural areas and street connections. UL.2.12 Enhance and preserve the site characteristics of residential development (existing trees, watercourses, historic features and similar assets) through sensitive site planning tools such as clustering, lot averaging, transfer of development rights and flexible setback requirements. UL.2.13 Provide for a compatible mix of housing and commercial uses in all commercial districts, neighborhood centers, community centers and urban activity centers. UL.2.14 Separated sidewalks shall be required on public roads in all new residential subdivisions. UL.2.15 Encourage the planting of curbside trees in residential subdivisions. Identify those species of trees that are most appropriate for curbside plantings, considering safety, soils, aesthetics and compatibility with infrastructure. Multifamily Residential UL.2.16 Encourage locating of medium- and high-density residential categories near commercial areas and public open spaces and on sites with good access to major arterials. 12 UL.2.17 Site multifamily homes throughout the Urban Growth Area as follows. 1. Integrated into or next to neighborhood, community or urban activity centers. 2. Integrated into small, scattered parcels throughout existing residential areas. New multifamily homes should be built to the scale and design of the community or neighborhood, while contributing to an area-wide density that supports transit and allows for a range of housing choices. UL.2.18 Establish development requirements that encourage quality design within multifamily development areas. UL.2.19 Develop standards that prescribe maximum building heights and other building design features to give a residential scale and identity to multifamily developments. Traffic Patterns and Parking Street design can have a significant impact on community character. Closed development patterns, which often include dead-end and cul-de-sac roads, tend to isolate communities and make travel difficult. Integrated neighborhoods provide connected streets and paths and often include a central focal point, such as a park or neighborhood business. Integrated development patterns promote a sense of community and allow for ease of pedestrian/bicycle movement. The illustration below contrasts an integrated, as compared to a closed, development pattern. Integration does not necessarily mean development in grids. Rather, roads should connect and provide for ease of circulation regardless of the layout. Integrated as Compared to Closed-development Pattern Transit Commercial Core Stop Transit Office Commercial Core Stop Com ercial Office In Office `_11 • 11 I CIF' 0 CE , a(\co This Not This Clear,formalized and interconnected street systems make destinations visible, provide the shortest and most direct path to destinations and result in security through community rather than by isolation. 13 UL.2.20 Encourage new developments, including multifamily projects, to be arranged in a pattern of connecting streets and blocks to allow people to get around easily by foot, bicycle, bus or car. Cul-de-sacs or other closed street systems may be appropriate under certain circumstances including but not limited to topography and other physical limitations, which make connecting systems impractical. Traffic Calming Traffic calming can be defined as measures that physically alter the operational characteristics of the roadway in an attempt to slow down traffic and reduce the negative effects of the automobile. The theory behind traffic calming is that roads should be multiuse spaces encouraging social links within a community and the harmonious interaction of various modes of travel (i.e., walking, cycling, auto, transit). UL.2.21 Consider techniques to slow vehicle traffic and reduce the volume of traffic in residential neighborhoods giving due consideration to traffic safety, pedestrian safety, mobility and conforming to the goals set forth in Goal T.4a of this plan. UL.2.22 Develop street, pedestrian path and bike path standards that contribute to a system of fully connected routes. UL.2.23 Encourage locating parking Parking in Rear lots to the rear or side of buildings to enhance = ° �0 streetscapes and promote pedestrian access. 0W UL.2.24 Establish reduced number of parking space standards, ~ • be ® O a d O where appropriate, to rr "'•" "' encourage alternative tm 0t transportation use and more efficient use of land, UL.2.25 Establish shared parking space standards to promote the efficient use of land. Buffering UL.2.26 Require effective landscape buffers and/or transitional uses (e.g., pedestrian plazas or low-intensity offices) between incompatible industrial, commercial and residential uses to mitigate noise, glare and other impacts associated with the uses. 14 Planned Unit Developments Building flexibility into the subdivision process is important to allow for new concepts and creative design. Planned unit developments provide a mechanism for allowing this flexibility while ensuring a design that meets health and safety standards and is consistent with neighborhood character. Planned unit developments allow deviations from the typical standards of the zone in exchange for designs that protect the environment, provide usable open space and exhibit exceptional quality and design. Goal UL.3 Encourage exemplary developments by providing for flexibility and innovative design through planned unit commercial/industrial and residential developments. Policies UL.3.1 Provide flexibility with regulations and other incentives for planned unit commercial, industrial and residential developments. UL.3.2 Develop criteria to evaluate planned unit developments for approval of development incentives. Criteria shall be based on the following considerations. 1. Creative, efficient uses of land. 2. Exceptional quality and design. 3. Preservation of usable open space and natural landscape features. 4. Environmentally sensitive design. 5. Efficient utilization of public facilities and services. 6. Community improvements (i.e., contributions to culture, recreation, tourism, public improvements, business incubator facilities, etc.). 7. The projects ability to create living-wage jobs. 8. Development of street, pedestrian and bicycle paths that contribute to a system of fully connected routes. UL.3.3 Incentives for planned unit developments, which are consistent with adopted criteria, may include: 1. bonus density; 2. increases in floor-to-area ratios; and 3. greater flexibility in design standards (e.g., setbacks, frontage, building height, lot area, street design, landscaping, etc.). • 15 Performance Standards Performance standards spell out the desired end result (for instance, "on-site parking should not be visible from the public street") but allow flexibility in the particular means or approach for achieving that objective (underground parking, landscaping, benning or change in topography could be used to accomplish this objective). Performance standards generally require a more detailed review of projects. Goal UL.4 Encourage exemplary developments and creative design through the use of performance standards. Policy UL.4.1 Allow flexibility and innovative design through the use of performance standards which emphasize outcomes. Viewscapes An attractive urban a,�...tra ., ,,{ at- landscape is an asset to the community. Aesthetically e 1 ' <! pleasing areas instill a sense • " `� tf, of pride in the community " o-- ;- r • .:, ,{ .g and serve as a magnet for a..' attracting new business. T r _,., ,n„ rte' Signage regulations, - ,. c r¢ landscaping requirements, x ,.�"; � -wc C . � .;-- . l'..44.141' '.�. 7^r' ^� t,.. d ,, il, e • building design standards el tu • — .mi' Al:> � iiiilt:i x,` N iI ,, and the preservation of 1 H s i ,a,, ft EIlit i e'° I natural and cultural �a �ti r' �: ``s R` r viewscapes are methods to -LiW .. - r k rt"`" � ° is, a G,. EFL141:' achieve an attractive urban - ,� ';,� . ; H- "°`'° '1` n. is � `� landscape. Goal UL.5 Provide for an aesthetically pleasing urban environment and encourage the maintenance and enhancement of natural and cultural views. Policy UL.5.1 Identify and protect important natural or cultural viewscapes through a viewscape ordinance; signage limits or other programs. 16 UL.5.2 Designate aesthetic corridors along major transportation routes to provide a positive image of the Spokane Region. Aesthetic corridors shall be located along the following routes. 1. Interstate 90 2. U.S. 2 3. State Route 902 4. State Route 290 5. U.S. 395 6. State Route 27 7. Spokane Valley Couplet (eastbound Appleway segment only) 8. Evergreen Road (between Sprague Avenue and Indiana Avenue) 9. Mirabeau Parkway 10. Indiana (between Pines and Flora) 1 I. Little Spokane Drive 12. Nine Mile Road Aesthetic corridors shall be visible from the roadway and shall not exceed 500 feet on either side of the road right-of-way. UL.5.3 Adopt specific regulations for designated aesthetic corridors that: 1. Provide incentives for aesthetic design; 2. Require landscaping buffers adjacent to roadways; 3. Limit sign height and size; and 4. Provide performance standards to adequately screen heavy or"manufacturing" industrial-type development which have exterior clutter(exterior storage, exterior heavy equipment, exterior fabrication/ assembly). 5. Use non glare, energy efficient lighting techniques when possible. UL.5.4 Encourage preservation of healthy, attractive native vegetation where appropriate during land development. When this is not possible, encourage the use of appropriate native plant materials in the site's landscaping. Commercial Signs UL.5.5 Establish standards for the scale and intensity of commercial signs that protect views and minimize signage clutter while still allowing adequate business identification. UL.5.6 Prohibit new construction of videoboards/billboards. and attempt to reduce existing billboards where ever possible. • Utilities UL.5.7 Encourage placing power and telecommunication lines underground, at the rear of properties or in alleyways. 17 UL.5.8 Encourage joint planning of linear infrastructure such as transportation, water, sewer, power, and telecommunications. Public Art Goal UL.6 Recognize that the arts contribute to the character of the physical, mental, social and economic well being of the community and encourage public and private commitment and investment. Policies UL.6.1 Provide incentives such as bonus densities or increases in floor-to-area ratio and lot coverage to encourage the use of public art and open space in commercial, industrial and mixed use developments. UL.6.2 Encourage permanent displays of art in new construction of County facilities intended for public entry. Residential Land Use Residential land use ranges from low-density, single-family neighborhoods to group homes and high- density multifamily apartments. The challenge to the community is to provide for this range of uses and affordable housing consistent with goals for protection of neighborhood character. Community involvement in desigm and a greater level of planning detail within the Comprehensive Plan are methods to achieve these objectives. Additionally, subarea and neighborhood planning can offer further opportunities for achieving residential goals. Goal UL.7 Guide efficient development patterns by locating residential development in areas where facilities and services can be provided in a cost-effective and timely fashion. Policies UL.7.1 Identify and designate land areas for residential use, including categories for low-, medium- and high-density areas. UL.7.2 Coordinate housing and economic development strategies to ensure that sufficient land is provided for affordable housing in locations readily accessible to employment centers. UL.7.3 New urban development must be located within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary. UL.7.4 Allow zero lot line housing and detached single-family housing on small lots with minimal setbacks and yards, where appropriate. 18 UL.7.5 Provide for bonus densities, zero lot line housing, auxiliary structures, accessory dwellings or similar methods to promote infill development, where appropriate. UL.7.6 Develop regulations and incentives to encourage cluster development of residential lands so open space, view, watersheds and critical areas are permanently protected. (See also, "Exemplary Design - Planned Unit Developments," in the Urban Character and Design Section.) UL.7.7 Home occupations may be allowed provided they will not: 1. disrupt residential amenities concerning sight, sound, smell and similar factors; or 2. create traffic which exceeds road design or which develops traffic hazards within the neighborhood. UL.7.8 Promote and facilitate the development and location of home-based child care. UL.7.9 Encourage businesses to provide opportunities for employees to work at home. UL.7.10 Phasing of land development shall be consistent with established levels of service for the provision of public facilities and services within UGAs. UL.7.I 1 Establish zoning and subdivision regulations that require residential developments to provide the following improvements. a. Paved streets (and alleys if appropriate), curbs and sidewalks, paths and internal walkways, when appropriate. b. Adequate parking consistent with local transit levels. c. Street lighting. d. Storm water control. e. Public water supply. f. Public sewers. UL.7.12 New development within the UGA shall be connected to public sewer, consistent with requirements for concurrency. Developer-financed extensions of public sewer may be allowed within'any area of the UGA provided capacity and infrastructure needs are adequately addressed. UL.7.13 Time extensions for approved preliminary plats short plats and binding site plans shall be subject to current applicable local, state and federal regulations. 19 Housing Variety Goal UL.8 Create urban areas with a variety of housing types and prices, including manufactured home parks, multifamily development, townhouses and single-family development. Policies UL.8.1 Provide for mixed-income development in residential areas and encourage opportunities for co-housing and shared community resources, where appropriate. UL.8.2 Allow manufactured modular and mobile homes in areas where they are consistent with the majority of the neighborhood character. Residential Density Goal UL.9a Create a variety of residential densities within the Urban Growth Area with an emphasis on compact mixed use development in designated centers and corridors. UL.9b Create efficient use of land and resources by reducing the conversion of land to sprawling, low density development. Policies UL.9.1 Establish low, medium and high residential density categories to achieve population and economic growth objectives. Low density residential areas shall range from 1 to and including 6 dwelling units per acre, medium density residential shall range from greater than 6 to and including 15 dwelling units per acre and high density residential shall be greater than 15.0 residential units per acre. Mixed residential densities may be established through community based neighborhood or subarea planning. UL.9.2 Spokane County shall seek to achieve an average residential density in new development of at least 4 dwelling units per net acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of densities and housing types. 20 Urban Centers Urban centers provide focus points to the design of urban areas. Urban centers distributed spatially throughout the urban area provide for retail sales, services, government and business offices, recreation facilities, higher-density residences and other high-intensity uses to serve the needs of surrounding residential areas. These centers provide a mix of uses and are sized according to the size and other characteristics of the market they serve. Accordingly, they vary from small neighborhood centers providing primarily convenience goods and services to urban activity centers offering a broad range of retail shopping, professional and personal services. Urban centers create focal points which establish an identity and sense of place, while providing opportunities for people to live where they work. To be successful, urban center development requires detailed professional and community-based planning and quality market research. Neighborhood and Community Centers Neighborhood Centers Neighborhoods are small residential areas with distinctive characteristics. They generally range in size from one-half to one square mile, with planned populations ranging from 3,500 to 8,000 people. Neighborhoods are often defined by elementary school boundaries. Ideally, neighborhoods will have identified neighborhood centers containing a civic green or park, a transit stop, neighborhood businesses and services, a day care center and perhaps a church or school. Community Centers • Community centers are higher-intensity, mixed use areas designed to serve two or more neighborhoods. Community centers will generally serve an area equivalent to a junior high or high school attendance area and may have a mix of uses, including commercial, civic, high density residential and recreational uses. Community centers provide a focal point and contribute to community identity. Goal UL.10 Encourage the development of mixed use neighborhood and community centers that maintain or improve neighborhood character and livability. Policies UL.10.1 Mixed use neighborhood and community centers that serve local residents and decrease the reliance on automobiles should be identified and designated through neighborhood and subarea planning. UL.10.2 Develop and maintain design standards and a design review process to ensure that neighborhood and community centers are developed with minimal impact on surrounding land uses, are consistent with community character and assure pedestrian and vehicular access. 21 UL.10.3 Neighborhood and community centers may contain a mix of uses ranging from residential to commercial to office/industrial area. Neighborhood and/or subarea planning shall be used to determine appropriate uses within a specific neighborhood. UL.I0.4 The boundaries of a mixed use center established in a neighborhood or subarea plan shall not be changed without a comprehensive plan amendment and study that addresses the relationship of the entire center to its surrounding uses and supporting public services. UL.I0.5 Implementation of neighborhood and community mixed-use centers shall only occur after the adoption of a subarea plan that involves design professionals, government service providers, business people and community residents. Urban Activity Centers Urban activity centers are planned residential and commercial areas. The boundaries of an urban activity center are generally sized with a one-quarter-mile radius so that the entire center is walkable. Convenient bus and/or light rail service and pedestrian/bicycle paths are important transportation features of urban activity centers. Residential types found in urban activity centers include single-family homes on small lots, duplexes, apartments and condominiums. Housing densities are generally higher than the community average. Residential populations in urban activity centers will generally range from 2,500 to 5,000 people. Offices, recreation and cultural facilities, shopping and services are all found in urban activity centers. Goal UL.11 Encourage the development of urban activity centers that foster community identity and reduce reliance on automobiles. Policies UL.11.1 The specific size and boundaries of urban activity centers and the mix of uses within them shall be established through comprehensive plan amendments and/or future subarea planning efforts, based on regional and local needs and constraints. UL.11.2 Identify and designate urban activity centers that support mixed use, high-density development. Establish urban activity centers as a land use category in the Comprehensive Plan. UL.11.3 Urban activity centers may be located at or adjacent to high- -O f'`' e ro ,capacity transit stations and will .,� �/,�^� %, ' *- serve 1. {L A . serve aS hubs for less intensely �' '�'O` % f/�,r".i^. y�p-7.'��c'' ,,� '�+ developed neighborhoods. it '� �' j t�"� lf� } `+ Appropriate areas for urban activity ti-: $,t� '•S. /�sz' centers may include, but are not (.011":2 ,--_-- x'-44- ,- limited to, the Spokane County s�cl z ,.,� ' v‹7 2 Al;� „zee ". Ort/175; 5 ti 's x,)" °9 �• S 4O "1::7.-11?‘a ''� ,I. fairgrounds area, University City area and the Liberty Lake-Interstate-90 area. UL.1 1.4 Urban activity centers may be designated within underdeveloped commercial areas to encourage infill and revitalization. UL.1 1.5 Provide development incentives to encourage the development of urban activity centers (e.g., bonus density and use intensification, fast track reviews, flexible architectural integration of uses, etc.). II I.6 Design capital improvement programs that are consistent with and encourage the development of urban activity centers and limit low density sprawl. UL.1 I.7 Maintain design standards and a design review process for urban activity centers to ensure that commercial and industrial projects are developed with minimal impact on surrounding land uses, are consistent with related community appearance/design guideline and assure pedestrian as well as vehicular access. UL.1 1.8 Urban activity centers may contain but are not necessarily limited to combinations of the following uses. 1. Health, human service and public safety facilities. 2. Retail stores and services. 3. Professional offices. 4. Office/light industrial. 5. Multifamily housing and mixed use developments. 6. Heavy commercial uses, such as wholesale trade. 7. Light manufacturing. 8. Parks and open space. 9. Schools and universities. 10. Research and development facilities. 11. Entertainment centers. 12. Churches. 13. Art centers. UL.1 1.9 The boundaries of an urban activity center established in the Comprehensive Plan shall not be changed without a comprehensive plan amendment and study that addresses the relationship of the entire center to its surrounding uses and supporting public services. UL.1 1.10 Ensure the inclusion of a residential component within urban activity centers through the use of incentives and/or minimum requirements for residential development. 23 Design Guidelines for Neighborhood, Community and Urban Activity Centers UL.1 1.1 1 Provide design standards and land use plans for neighborhood, community and urban activity center activity centers that are based on the following principles. I. Centers should be compact to encourage transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel. Multistory construction, structured parking and other techniques to use land efficiently should be encouraged. 2. Urban activity centers should be designed to reduce conflicts among uses and to increase convenience for businesses, employees, users and pedestrians. 3. Aesthetic quality and compatibility among land uses within and adjacent to centers should be enhanced through landscaping, building orientation and setbacks, traffic control and other measures to reduce potential conflicts. Distinctive or historical local character and natural features should be reflected in development design to provide variety within centers. 4. Unsightly views, such as heavy machinery, storage areas, loading docks and parking areas, should be screened from the view of adjacent uses and from arterials. 5. Signs should be regulated to reduce glare and other adverse visual impacts on nearby residents without limiting their potential contribution to the color and character of the center. 6. Routes for pedestrian, auto, bicycle, transit and truck travel within centers should have convenient access to each major destination. Buildings should be close to sidewalks to promote walking and browsing, with parking areas located on the side or rear of buildings. 7. Commercial development in centers should provide or contribute to public spaces such as plazas, parks, and building atriums to enhance the appearance of the center and to provide amenities for employees and shoppers. 8. The amount of land designated for retail development in neighborhood and community centers should be based on the amount of residential development planned for the surrounding area. 24 9. Off-street parking areas should be designed to enhance pedestrian and handicapped access to commercial uses. The required off-street parking area may be reduced in areas where transit service is frequent or where parking is shared or communal. Structured and underground parking should be encouraged through density bonuses, intensification incentives or reduced parking requirements. Mixed Use Areas Mixed use areas are intended to enhance travel options, encourage development of commercial uses, higher-density residences, office, recreation and other uses. To be successful, mixed use areas require detailed professional and community-based planning and quality market research. Neighborhood and subarea planning programs that involve design professionals, government service providers, business people and community residents will be necessary to design successful mixed use areas. Goal UL.l2 Encourage the development of mixed use areas that foster community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle and transit transportation. Policies UL.12.1 The specific size and boundaries of mixed use areas shall be established through comprehensive plan adoption, comprehensive plan amendments and/or future subarea planning efforts, based on regional and local needs and constraints. UL.12.2 Identify and designate mixed use areas that support mixed use, high-density development. Establish mixed use areas as a land use category in the Comprehensive Plan. UL.12.3 The characteristics of a mixed use area include: • Housing and employment densities to support frequent transit service; • Public transit connections to other Centers and Corridors; • Safe, attractive bus stops and pedestrian and bicycle ways; • Buildings which front on wide sidewalks with attractive landscaping, benches and frequent transit stops; • Multistory buildings oriented to the street rather than parking lots; and • Parking spaces located behind, or to the side of buildings or under/over structures. 25 UL.12.4 The mix of land use in a mixed use area includes: • A variety of housing styles—apartments, condominiums, row houses, two-family and single-family houses on small lots; • There could be a full range of retail goods and services—grocery stores serving several neighborhoods, theaters and restaurants, drycleaners, hardware stores and specialty shops; • A mix of residence types in close proximity to commercial uses and business and government offices; • An emphasis on community-serving rather than regional-serving commercial uses. • Commercial uses that require large land areas but have low employment density and are auto-dependent(lumber yards, nurseries, warehouses, auto dealerships, etc.) are prohibited; and • Residential density within a mixed use areas shall range from 6 units per acre to 30 • units per acre. UL.12.5 Implementation of mixed use areas should only occur after the adoption of a subarea plan that involves design professionals, government service providers, business people and community residents. Commercial Land Use Regional Commercial The regional commercial classification designates intensive commercial areas intended to draw customers from the County at large and other, outlying areas. Regional shopping centers and major commercial areas will be designated with this classification. Residences in conjunction with business and/or multifamily developments may be allowed, with performance standards that ensure compatibility. Small-scale industrial areas may be allowed in this category provided neighborhood concerns are addressed through a public hearing process. Community Commercial The community commercial classification designates areas for retail, service and office establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. Community business areas should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. Community business centers may be designated through the adoption of the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan amendments or through subarea planning. Residences in conjunction with business and/or multifamily developments may be allowed with performance standards that ensure compatibility. Neighborhood Commercial The neighborhood commercial classification designates areas for small-scale neighborhood-serving retail and office uses. Neighborhood business areas should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. Neighborhood business centers may be designated through the adoption of the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan amendments or through neighborhood plans. Goal 26 • UL.13 Provide adequate commercial land within urban growth areas to conveniently serve the local and regional trade areas. Policies Location/Use UL.13.I Designate a variety of strategically located commercial areas that will be accessible from roadways of major arterial classification or higher, served with utilities and free of major environmental constraints. UL.13.2 Allow incentives to encourage the development of residences in conjunction with commercial districts. Commercial Land Quantity UL.13.3 The Initial quantity of commercial land uses within the UGA is based on methodologies established by the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials (March 15, 1996). Future commercial land quantity analysis shall consider Growth Management Steering Committee methods, but may use other methodologies. Design Standards • UL.I3.4 Develop and maintain comprehensive design standards and a design review process to ensure that commercial projects are developed with minimal impact on the environment, are complementary and compatible with related community appearance and design and assure pedestrian as well as vehicular access. UL.I3.5 Establish specific development standards relating to setbacks, landscaping, physical buffers, screening, access, signs, building heights and design review for commercial development. UL.I3.6 Zoning and other land use regulations shall provide the following improvements for commercial development. 1. Paved streets. 2. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes in commercial and retail areas. 3. Parking, bike racks and transit facilities for employees and customers (some facilities may be communal). 4. Landscaping along streets, sidewalks and parking areas to provide an attractive appearance. 5. Adequate stormwater control, including curbs, gutters and stormwater management facilities. 6. Public sewer and water supply. 7. Controlled traffic access to arterials and intersections. 27 Industrial Land Use. Providing for industrial land is important for the economic health of Spokane County. Industrial businesses help drive the local economy and create an economic multiplier effect throughout the region. Providing an adequate supply of usable land with minimal environmental constraints and infrastructure in place helps ensure that Spokane County will be an attractive place for industrial businesses to locate and prosper. (See Chapter 9, Economic Development, for additional policies that encourage recruitment and retention of industrial business.) Goal UL.14a Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas that create higher-income jobs, provide economic growth and improve the overall tax base of Spokane County. UL.14b Ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. Policies UL.14.1 Identify and designate industrial land areas for heavy industry and light industry. UL.14.2 Industrial land designations within the UGA shall be based on criteria established by the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials (March 15, 1996). UL.14.3 Encourage intensification and revitalization of existing industrial areas. UL.14.4 Consider capital facility expenditures to facilitate the development of lands designated for industrial uses. UL.14.5 Encourage industries with low energy consumption and industries that recycle resources to locate in Spokane County. UL.14.6 Encourage low-polluting industries to locate in Spokane County. UL.14.7 Encourage shared-use parking, pedestrian access and transit incentive programs in industrial development projects. 28 Heavy Industry Heavy industry is characterized by intense industrial activities which may have significant impacts to surrounding areas, including, but not limited to noise, odor or aesthetic impacts. Commercial, residential and recreational uses should not be allowed in areas designated for heavy industry, except for small-scale ancillary uses serving the industrial area. The conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited. Limiting incompatible uses ensures a competitive advantage in business recruitment by providing adequate industrial land supply, reducing land use conflicts and preventing inflation of land prices. Goal UL.15 A variety of strategically located heavy industrial areas should be designated and protected from conflicting land uses. Policies UL.15.1 Identify and designate land areas for heavy industry. UL.15.2 Areas designated for heavy industry may include a variety of industrial, mining and transportation uses. UL.15.3 Commercial, residential and recreational uses shall not be allowed in areas designated for heavy industry, except for small-scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses which serve the industrial area. UL.15.4 Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses shall be strictly limited in order to ensure adequate land supply and prevent inflation of land prices. UL15.5 Interim uses of heavy industrial property such as agriculture, animal raising and training, recreation including off road vehicle parks and miniature golf/driving ranges should be allowed to occupy undeveloped property pending more intensive utilization. UL.15.6 Carefully consider the designation of comprehensive plan categories adjacent to heavy industrial areas to ensure compatibility between uses and limit land use conflicts. 29 Light Industry The Light Industry category is intended for industrial areas that have a special emphasis and attention given to aesthetics, landscaping and internal and community compatibility. Light Industry areas are comprised of predominantly industrial uses but may incorporate office and commercial uses that support and compliment the industrial area. The Light Industry-category may serve as a transitional category between heavy industrial areas and other less intensive land use categories. The category may also serve as a visual buffer for heavy industrial areas adjacent to aesthetic corridors. Incompatible Uses in Designated Light Industrial Areas Residential uses should not be allowed in lands designated for Light Industry except for master planned industrial developments that provide residences intended to house employees for the planned industrial use. Goal UL.16 A variety of strategically located light industry areas should be designated and protected. Policies - Light Industry UL.16.1 Identify and designate land areas for light industry. UL.I6.2 Light Industrial areas shall be comprised of predominantly industrial uses but may incorporate office and commercial uses that support and compliment the industrial area. Residential use will not be allowed except for master planned industrial developments that provide residences intended to house employees for the planned industrial use. UL.16.3 Industrial uses may be appropriate in mixed-use developments of residential, commercial and light industrial, provided there is adequate mitigation of land use conflicts and community character and property values are preserved. UL.I6.4 Light industrial areas shall include sidewalks, bike lanes on arterial streets and landscaping to provide a safe and attractive working environment. Pathways for pedestrians and bikes may be substituted for sidewalks on local access streets. 30 Standards and Regulations for all Industrial Areas Goal • UL.17 Establish and maintain land use regulations for industrial areas that protect their use into the future and prevent land use conflicts. Policies UL.17.1 Industrial developments within the Urban Growth Area shall provide the following improvements. 1. Paved streets. 2. Adequate parking for employees and business users (parking may be shared or communal). 3. Adequate stormwater control, including curbs, gutters and storm water management facilities 4. Public sewer and water supply. 5. Controlled traffic access to arterials and intersections. UL.17.2 Access points should be combined and limited in number to allow smooth traffic flow on arterials. Access through residential areas should be avoided. UL.I7.3 Standards for setbacks, landscaping and noise barriers shall be developed to mitigate impacts between industrial developments and adjacent land uses. • 31 Urban Growth Area The Growth Management Act mandates the establishment of urban growth areas (UGAs). The urban growth area (UGA) boundary identifies areas where future urban growth should occur and establishes a clear separation between urban and rural development. The intent of establishing a UGA is that urban growth should occur first in areas with existing public services and facilities that have sufficient capacity to serve development and second in areas where urban services can be economically extended. With adjustments for environmentally sensitive land which is unsuitable for development and reasonable market factors to avoid constraining the land supply, the UGA is sized to accommodate the projected 20- year population. A primary basis for the UGA requirement is the economical and efficient provision of public services. The urban land supply should be closely monitored and adjustments to the UGA made when necessary to ensure that land prices are not artificially inflated. Goal UL.18 Maintain an Urban Growth Area (UGA) that provides a distinct boundary between urban and rural land uses and provides adequate land to accommodate anticipated growth. Policies UL.18.1 Review and evaluate Urban Growth Area Boundaries, at a minimum every five years, as required by the Countywide Planning Policies (topic 1, policy 18) and the Revised Code of Washington. UL.18.2 The determination of UGA boundaries shall include consideration of environmental features, topography,jurisdictional boundaries and special purpose districts. When the boundary follows a utility line, consideration should be given to including adjacent parcels on both sides of the line to allow efficient use of the utility and provide fairness to property owners. UL.18.3 Urban Growth Area boundaries shall follow parcel boundaries to avoid splitting an existing parcel of record, unless there are other mitigating circumstances. UL.18.4 Consistent with availability of facilities and services, development to urban densities will be encouraged in and up to the Urban Growth Area boundaries. 32 Chapter 3 - Rural Land Use Rural lands are lands located outside the Urban Growth Area and outside of designated agricultural, forest and mineral lands. Typically, rural areas have received their identity from a rural way of life rooted in history and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry. More recently, recreation and open space uses have played an increasing role in rural areas. Small towns and unincorporated communities provide services for surrounding rural areas and the traveling public. Rural Character Defining rural character is essential for development of rural goals and policies. Counties are required to include measures in the rural chapter that protect rural character. Through visioning and other citizen- participation efforts, the following principles for defining and preserving rural character have evolved. • The rural landscape should reflect a traditional development setting with low population density. • Interconnected open spaces and natural areas should be provided through clustering and other innovative techniques. • Rural residents should be self-sufficient and accept a traditional lifestyle with low levels of governmental services. • Rural towns and centers should provide a community focal point and offer opportunities for shopping and other services. • Scenic roadways and vistas should be preserved by prohibiting billboards and strip commercial development. • • Agriculture and forestry uses within the Rural category should be accepted as being consistent with rural area lifestyles. • Land use practices should be conducted in a way that protects the environment, providing for clean air and water. • Rural lands should have low population densities, allowing much of the area to be retained in a natural state, providing wildlife habitat and the preservation of natural systems. 33 Rural Land Use Categories Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including ranching, farming, mining and forestry operations. Industrial uses will be limited to industries directly related to and dependent on natural resources. New nonresource-related industry would be allowed, provided it meets the requirement for a major industrial development outside the UGA (see policy RL.5.l a and RCW 36.70A.365). Rural-oriented recreation uses will also play a role in this category. Rural residential clustering is allowed in this category. Density The density of the Rural Traditional category is 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Rural Residential-5 The Rural Residential-5 category would allow a 1 dwelling unit per 5 acre density in areas that have an existing 5 acre or smaller subdivision lot pattern. The provision of public water service may be appropriate for these areas. Rural residential clustering is allowed in this category. Density The density of the Rural Residential-5 category is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Rural Conservation The Rural Conservation category applies to environmentally sensitive areas, including critical areas and wildlife corridors. Criteria to designate boundaries for this category were developed from Spokane County's Critical Areas program and a study by the University of Washington titled, Wildlife Corridors and Landscape Linkages, An Approach to Biodiversity Planning for Spokane County, Washington. The category will encourage low-impact uses and utilize clustering and/or other open space techniques to protect sensitive areas and preserve open space. Density The density of the Rural Conservation category is 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres, with a bonus density of I dwelling unit per 10 acres for preserving open space and environmentally sensitive areas through clustered housing. Urban Reserve The Urban Reserve Area category includes lands outside the Urban Growth Area that are considered for growth within a 40-year planning horizon. These areas are given special consideration, such as low- density, large-lot development, so that land uses established in the near future do not preclude their eventual conversion to urban densities. For example, a 1-acre to 5-acre per lot subdivision pattern in these areas would create parcels that would be difficult to divide to urban densities. Innovative techniques such as residential clustering may be used to allow residential development rights and ensure that these areas will be available in the future. The use of public water systems or community wells is encouraged. Community drainfields may also be appropriate in the Urban Reserve category. Density 34 The density of the Urban Reserve category is I dwelling unit per 20 acres, which may be increased to 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres for clustered housing. Within a cluster subdivision, the remainder lot must be reserved for future urban use. The minimum lot size in a cluster subdivision could be as low as 10,000 sq. ft; the maximum lot size is I acre. Rural Activity Centers The Rural Activity Center(RAC) category identifies rural residential centers supported with limited commercial and community services. RACs consist of compact development with a defined boundary that is readily distinguishable from surrounding undeveloped lands. RACs often form at crossroads and develop around some focal point, which may be a general store or post office. Other typical uses might include a church, school, restaurant, gas station or other small shops. Commercial uses are intended to serve the surrounding rural area or in some instances the traveling public. RACs must have an identified boundary established on the Comprehensive Plan map. Density The maximum residential density in a Rural Activity Center category is 4 dwelling units per acre. Limited Development Areas This category identifies commercial, industrial and residential areas that were established prior to July 1, 1993 (the year Spokane County was mandated into Growth Management planning) but are not consistent with the criteria for designation as a Rural Activity Center. Limited infill and expansion of these • designated areas may be appropriate. Any lands identified by this category must have adopted boundaries delineated on the Comprehensive Plan map. Limited Development Areas consist of two subcategories, a Commercial/Industrial category and a Residential category. Master Planned Resort The Master Planned Resort (MPR) category allows self-contained, fully integrated planned unit developments in a setting of significant natural amenities with primary focus on destination resort facilities. They consist of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities. With the exception of employee housing, new MPRs do not include full-time residential uses. 35 Rural map here 36 Spokane County Pend Oreille County r 1Comprehensive Plan ! lif f - ' -N- e + o . t + t +-p t ` ' -+ ' ' I. Legend ;� I,... I a I I I ■ ' I I i nt y- A I 1 j` 1 1 I I I I I Rural Tradtaaoal I♦ CommnityCan■ . '°;'e - r.l -- I -�-�- q - -- I - a 11 r �' I I I RwalS Ulm AcawvyC�e I_,-.4,,,,,t,,,_..,:,_, I 1 1 �• I I I 2�iR RldCmaavation ® Neighborhood Co®arcial d • -- -�'-`v47-4�1... I mi L'lYanAg _ Catl>mmity Co�t]a) _ :I ~f' N III I I II- ILO-, ,aUrge•1}act Ag _ Regional al _ 1a fk 1I11 1II:. :.1 rO1C5fl.yld O IlIm1�Bl ' P x ' ' 11 - II I \idled Land _ Hearybahroid ! \ ■ ti' !II a tig-afe 1 a i a + a ' ■ • •.1 ••a LDA t'onammal lo.lmvta/ I I incatlmaaod lhban _.. . 7- - 1 O �� ' .. . � � LUA Rcaulalti:i Greath Amo '• � m ■ I 'OF e r ■ ' ■ I 1 ' ,, ' - Ae Man Growth Area a i m ■ I I Rural.1t't1Vn4'Ctut T Boundary a 1 '$^1� Boundary -1 1 ■ a ' I I •. I l'emu Rcxn'c I ' r '\ V 1 I 1 1 1 I I I Luanr�}Rcsdnmd Boundary �" t • ---t--+-- --+ la I --+--t---1-- ''•. 1----I--- Ill Ir Light Rail Ahgvawa U I I ' r I I .� 1 I I' r •,•I I 1 tilaeta,!DcmaiyRciacultal LightR■ilAbP ai<= t t- - 1- --+-•2stq--+--4-- --4--+- Rah Dcnaty Rondalhal I 1 I , _ 1 ' I 1 I 1 I 1w�mdllwAm 1 1 I 1• 1 - I ' I • i I ' C,') 1 ' 1 1 a - '�; 1- I 1 i 1 I a 1 a ' a I a ' a I1 4r. a i a 1 1 • a ■ m i a w a ` a. • i w i ■ ; w Fillip, w I a i ■ -:...:•:.::.::;":4•-•4,•! ��I�•••N �., -- . I y IJIBI '14- I 1 1 ( 1 i It 1 » I iI -17-VI I1I 1�!±a :t 1 +- 1 ipli- 1 1 t •t D !'! 1 rI a 1 1 1 1 'y i I 1Li01 11 I 111 a i1 I . I w I I I I ■ II I ■ f a l a a a a l a r ■ a `■1 r I :•..'■ m ■ w sw' *,...1�.' ' a, . I I 1 1 ice' i a 1 N ', ■ ,.N - 1 '1lir'•yw... I •, I m• ■ 1 r I N I ■ I ai ■ I 1 I 1 • jal gi 1 V 12 1 1 I Ii a 1 1 1 I b U -+ -- ',0. I I :� -- --�--+---Y--+-- --t-_-•1--+-- I II r I 1 , I 1 PI 1 1 -,1 1 1 tIZtI:. I 1 1 1 , I I a Y L1� a 1 x ' I ' I * ' t I 1 a 1 Adli USI •' a ' Al ik 1 a 1 a i a © a I a , a / �1Iii I 111 1 m Il is1 , I m o ■ r : N In ■ r w m om•'_ w„.. ism.LIM*-7- I 2 111111h16. grairb.- 2 '' '..."4_-.. ft -- .._....-,. ve,e,- _. _ ,.... , , , / , . edit. -oct r. r1 , u u A_ 1 • I► r t 1 1 S ii I I `I- • 1 • - ,0ar 1 �.- ." C! A 'a I a I E. 1 Tlel l; ' '-- r k - In r }l Ua ]/ a x I r a 1 a 1 I I a I at ' a ' a 1 - a ' 'NIL ' w ��1 a '1 a 1 a I a ' -5 ,r� MillipPlir_ , 1 1 t , 1 --Tr„ '~i : . a IIIIINPIIIKVIPI a e ■ of I. c�V �! 1 1 1 1 �A 17 -,- ` 1 - I MmilI - ._ 1 I I 'If�. I I ! t I I p 1 1 I 1 I ■ 1 - Y iim ft, °II 'a ...:.:::....::.:::.:::.:.:: ,:, 1 1 I 1Wr 7 i ' f-II 1 * I 1iir N I , a 1 i 1 i + 1990'- + U I 7,4' ---+----�- ,_ -- 1 ---F I --+- - !WI pa. . : : . rug .. . 1 ......., , 1. .............:. ........: ,,. I NIIIIII a' : 1 Vill 1 I1 . Lik ,:,...:.:.4 I a I a a a I at 1 a a � � a 1 : a 1 .�..I . M F : ' 771,411, . 1- , , , LIT IN IlUi I' I 1 1 1 a O 1 � 1 1 1 1 a A 1 I I`- -,--1 ■ r 1 1 1 I I I I? 1 I I xII 1 -- M ' w r I I ' I 1 I .. I I 1 I r ' 1 1 I a r ' I i,'I, a 1 1 1 (� I I I I t I I I I IIt 1 I 7 ' I 1 1 I t a ■ , tII 1 I 1 x i:- -Arr - _ n .i A 1 • ■ 1 - 1 Q11 x 1 ~ 1 a 1 a P a ■ 1 M ' O 1liM al _� r_ �1 w•- _+-- --+--4--- ► -+--+ -+- 1 1 g a 1 1 1 a ■ 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I or '+ _.! .. 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 , . ■ , , _ r O IL1IILF Li p ,I1IiiI:ITa a ' t 1 ' 1 a ' ' ' _ �..... _.. ... ... _ _ -. 1 1- ' �' I I 1 I - 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I .:. .._-. _ a 1 a I • I. a 1 IM'a 1 4 ' a I a1 a ' a a Y• a • .z_ a _ `- a .. 1 _v }- - .. a- ! .. I ' _ f I--+-- +-- L—_t z r a O ■ i ■ I W 1 - 1 01 r I ■ k l m � O � 01 r . 1 W 1 I ' a M 1 -IS ' : r. � - - --- - '+ ..d +--+-- I I _'_ ,--- I , I I R 1_ _- I - i - -r "t--. i -.i -s. + -r I If r 1 1 H a I 1 I j t O r I1 I 1 m ! I -- I 1 I I 1 1 1 I , I ,. .. I I I I .1 r I I I I r !._. i,-.%..� .� .. - �. 1 .. ! I -±-.-+ --+-- F-- -- --±-- I -- .---t.--+- I I I I I I • ._ I I 1 a a 1 I I It i �� . ,__,___+__4___4.__ a 1 r � a i a 1 r 31 : 21 1 a '131H 1. a I r I !I 1 a I a In I ■~. a - I I .. Whitman County This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general Whitman County planning tooL Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot accept responsibility for cmors or omissions,and therefore,there am no wanantils C�K>t which accompany this materiaL Waslungton Production Dar= 1Spokane County Division of Planning Rural Residential Development The Rural Residential section provides for development of a variety of residential uses consistent with maintaining rural character. Large lot development patterns and innovative techniques, such as clustering, are included as options for rural development. Goal RL.1 Provide for rural residential development consistent with traditional rural lifestyles and rural character. Policies RL.1.1 Unplatted property cannot be allowed to be developed to urban densities unless and until located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary designated as a master planned resort, rural activity center, limited development area or new, fully contained community. RL.I.2 Designated rural lands shall have low densities which can be sustained by minimal infrastructure improvements such as septic systems, individual wells and rural roads without significantly changing the rural character, degrading the environment or creating the necessity for urban levels of service. Residential Limited Development Areas Some scattered areas of urban residential development exist outside the County's Urban Growth Area. In these areas it may be appropriate to designate these lands as Limited Development Areas and allow infill consistent with the existing pattern. InfiII areas should be restricted to well defined boundaries and not include large expanses of undeveloped land. RL.1.3 The infill of urban-type residential development within rural areas maybe allowed consistent with the following guidelines. 1. The area is designated and mapped within the Limited Rural Development category and is contained by logical boundaries, outside of which urban-type development shall not occur. These boundaries shall be illustrated on the Comprehensive Plan map. 2. In developing a logical boundary, physical considerations such as bodies of water, streets and highways, and land forms and contours should be considered. Abnormally irregular boundaries should be avoided. 3. The character of rural neighborhoods and communities is maintained. 4. Public services and public facilities can be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl. 37 5. The boundary is based on urban-type development that was established prior to July 1, 1993. 6. Infill development shall be limited to small areas generally surrounded by urban- type development where conventional rural lots are not feasible. Nonresidential and Accessory Uses RL.1.4 Nonresidential and accessory uses appropriate for the rural area include farms, forestry, outdoor recreation, education and entertainment, sale of agricultural products produced on-site, home industries and home businesses. New churches and schools in the rural area are encouraged to locate in rural cities or rural activity centers, provided adequate services are available and the extension of urban services is not necessary. Exemptions to Subdivision Regulations RL.I.5 Rural divisions of land shall comply with State Law pertaining to exemptions from subdivision requirements. Exemptions from the subdivision laws should not be used to circumvent the intent of subdivision and environmental protection laws. Innovative Techniques Innovative techniques can be employed to protect environmentally sensitive areas, preserve open space and protect the character of rural areas. RL.I.6 Jurisdictions should work together to develop and implement regionally consistent incentive-based programs such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and bonus densities to protect natural resource lands outside of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). RL.1.7 Encourage the use of conservation easements through nonprofit land trust organizations and/or other organizations or similar measures to conserve and protect resource uses, open space and critical areas. RL.1.8 Implement strategies for the acquisition of natural areas of high scenic value through techniques such as residential clustering, conservation easements, conservation futures funding, open space zoning and other techniques. Rural Clustering Large-lot (10-acre) zoning has been the conventional way to minimize population density and retain rural character in Spokane County's rural areas. This method, while effective at controlling population density, has divided our rural lands with little sensitivity to the effects on rural resources and the natural environment. Large-lot zoning, combined with a lack of road standards, has also • created many miles of poorly maintained private roads, making fire and emergency access difficult. Rural clustering offers an alternative to large-lot zoning. Rural clustering encourages the grouping of home sites on areas of the site that are best suited for development, while retaining the remainder of 38 • the site for open space. Clustering allows for more flexible and environmentally sensitive rural subdivisions. The Urban Reserve, Rural Residential-5, Rural Traditional and Rural Conservation categories are designated as appropriate areas for rural clustering. Some of the advantages of clustering include the following. • Clustered homesites can significantly reduce the length of roadway necessary to serve the development. • Clustered home sites can utilize a community well, thus reducing water supply costs and potential groundwater impacts. • Clustered home sites improve the ability of fire departments to fight fires in rural areas. • Clustered home sites provide for greater security and can help establish a sense of community. • Clustered home sites can preserve open space for agriculture, forestry, wildlife habitat, recreation, and natural drainage. Some limitations of clustering may include the following. • Cluster developments may result in increased financing and costs in site planning design and engineering. • Management of the "open space" in a clustered development can be a problem. Without an active open space management plan, the area could become degraded through neglect. • Smaller lots in clustered subdivisions may create the expectation of urban services. • Land use conflicts between clustered home sites and forestry and agricultural use can occur if care is not taken in the design of the development. RL.I.9 Clustering of rural development may be permitted as a tool for the preservation of rural open space as long as it can be demonstrated that the rural character of the area can be maintained and that urban services are not required to serve the new development. • RL.1.10 Provisions to allow clustered housing in rural areas should adhere to the following guidelines. 1. Development should be limited through density requirements that protect and maintain existing rural character, open space systems and water resources and control traffic volumes and road building. 2. Siting of cluster projects should minimize impacts on neighbors, infrastructure and the surrounding environment. 39 3. Permitting procedures for rural cluster projects should be no more difficult for cluster developments than for traditional subdivisions and should include incentives to encourage their use. 4. Standards should be established for minimum and maximum project size so projects are large enough to support viable open spaces but small enough to prevent the residential cluster development from overwhelming the surrounding area. 5. The primary component of the project site is the open space system. The system should be a network of spaces designed to be usable for their intended purposes and permanently protected or explicitly designated for future development if located in an urban reserve area. Preparation and implementation of an open space management plan should be required. The management plan should explicitly include details concerning ownership, taxes, liability, future use, etc. 6. There should be a pattern of cluster areas established within the project site which does not cause significant impacts on neighboring properties or interrupt the continuity of existing and planned agricultural and related uses. 7. Lots within a rural cluster in the Rural Traditional, Rural Conservation, and Rural 5 categories shall be one acre or larger to maintain rural character and allow for rural- type lifestyles, such as animal keeping, orchards and gardening. Lots within the Urban Reserve category should range from 10,000-sq. ft. to I acre to preserve the area for future urbanization. 8. The number of home sites per cluster should be limited. Within the cluster, there should be a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 8 home sites. Clusters should be visually and physically separated from one another by open-space buffers. The scenic nature of roadways should be protected by varied setbacks and/or open space buffers. 9. Lot dimensions, building heights and setbacks should be compatible with rural character and provide the privacy, seclusion and access to open space that are normally expected in rural areas. 10. A minimum of 70% of the site in a rural cluster development shall be preserved for open space, wildlife habitat and/or resource use; or in the case of urban reserve areas to avoid precluding future development options. 11. An aggregation of clustered developments cannot be so arranged that it forms the basis for a rural activity center. 12. Clustered housing should not become the predominate pattern of development throughout the rural area. 40 13. Special consideration should be given to clustered housing in Urban Reserve Areas to ensure that development does not preclude the eventual conversion to urban densities on the remainder parcel. Urban Reserve Areas Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) are lands outside the Urban Growth Area that are considered for growth beyond the initial 20-year planning period but within a 40-year planning horizon. These areas are given special consideration so that land uses established in the near future do not preclude their eventual conversion to urban densities. For example, a 1-acre to 5-acre per lot subdivision pattern in these areas would create parcels that would be difficult to redivide to urban densities. Innovative techniques such as residential clustering and bonus densities may be used to protect property rights and ensure that these areas will be available in the future for urban development. Development in Urban Reserve Areas should be done in such a manner as to allow the orderly and efficient extension of utilities when the area is included in the UGA. RL.I.1 1 Based on a 40-year planning horizon, the County should identify urban reserve areas and growth corridors and within these areas densities and land use patterns, which preclude future conversion to urban densities, should be discouraged. RL.1.12 Development in URAs should be consistent with future urban design, including layout of buildings and roads. RL.I.13 Urban Reserve Areas (URAs) shall be designated on the Comprehensive Plan map based on the following considerations. 1. Suitability of natural systems to accommodate growth. Sensitive watersheds, shoreline areas, wildlife habitat and corridors or other sensitive environmental features should not be included in URAs. 2. Size of existing parcels. Land that is outside of the current UGA but exhibits the land division characteristics of urban development should be considered for inclusion in the URA. 3. The carrying capacity of natural, infrastructure and environmental systems. 4. The logical and orderly outward extension of urban services. 5. Population projections for a 40-year planning horizon. New Fully Contained Communities A new fully contained community is a development proposed for location outside of the existing designated Urban Growth Areas, which is characterized by urban densities, uses and services and meets the criteria of RCW 36.70A.350. New fully contained communities must receive a portion of the County's population allocation proportionate to the communities expected population. 41 RL.I.14 The County may establish "new fully contained communities" within the rural area, as provided for by the GMA. Future revisions to the Plan should consider new fully contained communities as an option to accommodate population growth. 42 Rural Activity Centers Providing for rural services and community gathering places without promoting sprawl � development is a challenge in rural areas. Rural ; � activity centers (RACs) provide a mechanism for : addressing these needs. RACs are mixed-use centers, including commercial and residential ' uses, and community services. RACs consist of ' :4 '°"rf compact development with a defined boundary that is readily distinguishable from surrounding ;` n' r*• �` R A � undeveloped lands. RACs often are found at �1 ,"4/12;i;; t� � r e crossroads and develop around some focal point, � � � „w„_ �,'�,. � ,� � u ��`� d � �}�.��' which may be a general store or post office. a s a w .�t,� t; t} SJ r a-�xay"`' -' Other typical uses may include a church, school, t' 3tia ,x . e§ "� restaurant, gas station or other small shops. y'- " c + ` f4rx, . 4 -es Commercial uses are intended to serve the 4 � yX- ; ,% '`- ... Y ' surrounding rural area or, in some instances, the traveling public. To be classified as a Rural Activity Center, the area must have been in existence prior to the July 1, 1993, which is the date Spokane County was mandated to plan under the Growth Management Act. Goal RL.2 Designate rural activity centers planned for a mix of residential and commercial uses to meet the needs of rural residents while retaining rural character and lifestyles. Policies RL.2.I RACs shall be limited to, isolated rural communities and centers. RAC boundaries shall be defined by a logical outer boundary delineated predominantly by the built environment and the following considerations. 1. Preservation of the character of neighborhoods and communities. 2. Preservation of natural systems and open space. 3. Physical boundaries, such as bodies of water, streets and highways and land forms and contours. 4. The ability to provide public facilities and public services in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl. 5. Designations should be confined to built-up areas, established prior to July 1, 1993, and not include large expanses of vacant land. 43 RL.2.2 The following unincorporated communities may be included as rural activity centers and others may be designated as appropriate, consistent with adopted policies. a. Elk h. Four Lakes b. Eloika Lake i. Marshall c. Riverside j. Plaza d. Chattaroy k. Mica e. Colbert I. Valleyford f. Nine Mile Falls m. Freeman g. Moab Junction RL.2.3 Commercial developments within RACs should be of a scale and type to be primarily patronized by local residents and in some instances to provide support for resource industries, tourism and the traveling public. RL.2.4 Encourage developers to work with local residents within RACs to develop plans that satisfy concerns for environmental protection, historic preservation, quality of life, property values and preservation of open space. 44 Rural Governmental Services Rural character embodies a quality of life based upon traditional rural lifestyles and aesthetic values. Included within this definition is an expectation and acceptance of low levels of governmental services. Rural residents generally seek to retain their traditional self-reliance within a supporting community framework. Typically, rural areas will be served by individual wells, on-site wastewater disposal, volunteer fire departments and low levels of police protection. Extension of public water is appropriate in rural areas in some cases. Some areas of development, established prior to plan adoption, will have existing sewer services. Goal RL.3 Provide a level of rural governmental service consistent with maintaining rural character. Policies RL.3.1 Designated rural lands shall have low densities which can be sustained by minimal infrastructure improvements, such as septic systems, individual wells and rural roads, without altering the rural character, degrading the environment or creating the necessity for urban level of services. RL.3.2 Extension of storm and sanitary sewer services outside of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) should Only be provided to maintain existing levels of service in existing urban-like areas or for health and safety reasons or to accommodate a major industrial development approved pursuant to RCW 36.70A.365, provided that such extensions are not an inducement to growth. RL.3.3 Rural governmental services shall include those public services and facilities historically and typically delivered at intensity usually found in rural areas and shall include domestic water service either through individual wells or public water service. Rural governmental services shall not include new storm and sanitary sewers except as provided for in RL.3.2. 45 Resource-based Uses in Rural Areas Rural lands, by definition, do not include agricultural, forestry and mineral lands that have been classified as resource lands with"long-term commercial significance." Resource lands with long-term commercial significance are considered in the Natural Resource Lands Chapter. Rural lands may include, however, viable resource uses which do not fit the criteria for inclusion in the resource land designation. Resource uses, including small scale agriculture, woodlots and mining, are appropriate in rural areas and certainly contribute to rural character. The maintenance and protection of these uses is one of the purposes of this section. Goal RL.4 Preserve and protect agriculture and forestry activities throughout the rural area. Policies RL.4.I Encourage best management practices for agricultural and forestry uses to conserve the resource and protect the environment. RL.4.2 Agricultural and forestry management practices shall be allowed in rural areas when carried on in compliance with applicable regulations, even though they may impact nearby residences. RL.4.3 Encourage current-use taxation laws as an incentive to retain productive agricultural and timberlands. RL.4.4 Create environmental standards for agriculture that protect environmental quality, especially in relation to water and fisheries resources, without discouraging farming. Note: See the Natural Environment Chapter for additional policies concerning environmental protection. RL.4.5 Airstrips and helicopter pads shall be allowed in the rural area, consistent with the preservation of rural character. 46 Industrial and Commercial Uses Industrial and commercial development in rural areas will generally be limited to uses that serve the needs of rural residents or are related to natural resource activities. These uses typically will include small-scale home professions and home industries, roadside agricultural sales and small commercial establishments within designated rural activity centers. Larger industrial uses generally will be limited to industries directly related to and dependent on natural resources. In some cases, limited infill of areas with existing industrial or commercial development may be appropriate. Goal RL.Sa Provide for industrial and commercial uses in rural areas that serve the needs of rural residents and are consistent with maintaining rural character. RL.5b Ensure the availability of adequate industrial land to accommodate major industrial developments that cannot be sited in the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Major Industrial Development Major industrial developments outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA) are allowed in certain instances (RCW 36.70A.365). These developments are intended to meet the need for industrial uses in which adequate land within the UGA is not available to accommodate the development. For instance, the development may require a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available in the UGA. Upon approval of a major industrial development outside UGAs, it must be designated as a UGA. RL.5.I New major industrial developments shall be allowed in the rural category consistent with RCW 36.70A.365, which states as follows. (1) "Major industrial development" means a master planned location for a specific • manufacturing, industrial or commercial business that: (a) requires a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within an urban growth area; or (b) is a natural resource-based industry requiring a location near agricultural land, forestland or mineral resource land upon which it is dependent. The major industrial development shall not be for the purpose of retail commercial development or multi-tenant office parks. (2) A major industrial development may be approved outside an urban growth area in a county that is planning under this chapter if criteria including, but not limited to, the following are met. (a) New infrastructure is provided for and/or applicable impact fees are paid. 47 (b) Transit-oriented site planning and traffic demand management programs are implemented. (c) Buffers are provided between the major industrial development and adjacent non-urban areas. (d) Environmental protection, including air and water quality, has been addressed and provided for. (e) Development regulations are established to ensure that urban growth will not occur in adjacent non-urban areas. (f) Provision is made to mitigate adverse impacts on designated agricultural lands, forestlands and mineral resource lands. (g) The plan for the major industrial development is consistent with the county's development regulations established for protection of critical areas. (h) An inventory of developable land has been conducted and the County has determined and entered findings that land suitable to site the major industrial development is unavailable within the urban growth area. Priority shall be given to applications for sites that are adjacent to or in close proximity to the urban growth area. (3) Final approval of an application for a major industrial development shall be considered an adopted amendment to the comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070 designating the major industrial development site on the land use map as an urban growth area. Final approval of an application for a major industrial development shall not be considered an amendment to the comprehensive plan for the purposes of RCW 36.70A.130(2) and may be considered at any time. 48 Industrial/Commercial Limited Rural Development Areas Some industrial and commercial developments were built in rural areas prior to development of and/or adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. These developments may be considered as limited areas of more intense development if they are designated and mapped within the Limited Rural Development category of the Comprehensive Plan. Allowing infill industrial development within these areas can contribute to the economic diversity of unincorporated areas of the county and provide employment opportunities for the nearby rural population. Any industrial and/or commercial development other than natural resource-based industry must be delineated on the Comprehensive Plan map for it to be considered as an area of more intense rural development. RL.5.3 The intensification and infill of commercial or non resource related industrial areas shall be allowed in rural areas consistent with the following guidelines. 1. The area is clearly identified and contained by logical boundaries, outside of which development shall not occur. These areas shall be designated and mapped within the Limited Rural Development category of the Comprehensive Plan map. 2. The character of neighborhoods and communities is maintained. 3. Public services and public facilities can be provided in a manner that does not permit or promote low-density sprawl or leapfrog development. 4. The intensification is limited to expansion of existing uses or infill of new uses within the designated area. 5. The area was established prior to July 1, 1993. Commercial Development Commercial development in rural areas should be limited to those businesses serving rural residents and supporting natural resources and tourism-related uses. Most commercial uses will be located in rural towns or in designated rural activity centers. In some instances, the intensification of established commercial areas may be allowed, provided they are consistent with policy guidelines (see RL.5.3). RL.5.4 Strip commercial development along state and county roads shall be prohibited. 49 RL.5.5 Use regulations in the Rural category for tourism and recreation oriented uses shall be developed based on the following guidelines. I. Resource-dependent tourism and recreation-oriented uses such as commercial horse stables, guide services, golf courses and group camps may be allowed in rural areas provided they do not adversely impact adjoining rural uses and are consistent with rural character. 2. Tourism-related uses such as motels and restaurants serving rural and resource areas shall be located within existing rural towns or designated rural activity centers or Master Planned Resorts. RL.5.6 Isolated non-residential uses in rural areas, which are located outside of rural activity centers or limited development areas, may be designated as conforming uses and allowed to expand or change use provided the uses were legally established on or before July 1, 1993, are consistent with rural character, and detrimental impacts to the rural area will not be increased or intensified. Master Planned Resorts Master planned resorts are self-contained, fully integrated planned unit developments in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities. They consist of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities. Master planned resorts should not be considered as a means to develop sprawling urban or suburban residential developments. Employment of local residents should be encouraged in Master Planned Resorts. RL.5.7 New Master Planned Resorts (MPR) may be approved in an area outside of established Urban Growth Area Boundaries providing they meet the following criteria. 1. The land proposed is better suited and has more long-term importance for a MPR than the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as a forest or agricultural resource. 2. MPR approval shall not be a precedent for allowing new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity. 3. The proposed development provides urban level public services that are strictly contained within the boundaries of the resort property by design and construction and protect health and the environment. 4. The proposed site for the MPR is sufficient in size and configuration to provide for a full range of resort facilities while maintaining adequate separation from any adjacent rural or resource land uses to maintain the existing rural character. 50 5. Residential uses are designed for short-term or seasonal use. Full-time residential uses should be limited to employee housing. Procedures should be developed to ensure that overnight lodging within Master Planned Resorts cannot be utilized as full-time residential units. 6. Significant natural and cultural features of the site should be preserved and enhanced to the greatest degree possible. 7. Preservation of wildlife corridors and open space networks should be integral to the site design. 8. Commercial uses and activities within the MPR should be limited in size to serve the customers within the MPR and located within the project to minimize the automotive convenience trips for people using the facilities. 9. Adequate emergency services must be available to the area to insure the health and safety of people using or likely to use the facility. RL.5.8 Existing resorts may be considered as Master Planned Resorts providing the resort was established prior to July I, 1990 and providing that a portion of the County's 20-year population projection is allocated to the MPR corresponding to the number of permanent residents within the MPR. Home Professions and Home Industries RL.5.9 Home professions, home industries, day-care facilities and accessory uses should be allowed outright or as conditional uses throughout the rural area, provided they do not adversely affect the rural character or conflict with resource-based economic uses. RL.5.I0 Development regulations for home professions, home industries, day-care facilities and accessory uses should protect adjacent properties from negative impacts and should be consistent with maintaining rural character. • 51 Wildfires Large-lot, low-density residential development in forested rural areas has dramatically increased the potential of life and property loss due to wildland fires. The problem is exemplified by the loss of 24 homes in the Hangman Valley area of Spokane County in July 1987 and by the loss of 114 dwellings in the Spokane County"fire storm" in 1991. This section provides policy direction for development of comprehensive wildfire standards. Goal RL.6 Development in rural and natural resource land areas will be in a manner that provides for adequate Tire access and fire protection. Policies RL.6.1 Develop comprehensive fire protection regulations consistent with recognized practice and recommendations and integrate them into zoning and other land use regulations as applicable; such regulation should include incentives to encourage development designed to mitigate wildfires. 52 Chapter 4 - Natural Resource Lands Natural Resource Lands include agriculture, forests and mineral lands of long-term commercial significance. Spokane County is blessed with an abundant supply of natural resource lands. Historically, natural resource industries were the center of the local economy. The resource industries produced lumber, paper products, metal products, stone, sand and gravel, wheat, fruit, berries, vegetables, forage crops, meat, poultry and dairy products, which were consumed by the community and exported around the world. Although the local economy has diversified considerably in recent years, the natural resource industries continue to be important. Resource lands have special characteristics that make them productive. These characteristics include unique soils, climatic conditions and geological structure. They cannot be recreated if they are lost to urban development or mismanaged. The residents of Spokane County recognize the importance of natural resource lands. Avoiding the irrevocable loss of these resources and protecting them for future generations is the purpose of this Chapter. {rt r42. s fi Wit, --ti. fit ' LI af:f 53 Resource Land Categories The natural resource land categories are shown on the Natural Resource Land Map. The designations are described as follows. Large Tract Agriculture Large tract agricultural areas are primarily devoted to grain, legume and grass seed production. Nonresource-related uses are generally prohibited. Residences will usually be associated with farming operations. Density The proposed residential density is 1 unit for 40 acres. Small Tract Agriculture Small tract agricultural areas are primarily devoted to grain, fruit, berry, vegetable, dairies, Christmas trees and forage crop production. Nonresource-related uses other than rural residences are generally prohibited. This type of agriculture is suitable to small-scale operations and may be conducted on relatively small parcels. Residences on large lots may or may not be associated with farming operations. Seasonal festivals and other activities associated with the marketing of agricultural products will be common occurrences in these areas. Density The proposed residential density is 1 unit for 10 acres. Mineral Lands Mineral land areas are primarily devoted to sand, gravel, rock or clay production. Related products such as concrete, asphalt and brick are also produced. Agriculture and forestry may be conducted on mineral resource lands but residences are generally limited to caretaker residences associated with mining or related industry. Forest Land Forestland areas are primarily devoted to wood production. Nonresource-related uses are generally prohibited. Residences are allowed but will be located on relatively large parcels to minimize conflicts with forestry operations. Density The proposed residential density is 1 unit for 20 acres. 54 • Pend Oreille County Camden \ Natural Resource Lands © •- N, ..\..;.• 4. , LEGEND 1 i .•• • � ` C \ h Large Tract Agriculture Al Urban Growth o ,N : .'` \ �♦ Arra ` ` .� \ •\ 0 Small'fradAgriculture � �' 1 �\ a� Al ' / Highway R'. \ . ��, • Forest Land . ,r I I • Landmark c °7, °r Park •Milan Mineral Land 9 ♦V \ . .....\... a, r. s `� A I_1 Incorporated Area _ \\ ��• •••\ • . ® 1000'Notification Bulger -- ` �i *\;J\ .• •.r' �� 1 . - • Resource Land Activity Notification > • •,..,. �••`\` \\`\ • \ is required on all Resource Lands .3 w;:..\\ � . \ and within the Notification Buffer \ ! ♦♦ •. ♦ 1 Area.(Section 14.514.02),Spokane $ •` • ' ♦s \" 1 County Zoning Code). I • • v ♦ \ • a a a i . SA 114. A 41. 1 I NN k N. \..\ " ,' o�d,_. \ Nr \N \` A N I, .. .u...;:.,‘‘,.,,. � \ tk I. r 4ctivm .1ke \V Moats 4t. i •-r '_ ._.•" Cl —— / I -JI • \ WOO.-d� I 'a Otis Orcbade w o • �' 1 i, kk.kkt Irlo City o ..■ .1. Ihiiiiiis` 1 PO +.,1` El✓g - -•111 J .\\1„ \ 1 O - %1 1 •:8 hildA.' ::` r -♦ _ ♦._ �� I 4 • 1 ` a \` r , p • 1 •1- -a 1 1.. -n•r -- - Brown's Mountain -' l 5 \ (�1 1 Elev.3144 4..)1.11.1:P.� ♦ ( _ \. - \\ \ "II \ �\ -� -- ! .,, as aa ••• _ �` .a a ! a !'a 9 • ' Four Lakes i \ •a•a a a a 1 •• '" IP = \\�- \ .-, ; ` ` Mie '1 �' `�iG� 1 \\ •\ \ \.,,i . . 4,P,P 7 . .S'. N ,.1/4.,,..N•.•:,.„.1.:t„1/4 S.N:_'....S,*Sk•X-..:‘,.,:„.,%...‘..NZ:V‘SS..SN 27 _. _ .� :A-8 . \\\.1i" .tom.Y1 ♦ �\ © . '� \ ,\1 isni �• • • t n, tilts \.... _ `�,�` Da Turnbull qx •Wildlife Refuge i�;� it 01/44. i . ss . • 3' --' ' s ,., , ` . ..... , 0„, „, # ,..0. ,,, - 7,-,maJ ._.,,. ��7,1 Iv I ��tt 1,. iltiaras lake - - •P�' i 27 \ Rada ' i 9prl.ic s . - -- .- - - (1:61 Whitman County Whitman County • This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general J. planning tool.Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot 1 - accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and therefore,there are no warranties which accompany this material. aits tGWashington Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Nrl map 55 Designation of Natural Resource Lands Spokane County is blessed with productive resource lands that are important to the local economy. If these lands are protected from incompatible development, they can continue to benefit future generations. In the past, urban development, especially in the Spokane River Valley, covered both high- quality agricultural land and large deposits of quality sands and gravels. Due to the urbanization, it is unlikely that these resources will be available for future generations. Designating and protecting the County's remaining resource lands ensures that these remaining areas will not be lost to incompatible development. The first step in protecting resource lands is to identify those lands that possess the characteristics to support long-term commercial resource production. For commercial agriculture and forestry, it is necessary to identify lands with productive soil and favorable climatic conditions. Mineral resources must meet criteria of quality, quantity and accessibility for commercial viability. Location of mineral resources is important, since the cost of transporting them adds greatly to cost. Information about natural resource lands, especially soil and geological information, is constantly being improved. It is important to review new information and update natural resource designations as information becomes available. Goals NR.la Provide for necessary natural resources while preserving and protecting the natural environment and private property rights. NR.lb Ensure adequate supply, long-term conservation and wise stewardship of natural resources within Spokane County for the benefit of current and future residents. Policies NR.1.1 natural resource lands of long-teen commercial significance shall be designated on official maps and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners through a comprehensive planning process. NR.1.2 Environmentally sensitive areas, which may be degraded by intensive forestry, agriculture or mining uses, should not be classified as resource lands. • NR.1.3 Natural resource land designations should be reviewed every 5 years and amended if necessary to reflect better information or changes of conditions. 56 Agricultural Land Designation Criteria NR1.4 Lands meeting the following criteria shall be designated as Spokane County large tract agricultural Resource Lands of Long-term Commercial Significance: 1. • Lands with predominantly prime and unique farmland classifications, as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture. 2. Lands predominantly used for or capable of long-term commercial agricultural production. 3. Lands with large areas of contiguous ownership and parcel sizes predominately 40 acres or larger. 4. Lands that produce or are capable of producing predominately annual crop rotations including small grains, non-forage legumes and grass seed. NR.1.5 Lands, which do not meet all the criteria for the large tract agricultural designation but do meet the following criteria shall be designated as Spokane County Small Tract Agricultural Resource Lands of Long-term Commercial Significance. 1. Lands with predominantly prime and unique farmland classifications, as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture. 2. Lands predominantly used for or capable of commercial agricultural production. 3. Lands which produce or are capable of producing crops of local significance such as dairies orchards, truck crops, vineyards, Christmas trees/wood lots, foraged crops, small grains, non-foraged legumes and grass. Forest Land Designation Criteria NR.1.6 Lands meeting the following criteria shall be designated as Spokane County Forest Resource Lands of Long-term Commercial Significance. 1. Property currently assessed for tax purposes as forestland or timberland pursuant to Chapter 84.28, 84.34 RCW. 2. Private forestland grades of the Department of Revenue (WAC 458-40-530). In Spokane County land grades of 5 and 6 and operability classes of 1, 2 and 3 are considered for designation. 3. Forestland designations shall be located outside of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). 4. Designated areas shall consist of a minimum contiguous area of greater than 640 acres (not continuous ownership). This means that areas, which meet the criteria will not be designated as forestland unless the total area is greater than 640 acres in size. 5. Contiguous areas of land fewer than 640 acres that do not meet the designation criteria but are surrounded by designated forest land may be designated as forestland. 57 6. State and county parkland will not be designated as forest land, but will be used to meet the minimum contiguous area threshold of greater than 640 acres. 7. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) ownerships that are devoted to timber production and are located adjacent to designated forestlands. 8. Forest land should not be designated within smoke-control zones, no-bum areas, PM 10-nonattainment areas or CO-nonattainment areas, as defined by the Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority. 9. Areas considered for inclusion in the Forestry Designation shall have predominant existing parcels of 40 acres or larger. Mineral Land Designation Criteria NR.1.7 Mineral Resource Lands of long-term commercial significance should be designated on official maps and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners through a comprehensive planning process. Mining shall be allowed on lands not meeting natural resource designation criteria if environmental protection and compatibility with adjacent land uses is assured. NR.1.8 Mineral Resource Lands of long-term commercial significance should be designated pursuant to the following criteria. 1. In Spokane County, the commercially important minerals are sand, gravel, rock or clay. Mineral resource land designations should be made where these minerals are known to exist. The Spokane County Mineral Resource Map should be used as a tool to help identify additional sites to help meet future demand. 2. Mineral resource land designations should be located in areas with compatible land uses, such as mining, industry, agriculture, forestry, vacant or large-lot residential (less than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres). Mitigation of adverse impacts from mining on adjacent property shall be a prime designation criterion. 3. Mineral resource land designations should be 20 acres or more in size. 4. Mineral land designations should have a minimum deposit size of approximately 500,000 cubic yards for sand, gravel and rock, and approximately 200,000 cubic yards for blend sand. 5. Mineral resource land designations shall not occur on lands with wetlands, riparian areas, geological hazard or threatened or endangered species unless impacts can be adequately mitigated. 6. Mineral resource land designations shall have adequate access for trucks. Access shall not be through a residential neighborhood. 58 • Amending NRL Designations NR.1.9 Designation criteria and mapped boundaries for natural resource lands shall only be revised through a comprehensive plan amendment. Changes in designations will be based on one or more of the following criteria. 1. A change in circumstances pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan or public policy. 2. A change in circumstances beyond the control of the landowner pertaining to the subject property. 3. An error in designation. 4. New information on natural resource land or critical area status. 5. Use of innovative land use management techniques. 6. Land subdivisions within natural resource lands that are created subsequent to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan shall not be considered as a basis for amending NRL designations. Governmental Services in Natural Resource Lands Governmental services in natural resource areas should include only those services necessary to support the production of food and fiber and the extraction of minerals. If higher levels of service are provided, residential uses will be encouraged to locate in resource areas. Experience has shown that proliferation of residential uses in resource areas will inevitably lead to the demise of the resource activities. The government services that are appropriate in resource land areas include volunteer fire departments, minimal police protection and rural roads designed for transporting commodities and equipment. Goal NR.2 Provide a level of governmental service consistent with long-term preservation and protection of natural resource lands. Policies • NR.2.I Designated agricultural and forest lands shall have low residential densities which can be sustained by minimal infrastructure improvements such as septic systems, individual wells and rural roads without degrading the environment or creating the necessity,for urban levels of service. NR.2.2 Services in resource land areas will be limited. On-site septic systems,piivate wells or small, self-contained water systems, volunteer fire departments and minimal police protection will support residences at appropriate densities. NR.2.3 Capital improvement plans should take into consideration maintenance of public roads adequately to accommodate the transportation needs of forest and agriculture commodities. 59 Land Use in Natural Resource Lands To protect natural resource lands, it is important to foster the development of land uses that support and complement resource activities. Generally, the various resource activities, agriculture, forestry and mining, do not conflict with one another. Industrial and commercial uses that that are related to resource activities maybe supportive of continued resource land use and should be encouraged. Nonresource-related uses, especially residential uses, often conflict with resource production or extraction. Rural residents often object to the noise, dust, smell and chemicals used in resource areas. The impacts to residential development can be mitigated to some degree by buffering or maintaining low residential density. Uses that support resource activities include but are not limited to food processing, equipment repair, grain elevators, resource storage areas, aircraft landing fields for crop dusting, lumber mills, chemical and supply distribution. Goal NR.3: Land uses shall be consistent with the conservation of designated resource lands and shall not interfere with resource land management practices. Policies NR.3.1 Viable agricultural, forestry and mining activities shall be protected from conflicts through the use of zoning requirements, plat requirements, grandfather rights and similar methods. NR.3.2 Specialized agricultural uses such as feedlots, fur farms, poultry ranches and similar uses shall be provided for and protected from incompatible land use encroachment. NR.3.3 Areas for agricultural endeavors such as small berry, fruit, vegetable and other specialty crops will be encouraged on lands which are relatively close to urban areas. Roadside sales of agricultural products produced on-site should be permitted. NR.3.4 Uses permitted on or near resource lands must be compatible and not interfere with the economic benefit provided by that natural resource. NR.3.5 The primary land use activities on natural resource lands are commercial forest management, agriculture and mineral extraction and those uses that maintain, enhance or have insignificant impact on the long-term management of designated natural resource lands. NR.3.6 Land use activities within or adjacent to natural resource land should be sited and designed to minimize conflicts with resource-related activities. 60 NR.3.7 Specific development and performance standards for access, lot size and configuration, fire protection, water supply and dwelling unit location should be adopted for development within or adjacent to natural resource lands. These standards will provide for buffer areas adjacent to designated natural resource lands that minimize conflict with commercial natural resource activities. NR.3.8 Develop comprehensive fire protection regulations consistent with recognized practice and integrate them into Forestry zoning and other land use regulations as applicable; such regulations should include incentives to encourage development designed to mitigate wildfires. Residential Development on Natural Resource Lands Policies NR.3.9 Residential use on natural resource lands shall be discouraged unless the residential use is related to resource land management or production. NR.3.10 Mineral lands are designated only for parcels with proven mineral reserves. Only residences connected with the mineral extraction activity should exist on mineral lands. NR.3.I 1 Rural residential development adjacent to agricultural and forest production districts should be designed to minimize conflict with resource uses. NR.3.12 Nonconforming lots, which were legally created, may still be developed provided adequate provisions for sewage disposal and other services can be met without the extension of urban governmental services outside the UGA. Alternatives to developing undeveloped or partially developed plats that are not consistent with resource use should be encouraged. NR.3.13 Home professions, home industries and accessory uses should be allowed within designated resource lands provided they do not adversely affect the rural character or conflict with resource based economic uses. NR.3.14 Development regulations for home professions, home industries and accessory uses shall protect adjacent properties from negative impacts and shall be consistent with maintaining natural resource activities. NR.3.15 Residential clustering shall not be permitted on designated natural resource lands. Residential Density - Agricultural Lands NR.3.16 The maximum residential density within designated agricultural lands will be 1 unit per 40 acres on designated large tract agricultural lands and 1 unit per 10 acres on designated small tract agricultural lands. 61 Residential Density - Forest Lands NR.3.17 The maximum residential density within designated forest lands will be 1 unit per 20 acres for forest lands. Commercial and Industrial Use in Natural Resource Lands NR.3.18 Nonresource-related industrial developments such as major industrial developments, airports and storage yards shall not be allowed on designated resource lands. NR.3.19 Industries related to and dependent upon natural resources of agriculture, forestry and mining shall be allowed on designated resource lands. NR.3.20 Retail sales facilities and activities shall not be allowed on natural resource lands except as accessory to the sale of commodities produced on-site, sale of sand and gravel associated with on-site mining activity and home business or industries which do not conflict with natural resource activities. Commercial Development for Small Tract Agriculture Spokane County recognizes the importance of small tract agriculture to the local economy and as a defining feature of the local character and identity. Small-scale farming is commercially viable, especially when located near the urban area because of direct marketing opportunities, which allow small-scale producers to compete with large-scale producers. The following policies are intended to form a framework for recognition of small-scale farming's special needs for protective and flexible regulations to continue the tradition of small tract agriculture in Spokane County. NR.3.21 Seasonal retail sales facilities and activities shall be allowed in small tract agricultural areas as accessory uses directly related to the sale of farm commodities produced on the site. NR.3.22 Encourage local production and consumption of food and farm products through public markets and festivals located on small tract agricultural lands, provided such activities do not conflict with agricultural practices and provided that adequate provisions are made for traffic control, off-street parking, sanitation, noise control and dust control. NR.3.23 Allow direct farm-to-market agricultural distribution including on-farm sale of agricultural products. 62 Conservation and Protection of Natural Resource Lands A variety of techniques are available to conserve and protect the long-term viability of natural resource lands. Spokane County requires that applicants for development permits be notified if they are planning to develop near natural resource areas so that they are aware of potential impacts. When appropriate, notification shall be placed on land titles so that potential buyers are alerted to the existence of natural resource activities near by. Property tax policies to encourage continued resource activities are in place. Agriculture, timber and forest tax classifications are available to reduce tax burden on productive lands. Spokane County should continue to discourage special assessments in natural resource areas that do not benefit resource management. Innovative approaches to natural resource land conservation should be explored including options for transfer of development rights and conservation easements. Goal NR.4 Use best management practices and other innovative techniques in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive manner to protect natural resources from incompatible activities. Policies NR.4.1 Notification should be placed on all county land use permits or approvals on or within 1,000 feet of designated natural resource lands, that the adjacent land is in resource use and subject to a variety of activities that may not be compatible with residential development. The notice should state that forest or agricultural activities performed in accordance with local, state and federal laws are not subject to legal action as public nuisances. NR.4.2 Agricultural, forest and mining operations shall be allowed on natural resource lands when carried on in compliance with applicable regulations, even though they may impact nearby residences. NR.4.3 Natural resource lands shall be managed, conserved and protected while used for natural resource production and restored to a natural state or developed in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan once resource use has stopped. Tax Policies and Incentive Programs NR.4.4 Owners of agricultural, timber and other natural resource lands should be encouraged to participate in the current use taxing program. 63 NR.4.5 The establishment or expansion of special purpose taxing districts and local improvement districts and the imposition of fees and charges on land within the forest and agriculture land designations is discouraged unless those land uses create the need for additional public services NR.4.6 Designated resource land taxes should be based on current use for property committed to resource use rather than highest use. Innovative Techniques • NR.4.7 Work with other jurisdictions to develop and implement regionally consistent incentive- based programs such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to promote good stewardship and protect natural resource lands. NR.4.8 Support the use of conservation easements, conservation futures and other methods to conserve and protect working landscapes, open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Forest Land Policies NR.4.9 Encourage the continuation of commercial forest management by: a. Supporting land trades that will result in consolidated forest ownership; b. Working with forest managers to identify and develop other incentives for continued forestry. NR.4.10 The impact to the local economy and local revenue programs should be considered prior to the conversion of commercial forest land to other uses. Mineral Land Policies NR.4.1 1 Recognize that mineral resources are site-specific and not subject to relocation. NR.4.12 Mining shall be allowed on rural lands as well as lands designated as mineral and other natural resource lands if environmental protection and compatibility with adjacent land uses is assured. NR.4.13 Encourage local regulations to control environmental impacts of mining operations. 64 NR.4.14 Approval of proposed mining operations will include conditions that: 1. The extraction proposal meets all applicable zoning requirements; and 2. The proposed extraction operation is buffered from existing or potential developments within the vicinity of the proposed operation; and 3. A permit, which includes a reclamation plan and performance bond, is obtained through the Washington State Department of Natural Resources; and 4. Provide for protection of groundwater and surface water, including wetlands, during and after operation; and 5. Mining shall not be allowed to penetrate the elevation 10 feet above the highest known elevation of an aquifer; and 6. The monitoring and clean up of contaminants should be ongoing; and 7. A permit, when applicable, from DOE for coverage under the Sand and Gravel General Permit. 65 Chapter 5 - Transportation Purpose People and places are connected to one another by the transportation system. The transportation system 'consists of facilities that accommodate many modes of transport, including cars, trucks,buses, bicycles, trains, airplanes and pedestrian. The primary focus of the transportation element is meeting Spokane County's future transportation needs for roads, trails/pathways, walkways and transit, including light rail. • Spokane County's population and employment will increase significantly over the next 20 years. This anticipated growth will result in additional demand on the transportation system. Transportation strategies must be developed to maintain acceptable levels of service for the transportation system as this growth occurs. The transportation element serves as Spokane County's action plan to provide the transportation strategies necessary to accommodate future growth. The transportation element combines technical and financial analysis for the County's transportation system through a methodology that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act. The Transportation Element identifies existing transportation system characteristics, establishes level of service ratings, identifies existing and future deficiencies based on the established levels of service, develops improvement projects and strategies to mitigate deficiencies and analyzes projected revenues to ensure that necessary improvements can be constructed as needed. Design of the Transportation System Urban Local Access The primary purpose of residential streets is to provide access to adjacent residential property. These streets may be privately owned and maintained, but most are public streets. Street design can have a significant impact on community character. Contemporary residential design often features a street designed with cul-de-sacs and minimal connections to the surrounding street network. "Gated communities"have also become popular. An alternative street design is the traditional or grid, design. This traditional design which is common in most older neighborhoods features streets that are connected forming relatively small blocks. The major advantage of the contemporary design is that through traffic is minimized and it is assumed that security is enhanced. Disadvantages of the contemporary design include more difficult access for emergency and service vehicles and increased traffic congestion on arterial streets. The contemporary design discourages pedestrian and transit use since generally one must travel a greater distance to get from point A to point B than with a traditional connected street pattern. The traditional street design tends to disperse traffic more evenly since alternative routes are provided through many connections. The traditional street design facilitates pedestrian and transit use of the street. With the increased activity on the street, security may be enhanced. 67 Rural Local Access Roads The purpose of rural local access roads is to provide access to rural properties. They are designed for low speeds and may be paved or gravel. Some rural local access roads may be private roads. The main advantage of private roads is that the public is not burdened with maintenance costs for repairs and snow plowing. The primary disadvantage of private roads may be difficulties with emergency access associated with inventorying, signage, maintenance and design. Most of these difficulties can be overcome with adequate construction standards,provision for maintenance agreements and coordination with service providers. Urban Arterial Streets Urban arterial street designs are generally based on capacity or the volume of traffic they are intended to carry. The highest-capacity arterials are limited access arterials. They are generally constructed with four or more lanes and their purpose is to move traffic through an area rather than to provide access to adjacent property. The location of limited access arterials must be carefully considered. They tend to form a barrier to pedestrian as well as auto traffic. It has been well documented that construction of limited access arterials through residential areas often leads to the deterioration of adjoining neighborhoods. Most urban arterials are multipurpose facilities providing access to adjacent properties as well as accommodating through traffic and are designed to carry moderate to heavy volumes of vehicular traffic. The multipurpose urban arterials should be designed to provide for various modes of transportation, including pedestrians, bicycles, transit, trucks and cars. Rural Arterial Roads Rural arterial roads are moderately fast facilities designed to provide for through traffic, to collect traffic from the local area and to route traffic to urban areas and other major traffic generators. Several new rural arterials and improvements to existing rural arterials are proposed in the Arterial Road Plan. The intent of these rural arterials is to provide additional and improved routes for pass-through truck and commuter traffic that is currently clogging urban arterials. Several issues associated with rural arterials have been identified that should be addressed by the Comprehensive Plan policies. These major issues are listed below. Preventing sprawl - Land use policies must prohibit anything other than low-density residential development and prohibit most commercial and industrial development in rural areas. The land use policies should be backed up by transportation policies that limit, manage and control access along the routes. The rural arterials must be specifically defined as to their intended use and characteristics. Finally, policies must be in place that make it clear that rural arterials are not to be used as a rationale for extending sewer and water or expanding urban growth boundaries. Maintaining rural lifestyle - To reduce impacts to the rural areas, roadways should be designed that are sensitive to the aesthetic and environmental qualities of the countryside through which they pass. This may include a special section design featuring native landscaping, bike paths and routing to minimize negative impacts. 68 Protecting natural areas - Wildlife habitat and corridors, open space, conservation areas and farmlands are important to the quality of life in Spokane, as expressed by participants in the Blueprints 2000 planning process. The conservation futures program to purchase habitat and open space, the Dishman Hills Natural Area and Riverside State Park are significant public investments worthy of protection. Rural routes must be carefully selected to avoid impacts to these valuable resources. When transportation improvements are designed, it is important to address the needs of the general public, individual property owners and neighborhoods. Most transportation improvements should be designed as multiple use facilities, which provide for pedestrians, bicycles, transit and automobile use. 69 Arterial Road Plan 70 Pend Oreille Coun i 1 1 , Arterial Road Plan r a ' it it ' r a a 1I a a 'I r a IIa : ,C4:4344/7 I a 1I 1 r 'I it : it 11a : a 1, N a 1 1 LEGEND 1 I ' 1 I 1 1 I I 1 ' I I 1 ^� State i 1 11 N ' ' n " 1 '', I 1 I' '1 1 I , 1 1 It St dHighwdl'' - --1-- - -- •... - :....: . J- -T--T-- - -- --1--J---t--1--T-- N 1 1 ' , I ' 1 1 I 1 1 I I Urban Principal Arterial , - u K I , 1 to n , 1 1 ti u , 1 1 1 1 a o N Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Arterial i a u I 1 i i t +✓ ,• n , 1 r N Rural Major Collector - r - --L — ^r , I fM I I , I 1 I I , 1 I Rural Minor Collector , 1 a a 1 1 a a I 1 I 1 a a , , 1 I r "'• Proposed U1bai Principal -1 _- -_.r 4 _1 1 1__ __ _• 4__i__J__ __- 1-_J t_- -_I.__.; 1 __ is' Proposed Urban Minor a - • I:: '.I. a 1 , a 1• a , a } , a , � a 1 a 1 a a 1 a I a a Zia a 1 1 . Proposed Urban Collector . ' , N --1 , I r 11 , 1 I I 1-7 1 1,1/�. § N 1 ' I • r N • 111 1 ' I ' 11 r a Y N a 1 ' tl 1 it 1 1 a I a ' a I ! 1 r Proposed Rural Major Collector p Proposed ROM Minor Collector t..) , ', -,-- 1 t- 1 1 - -- , 1 1 1 , 1 1 North Spokane Corridor g I ,+ a 1 1 1 11 a 1 I i I u A , 1 1 I I n UrbaaCaowthArea > T---i--t- --I -- --4 --; --1-- --a-- ---II--- --r--t--I--_ I , I5 I , it I ' I0 I 1 � I I n u , I � I I n -J --4 --t-- --1---- j-- ---- --a-- 1--284- 1-4---1-- ---i--4---ig{t 4-,--4-- 6 -L. I I n I I / I a K I 1 I I 14 +t I I i 'T8' " _- _-__-.. _ -_ __ __ -L__L-- 1 ' 1 1 , I 1 � 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 , I i 1 2,.IIO err 1 , � • a } I I 1 i a 1 I i a I -�-- -='t'-.�.r�=�, t-- --T- ,•.?,. -- --' - I1 -_ ,` - ' II11I 1 1 1 I I I: Ia 1 a 1 a I a , . . r 1 a , a r I } I r f 1 a I a I ' ' a11 ' .111 � 11' ' 1I1 1II61 a a r N ' I ! 1 N , tt1N , ' rIa1 ! It' a ' r , ! arIn �+ ' It /, R N I I I I 1! 1 I 1Z-- --1 -_1--t- -+'-- - -t- --� - --4--- --•1--�--- --.1---1-- ( J -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ! I I I , 1 1 1 I 1 I a n I , I I ti I 1 It 11 , I , 1 ,1 I , 1 1 I IX _-1-_ __.4-_ -,1_ L-_4. ti __ _ __J-_J__ �__ __ __1__J__ _ -27"-- .. . 2143-4--'1- 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I ... ' I 1 1 1 1 , I i I 1 I r /1 1 I I I 1 I 1 - 1 1 a -:' , 1 I a 1/ I 1 I I 1 1 1 40 1 • a ' 2741' 1 , 1 I I I a� r a I I 1 I a 1 I I 1 I I I I i ' •1 I I 1 I ' ' ¢. 1 ' -- I-`1- '�-- I -+--r--r--- - - 01 -1-- -- --J -'-- --- --�- - a 1 a 1 a I a a 1 a ��1 ' a 1 a 1 a I a ill! . ' 'MI T I ' I . I a x , 1 • , a 1 I T.'-I IllrIPIIIIIII 1t i - .. . , a , ! I r ,,, i. . I .. 'I.._.,,_ a l r Y ; a , R l ., a _'11 a i i N I 1 I -t-- 1 I �--'�---1-- � � , I I , � 1 , 1 _1--L_ -- 1 -- --I---4---' - 1 ' (4411.02=1111115H4.` _ � - ' - ' -- - ' - - ' -- L r -, -1- i I I 1 1 1 I 1 Al 1 I 1 1 1 ' I 1 G I I 1 I 1 _air 1 1 1 f7 U I I I ' , 1 it , ✓ , , v ,. , , I , I ti a , I I 1) 1 ... lik 1 I I �. I 1 ", 1 11•.1 -�' 1 I I I ,^ 1 I 1 1 , 1 +• 1 I 1 r , .. �` ' a_ .I 1 I 1 a 10 , 1 , , a /� • a I i a } 1 ; $ I I1I ,•• i ■ aO - - -- --' - IiIIi1II ---4 --r-- 4,-- iI1I : - t--�rIrI i a ; I 1�' a 1 a a 1 a a , a a , a , a a } a a a a L � a I a ' m�. } I a 1 a s , r �f`7� a ' N a , , , t► 1 ' I aip.-r 1• �•. .�.. H�j"±T- • , a 01 ! a r 1 r '�� 11< Q' ,t 0r 1 , , � `I f N I , � . i I 1 i , I , I , WO' .� �S1 ■.21-.,"tli r Vl It , , Cpl ,a ,t , li ,. I 1 _I.._ 1 , I " /�L ai�:� �,! _ N1,141111, „ Tao- F I�i . U Ali ixePIn `` r ^'7 ' ' ' 1 a 1 - I a } ,� ,..../p-, ' a ' I I rt' ` ' 1611$ t -' p -- --I•---�--" --I -- ';.. .A.F.: e-4- L --t--�---7. _'_ / -'• 41,0 . --�---� - 1 •l 1 `I ( 1 I r I ' I , I a 1 a , a I a a , a i• 1 a � i , a I4111110� , a i 1 a 1 a I } I lK. }.. 1 -.s 1 a a I a 1 a I a I a I I 1 I - I I �} I I 1 N 1 r 1 :...�..,J 1 gill I , '#ii.!'r'�` I I I 1 1 I I I It+y.w.1 K 1 ■ N N K al a N a a a r N r a 1 a 1 a 1 r I 1 -_ I 1 I I i I I 1 __ __ __ i A r •- _L •J__1_; 'I-Milan/3-4 1 i I t . .I._ I I I I 1 3 t!�4 1 1lif I I I I �Peak 1 1 N I I , :.f-I • , — I , - , 1 I •• 1 1 1 1. q t I I n - I I I ' I .- I I , I , i I I I I I , I • 1 1 1' I 1 I ' \ u ` .�-T— 1 11:. n , I , , b u I 1 I I ■ , 1 1 I I i -- ---�-- ..t - --1- - - ---1--J-- -- - 1- -1' - - - - 1 1 -zit'- A 1 i Zfil_ 1 - - - 1 mss+ 1 n I I 1 , I r , I 1 '. 11 1 1 1 I11 1 1 Y 11 1 1 I' I 1 I 1 I r -- :_ - r-- it- --i--J- -r--"1-- --'1- `_ .` -1-- --J--'I'-- -- --J--T--T--'t-- I I) 1 L. I 1 , 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I :- -- a I 1 ,-_ _Jaa , 1 I I a , a , r I a A : 311 1 a , a , ra 1 1 a I a , a Itiliki 1 } 1 a 1 r I Y , )' I 1 I I , 1 i. . , I 1 1 1 , i I , , ( 1 1 , Id . , r 1 av�l" a IN ' 04 , tl I ■ 1 N 1 at 1 , . . . 1 . 1 tl • 1 it HI a 1. 0 1 a 1 • i. I I 1 , I 1 1 ii7„ I 1 ' I 1 1 I 1 I 1 , , I 1 1 N , I 1 , , ,z N , I i I I I 1 R N I I I 1 . 'R I , I '] I 1 1 n --1---I --4---t--- - ---1-- 1 J_r�,., 4 --t -� i - J t r- t III I I I I , - u ' ' ' U ti i �' I I , 10 n I I 1 1 ,] n I I ' I I I I I 1 --4- .. I ,t .4, I ---- �s - -2t�o-- -{--- --�--�--x33t-- � �- I - _Sir-�--�-- --�-- �-- --4---4- -- -J-- _''•4'.- I - -1-- 1 1 I 1 I 1 ... ' 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 • 1 , 1 `.' , i I I It I 1 I 1 r n , , Ii I I I a n 1 1 , 1 1 n 1 , 1 11 I 1 1 1 a I r -1-- ---r ---t --I- t-p 4---4-- --I 4-- 4--t--4------ --4--4 --r---I---4 --4 --1 -----4---I--- • I , I I a a I I I - I } I ,II a a 1I r I I I s, ..--d I I I a -y' 1 I I I I f 1 1 1 I , I 1 1 I I I • 1 I I 1 1 ' - 1 r - 1 -1 1 1- -� 4 T I } -- - - zm7 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 a I = 1 a x a , a A I a I a , , i ; a a r 1 i , i A I i I a 1 r , a , } } I : a r lit 1 - i a , I `i,,•- 1 • 77r 1 I `l I I I I 1 A. a . • a ' a ' r r I r ' N a I K , a i M I ' tl I ! I r a I r I e 1 • TI a ' a a ' a a 1 1/ 1 ' ■ 1 N I tl •1 ! 1 r I , I 1 1 I I �.I.• , I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I- I. T--I -- r 1 - �- �{4/ •:• '�^'6^__ I I _ I 'Y__7__.t__ 1 _'I__ I _ _-I _ 1 __I __ 1._ I I t - _ .T 1 N I i I It K 1 I It R N 1 •. II 1 i) ' I 1 11 I 1 --- -1-- -4---0--1- T-- .T-- T-----•-- t-- I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 , 1 1 11 f I 1 I 13 IS 1 1 1 1 1 11 ' 1 ' 1 I ,� I I I It n 1 ' 1 13 a 1 I ' 1 13 I I 1 1 1 I I I I 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 11 I 1 I I I 1t ' 1 I I 1 I i1 ' 1 '...^ I 1 i I1 ; 1� I It , , I I I I 1 I 1 a -- --r-- -4-40.-- 4---1---4---I-- -----4- -4---1--- ---1--1- -r--1--4t -- -- --4- -t--- --r- - r--4---4---4---1--- a 1 1 1 I Y I I I ••.I. a ' I I 1 1 Y a I I I 1 r ' 1 I 1 I -4 -a �.) I : Y 1 1 1 I I 1 I ^ ' 1 r I 1 I : , i i I •I 1 I I 1 - --r---t-- --t- --— 4-1--7---1 -L- - -I ' -7.4-1 - • • : a , , SIN A ; 11 i a , , a a 1 a 5 a 1311 A , a a , a I I a I ' 1 I I ' IJ 1 I �1 I ' 1 I 1 III I a ' r ' N ■ I I M ' .tl ' R ' n a 1 r ' .a I ! H a I M I aN/.. ,� I, a I r r 1 a , ! a IAllr I 1 ' 1 1 I ' ' I is I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I i.i 1 , 1 I 1 I , 1 I 1 I 1 tl I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , It N .. 1 1 1 It R I I ,�., I , 1i a , I I I 1 p I I I I n ___".-__..__4_-._t__ i --_''-_.•__4__ • __1-_ __L -4-_ _ r _ -- __+__L_ --..1__4-_ -_4-__4__T__ 1/ I I 1 I 17 11 I I I I I to 11 1 I I 1• u. \ I I I 13 11I I � 1 1 '1a I ' � n i 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 11 ' I - I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I , Y t/ I 1 I I I Y +1 i I 1 I I ■ IS , i , I I N 11 1 I 1 , Y I I I I I r I 1 1 I I ' L I ' 1 I 1 r r I ' i I I, a I 1 a I I ' ; a a 1 i 14 1 � a 1 1 1 I a (�'. I , 1, , I a 1, ,. :1 I1 a--` iI I 1 , 1, 0 III11 a a a , } a l a r 1 a a , a , ' i : a II a ,I a ,I a x- I a 9 a i ,I a a 1 ,,. a , a } a � a ,I r ,1 i , a • 11(-M, 72 ; 1 ! 1 Whitman CountyDas' inap was published by me sp�e County Division of Planning. general al Whitman County -:-E---- 1 planning tool.Due to the di1bing quality of source doanneats,the Division camot accept responsibility for errors or omissions.and therefore,there e ano warenties Lb1>ru1 which accompany this material. Washington I1'temiliconData I0/10/01 Spokane County Division of Planning ' r Pend(hei Ile County Cam Pedestrian - Bicycle Plan In LEGEND • 0 Incorporated Area Spokane Fish Lk.Trail • Trail Plan /1 Proposed Link of Study Area / Centennial Trail LP A,W I -1 Park Land Now,-South Corridor Trail s/ AI I Urban Growth _ Area Boundary Potential r..a r-- Q Rail to Trail `..' %., Q N Bikeway t crW. ExistingHighway _ ❑ i Bicycle Lane • Centenial Trail ii_ n Access Point r d Proposed L Lanee(6 yr plan) A Hiking Trails N Centennial Trail • Landmark A .1 Spokane `'` Cohnnbia Plateau Trail A 41-v.5878 .. , a \...2. n • l cn 0 [ r A_ hik, •• Iben ® d i 0 r . . 4.:jiv. ,,g, iiikli 1 ''': fe -1-4 glie ': ► - ..„,„.. ... .1 o - lk i . '41-ilr 11,[ , j MI A al i t i ) © Moab 1111 11 li. %;..- o i1101)1 . sr�J�� Pla w -. a mt ..a City o .po.: rt� .-��I�F,,► ��... -.orf et Hite - I l,'.r��'*>�"-"�-a...a.......w1— 1-- --- •Dccpereck �; r—�,.- 'ms s..._ A •_•I: © 4 i� .�..�� S: - 1 uI��m a F:trchild A.'.ft _ 1P:11� ` Sae LN . j r r=MI ; Master Plan A — _. a ,-r I t n, .,. Q ' .3144 Mica Peak o �, P• t �� ` Elev.5225 o f • .10, .,:,, . Mi cay r - Ill 44111 " i 1 ‘_, iiiik P4odord CD 90 PA IL Sp'-gle CD Tyle ft 0 Turn i „Wil •fe Refuge 1 • l i ` itliams .•e i m Plaza CD Rodna •rah "017/6*.. ft !. •g Valley Whitman County Whitman County r C—j` This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general planning tool.Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and therefore,there are no warranties which accompany this material. S;crAECCUNIT Washington Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian bike plan map here 71 Transportation Goals and Policies The transportation goals and policies are intended to provide a variety of regional transportation choices to serve current and future residents of Spokane County. They encourage multi-modal and pedestrian- friendly facilities that support, encourage and are coordinated with a variety of land uses. The transportation goals also emphasize the movement people and goods effectively and safely while maintaining or improving air quality and mitigating impacts to the natural and built environment. Intergovernmental Coordination The Growth management Act requires that all elements of a comprehensive plan be consistent with each other. It is also important that comprehensive plans, and especially transportation plans, be coordinated between neighboring governmental jurisdictions. The following goals and policies are intended to address these important planning principles. Goal T.1 Develop transportation plans that complement, support and are consistent with land use and transportation plans from other jurisdictions and agencies. Policies T.l.1 Coordinate planning and operational aspects of the regional transportation system with cities within Spokane County, adjacent jurisdictions, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, Spokane Regional Transportation Council and any other affected agencies. T.1.2 The regional transportation plan shall be consistent with the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. T.I.3 Development of regional transportation plans shall be coordinated and consistent with adopted comprehensive land use plans. 72 Consistency and Concurrency • The Growth Management Act requires transportation facilities to be concurrent with development. This means that transportation facilities must be in place and in use within 6-years of the impact of development. The Transportation Improvement Program or TIP identifies specific projects that are needed to mitigate impacts to the transportation system due to existing system deficiencies and expected future growth. Goal T.2 Provide transportation system improvements concurrent with new development and consistent with adopted land use and transportation plans. • Policies T.2.1 Maintain an inventory of transportation facilities and services to support management of the transportation system and to monitor system performance. T.2.2 Transportation improvements needed to serve new development shall be in place at the time new development impacts occur. If this is not feasible, then a financial commitment, consistent with the capital facilities plan, shall be made to complete the improvement within six years. T.2.3 Transportation improvements shall be consistent with land use plans, capital funding and other planning elements. T.2.4 Implement concurrency review and management that evaluates impacts from new development and identifies funding sources for improvements. Evaluate the transportation system annually and compare to prior years. T.2.5 Coordinate planning with appropriate jurisdictions and utility companies for utility corridors that may affect the transportation system. T.2.6 Use a 10- and 20-year horizon when preparing transportation forecasts to provide information on the location, timing and capacity needs of future growth. T.2.7 The transportation system shall support the Land Use Element of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan as growth occurs. T.2.8 Major shortfalls between transportation revenues and improvement costs should be addressed during the annual review of the 6-year transportation improvement program. Resolution of revenue shortfalls could include reassessment of land use, growth targets, level of service standards and revenue availability. 73 Alternative Modes of Travel The Countywide Planning Policies require the regional transportation plan to include alternative modes of transportation to the automobile including public transportation, pedestrian facilities, bikeways, air and rail facilities. However, for most of the Twentieth Century, and especially since World War II, transportation improvements have emphasized automobile mobility. Until recently, alternative modes such as transit, bicycling and walking have not been stressed. It is expected that the automobile will continue to be the dominant mode of transportation in the foreseeable future, both in the number of trips and the distance traveled. However, alternative modes of transportation can play an important and beneficial role in the transportation system. Encouraging alternative modes can lessen congestion, reduce air pollution, reduce consumption of natural resources and reduce maintenance costs. To encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, facilities must be provided that are convenient, safe and economical. Goal T.3a Provide a range of transportation choices within the Spokane Region. Policy T.3a.1 The transportation system shall provide a range of transportation modes. Public Transportation Goal T.3b Provide a safe, efficient and cost-effective public transportation system. Policies T.3b.1 Coordinate with other governments and communities to create a regional network of safe, efficient and cost-effective public transportation services and facilities. T.3b.2 Develop transit services and facilities that support land use plans and integrate regional and local transportation needs. T.3b.3 Support development of secure, conveniently located park-and-ride lots. T.3b.4 Encourage the use of bus, ride-sharing and high-capacity transit services to make major segments of the transportation system more efficient. T.3b.5 Provide inter-modal connections to enhance the efficiency and convenience of public transportation. • Goals T.3c Preserve existing right-of-way and designate new right-of-way, which supports high- capacity transportation corridors. 74 T.3d Encourage land uses that will support a high-capacity transportation system. Policies T.3d.1 Support high-capacity transit facilities and services that are consistent with the actions and plans of Spokane Transit Authority, Spokane Regional Transportation Council and other jurisdictions. T.3d.2 Provide for mixed-use activity centers that support a high-capacity transportation corridor. Nonmotorized Travel - Bicycle and Pedestrian Goal T.3e Promote pedestrian and bicycle transportation countywide and increase safety, mobility and convenience for nonmotorized modes of travel. Policies T.3e.1 The transportation network should provide safe and convenient bicycle and walking access between housing, recreation, shopping, schools, community facilities and mass transit access points. Obstructions and conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle movement should be minimized. T.3e.2 Bicycle facilities should be designed where practical along arterials. Public bicycle/pedestrian facilities, where approved by the county, should be clearly marked. T.3e.3 Inventory existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and maintain a pedestrian/bicycle plan coordinated through the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and implemented through the county 6-year transportation improvement program. Note: there is an existing regional pedestrian/bikeway plan, developed by SRTC. T.3e.4 Promote hard surface walkway systems, including but not limited to, concrete, asphalt and brick as an alternative to sidewalks that are separate from roads if they fit in with the characteristics of the neighborhood and private maintenance is assured. T.3e.5 Convenient bicycle parking and designated areas where bicycles can be secured shall be required at major destinations and at transportation centers. T.3e.6 Encourage preservation of abandoned rail rights of way for development of bike, pedestrian, equestrian routes or other nonmotorized forms of transportation. T.3e.7 Allow hard-surfaced pathways, including but not limited to, concrete, asphalt and brick to substitute for sidewalks in commercial or industrial areas when pathways provide more direct and or safer routes for pedestrians. 75 T.3e.8 Develop street, pedestrian path and bike path standards that contribute to a system of fully connected routes. Rail Goal T.3f Support and encourage the continued viability of the passenger and freight rail system in the region. Policies T.3f.1 Participate with other jurisdictions to facilitate safe and efficient rail systems. T.3f2 Cooperate with railroads to develop traffic safety and noise reduction solutions. 1.313 Land use types and densities shall be established along rail corridors that support and are compatible with freight and passenger rail transportation. T.3f.4 Encourage banking of rail right-of-way. T.3f.5 Encourage the continuation of rail service that supports the viability of the local economy. T.3f.6 Encourage consolidation of operatingrail lines and corridors to facilitate safety, improve operating effectiveness and reduce impact on adjacent lands. Air Transportation Goal T.3g Protect airports in Spokane County from encroachment by incompatible land uses. Policies T.3g.1 Prohibit uses in airport areas which attract birds, create visual hazards, discharge particulate matter into the air which could alter atmospheric conditions, emit transmissions which would interfere with aviation communications and instrument landing systems, otherwise obstruct or conflict with airport operations or aircraft traffic patterns or result in potential hazard for off-airport land use. T.3g.2 Commercial and industrial uses that benefit from and do not conflict with aircraft operations should be encouraged. T.3g.3 Decisions on zone reclassifications and land use development shall consider noise hazards of aircraft operations and accident potentials. T.3g.4 Coordinate airport development on a regional basis. 76 T.3g.5 Discourage new residential development near airports where significant noise impacts and safety hazards exist or are likely in the future. T.3g.6 Encourage noise abatement procedures per FAA regulations at airports in Spokane County. Goal T.3h Maintain close-in airport facilities, which are easily accessible to the cities they serve and complement the economic health of Spokane County. Policies T.3h.1 Assure that the airports can maintain or expand their levels of operations to meet existing and future aviation demands consistent with airport master plans. T.3h.2 Provide for adequate services and facilities in scale with the needs of individual airport operations. • T.3h.3 Ensure that airport planning is coordinated and consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. • T.3h.4 Encourage multi-modal access to airports. Goal T.3i Recognize major airports and military facilities as key elements of a strong economic base for Spokane County. Policies T.3i.l Protect public and private investment in facilities for which there may be no feasible future replacement. T.3i.2 Land use decisions on land in airport areas shall consider regional and national needs as well as localized concerns. 77 Transportation System Design Urban Road Functional Classifications Principal Arterials: The principal arterial is a two (or more)-lane, moderately fast facility designed to permit relatively unimpeded traffic flow between major traffic generators such as the central business district, major shopping centers, major employment districts, etc. They are generally in the highest- volume corridors and serve the longest trip desires. These arterials are the framework road system for the urbanized portion of the county and should be located on community and neighborhood boundaries. Frequently, the principal arterial system carries important intra-urban and intercity bus routes. Principal arterials should not bisect homogeneous areas such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, parks, etc. Access to principal arterials should be managed. Minor Arterials: Minor arterials interconnect and augment the principal arterial system. They are two (or more)-lane facilities, yet provide less mobility than principal arterials, with greater access to adjacent property frontage. Minor arterials may carry local bus routes and provide intra-community continuity, but should be located on community and neighborhood boundaries. They should not bisect residential neighborhoods. Collector Arterials: Collector arterials provide both land access and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas. They primarily serve individual neighborhoods, distributing traffic from such generators as elementary schools and neighborhood stores to minor and principal arterials. Collector arterials are relatively low-speed, two-lane facilities that often provide for on-street parking. Local Access Roads: Local access roads provide access to adjacent property and generally do not support through traffic. They are located in the urban and rural areas. The alignment and traffic control measures on local access roads should encourage a slow, safe speed. Special Sections: The County Engineer may allow special arterial sections incorporating certain design elements (planting strips, median treatments, etc.) that enhance the roadway's geographic location, scenic vistas and/or recreational opportunities. The design should not degrade the functionality or safety of the roadway. Where a special section is desired and includes landscaping, a care and maintenance plan will also be required. • 78 Design of Urban Roads The design of streets can have a tremendous impact on the character of a community. Over the past 50 years, the emphasis in street design has been on increasing capacity for the automobile. The citizens of Spokane County have expressed a desire to consider the needs of all the potential street users when transportation facilities are designed. Designs should accommodate pedestrians, bicycles and transit as well as the automobile. The public has also identified a need to improve the appearance of transportation facilities by landscaping and controls on signs and other means. An emphasis has been placed on encouraging streets designed to form a network with multiple routes to any given point. Connected street design allows dispersal of traffic and provides easier access for emergency and service vehicles. Perhaps most important, street design must support adjacent land uses. These and other design issues are addressed in the following goals and policies. Goal T.4a Ensure that urban roadway systems are designed to preserve and be consistent with community character. Policies T.4a.1 Utilize best available engineering practices to ensure a safe and efficient roadway system. T.4a.2 Optimize the capacity of existing roads to minimize the need for new or expanded roads through the use of improved signage, signalization, road maintenance and other means. T.4a.3 To the greatest extent possible, provide coordinated and integrated traffic control systems. T.4a.4 Discourage private roads as a principal means of access to developments. Allow private roads within developments as a principal means of circulation, provided adequate measures are in place to assure safe travel, emergency access and permanent private maintenance. T.4a.5 Transportation facility design standards shall support the creation and preservation of communities and neighborhoods while simultaneously providing for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. T.4a.6 Develop an arterial road plan that emphasizes planned corridors for high-capacity roadways to keep high-speed traffic out of residential neighborhoods. T.4a.7 Design of new transportation facilities or facility improvements should incorporate adequate consideration of the cultural, historical and aesthetic issues associated with a proposed transportation improvement. T.4a.8 Encourage curbside landscaping consistent with safety requirements. Identify those species of landscaping that are most appropriate for curbside planting. • 79 T.4a.9 Adequate access to and circulation within all developments shall be maintained for emergency service and public transportation vehicles. T.4a.10 Consolidate access to commercial and industrial properties by encouraging the development of commercial and industrial centers rather than strip development to minimize traffic congestion on urban arterials. T.4a.11 Encourage street designs, which reduce the number of access points on principal arterials and highways by combining driveways for adjacent properties and use of frontage roads. T.4a.12 Encourage new developments, including multifamily projects, to be arranged in a pattern of connecting streets and blocks to allow people to get around easily by foot, bicycle, bus or car. Cul-de-sacs or other closed street systems may be appropriate under certain circumstances including but not limited to topography and other physical limitations that make connecting systems impractical. For Example Connected as Compared to Closed Development Pattern Transit Commercial Core Sinn Office Cnmmerr.ial Core Transit Commercial Slop Offic l 11 e Office V° 41114111Cia . MI a C4)&1 • This Not This Clear, formalized and inter-connected street systems make destinations visible, provide the shortest and most direct path to destinations and result in security through community rather than by isolation. T.4a.13 Encourage local access streets which are curvilinear, narrow or use other street designs consistent with safety requirements to discourage through traffic in neighborhoods where such design fits into the surrounding street systems and aids in implementing specific land use designs. . T.4a.14 Allow paved alleys that are privately owned and maintained. 80 T.4a.15 Develop roadway standards that reduce the opportunity and impact of spills of contaminants from reaching surface and groundwater. T.4a.16 Reduce right-of-way width dedications to the minimum necessary to provide for transportation needs. a. Use border easements to accommodate drainage and pedestrian facilities. b. Building set back requirements should be established from centerline of right- of-way and should be minimized to reduce impact on use of private property while maintaining public safety and aesthetic values. URBAN Minimize right-of-way width, border easement accommodates drainage.facilities and sidewalks Border Easement Road Right of Way Border Easement ► 4 pet als .,..moIli I_....., imommou . Landscape Landscape Side and and walks Drainage Drainage • Facilities Facilities • 81 Rural Road Functional Classifications Major Collectors: Rural major collector roads serve larger towns not already served by higher-class roadways. This road classification may also serve to connect one portion of the urban area to another portion of the urban area. They are moderately fast facilities that are two or four lanes wide. Rural major collector roads are wider and carry more traffic than the rural minor collectors. Minor Collectors: Rural minor collector roads are moderately fast facilities that are two lanes wide and provide a link between the major collector arterials and rural local access roads. They typically provide service to remaining smaller communities and link locally important traffic generators with their rural hinterland. Local Access Roads: Local access roads provide access to adjacent property and generally do not support through traffic. They are located in the urban and rural areas. The alignment and traffic control measures on local access roads should encourage a slow, safe speed. Special Sections: The County Engineer may allow special arterial sections incorporating certain design elements (planting strips, median treatments, etc.) that enhance the roadway's geographic location, scenic vistas and/or recreational opportunities. The design should not degrade the functionality or safety of the roadway. Where a special section is desired and includes landscaping, a care and maintenance plan will also be required. Design of Rural Roads Goal T.Sa Provide a safe and efficient system of rural roads. T.Sb To the maximum extent possible, Spokane County shall provide all-weather roads to serve the rural environment. T.5c Provide major rural arterials that connect urban areas (urban connectors) while maintaining rural character and protecting the environment. Rural Collectors Policies T.5.1 Develop and maintain safe and efficient transportation connections between urban population centers. T.5.2 Prohibit new commercial use along rural collectors and state highways, which are located outside the Urban Growth Area boundary except in designated rural activity centers and limited development areas. 82 T.5.3 Ensure the preservation of rural character and discourage urban sprawl by managing access to major rural collectors, which are located in rural areas. T.5.4 Ensure that proposed rural collectors avoid significant natural areas or historic resources where possible and mitigate impacts where avoidance is not possible. T.5.5 Ensure that the transportation system in the rural areas and resource lands are consistent with their rural/resource character. Improvements should emphasize operations, safety and maintenance. Safety The citizens of Spokane County place considerable importance on the safety of the transportation system. Traffic collisions are not only traumatic on a personal level,but are also costly for society. These costs are felt in the form of medical expenses, lost productivity and property losses. When new road or improvements to existing roads are planned, safety considerations should be a primary design consideration Goal T.6 Provide a safe and efficient transportation system, which responds to the needs of the community, with special consideration for the elderly, special-needs and low-income individuals. Policies T.6.1 Adopt standards and techniques to slow vehicle traffic and reduce the volume of traffic in residential neighborhoods. T.6.2 Advocate safe and effective traffic control or grade separation at railroad grade crossings. • 83 Mobility Efficient movement of people and goods is very important to the citizens of Spokane County because it enhances the economic vitality and quality of life. The existing transportation system represents a considerable investment. To protect this investment, the capacity and condition of the system must be maintained. Travel on the transportation system increases every year. To maintain mobility, the transportation system must not only be maintained but also improved. Road improvements will increase capacity but improved facilities for all forms of transportation must be considered to efficiently utilize scarce resources to maintain mobility. Goals T.7 Provide efficient and cost effective movement of people, goods and freight to maintain industrial, commercial and manufacturing capability. Level of Service Level of service (LOS) sets a quantitative standard for the operating characteristics of the transportation system. The Growth Management Act requires level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes and also requires that the standards be coordinated regionally. The level of service standards may be thought of as goals that the community wishes to maintain for the operation of the transportation system. Level of service for the regional transportation is based on corridor travel time. The Countywide Planning Policies require that level of service standards be adopted that are in accordance with the regional minimum level of service standards set by the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials. Spokane County is required to use its adopted level of service to evaluate long-term planning, development review and financing of improvements. The Steering Committee approved the use of corridor travel time for use in establishing a minimum level of service for the regional transportation system. The Spokane Regional Transportation Council is determining annual average corridor travel time for the established congestion management system corridors. Spokane County Division of Engineering uses average time delay at intersections and expresses it as a range A through F. Level of Service A indicates little or no delay and level of service F indicates excessive delay. Average delays are typically measured during the AM and PM peak hours. The Steering Committee also addressed level of service standards for public transit and street cleaning. Level of service for transit is to be adopted by the Spokane Transit Authority Board of Directors and Spokane County is required to have policies consistent with the adopted level of service within the Public Transit Benefit Area. For street cleaning, Spokane County is required to have a street-cleaning plan within the nonattainment area for air quality. The plan must be coordinated with the Air Pollution Control Authority. 84 Goal T.Ba Establish and maintain level of service standards for roads. Policies • T.8a.1 Transportation system improvements shall be consistent with adopted levels of service. T.8a.2 The following shall serve as Spokane County's level of service standard: Spokane County's level of service shall be based on the operational analysis at county arterial intersections and county arterial/state highway intersections conforming to the "Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction"as amended. T.8a.3 The Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials has accepted"corridor travel time"to be used to establish the minimum level of service for the regional transportation system. Spokane County shall participate in the development, evaluation, refinement as necessary and adoption of the "corridor travel time" standard for regional minimum level of service. Goal T.Sb Support level of service standards for transit established in conjunction with the Spokane Transit Authority Board of Directors. Policies T.8b.I Ensure that the transportation system improvements are made consistent with adopted transit levels of service. T.8b.2 Spokane County's level of service standard for transit shall be consistent with level of service adopted in conjunction with the Spokane Transit Authority Board of Directors. Goals T.8c Incorporate standards for pedestrian and bicycle facilities into county road standards. T.8d Clean streets as needed to meet air quality standards for particulate matter (PM). Policies T.8d.I Update as necessary and use a street cleaning plan coordinated with the Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority, consistent with the regional minimum level of service, to meet mandated particulate matter (PM) standards. 85 Public Participation When transportation improvements are proposed, it is important to address the needs and desires of the general public, property owners and neighborhoods affected by the project. Spokane County must work with local residents and property owners prior to the design phase to assure that all needs are considered. A citizen-based process can result in the most acceptable facilities to enhanced access and mobility for vehicles and nonmotorized transportation modes. Goal T.9 Incorporate community participation in the transportation planning process and actively involve businesses and neighborhoods in transportation choices. Policy T.9.1 Encourage and facilitate meaningful public involvement throughout plan development and implementation, including at the project level. 86 Transportation Finance • The Growth Management Act requires that the Transportation Improvement Program be financially feasible. Sources of revenue must be identified that are available to implement the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan and maintain the adopted level of service. The revenue sources available to fund transportation improvements are listed in the current Spokane County Transportation Improvement Plan. Goal T.10 Fund transportation improvements to meet existing and future needs based on level of service standards. Policies T.10.l Provide for a long-range financial strategy to implement the 6-year transportation improvement program of the Capital Facilities Element. T.10.2 Funding to protect and maintain existing transportation infrastructure shall receive priority over other costs or transportation improvement programs. T.I0.3 Develop methods for funding improvements in transportation subareas that provide a fair and equitable distribution of the transportation improvement costs. T.10.4 Enhance funding methods by establishing or implementing bonds, impact fees, road improvement districts and other funding sources. T.10.5 Impact, mitigation fees and user-based fees shall be considered as a source for funding for all transportation improvements required because of new development. T.I0.6 Transportation impact fees shall be based on cumulative impacts from proposed land uses within a traffic basin, with a proportionate share allocated, based on a reasonable relationship between trips generated by any proposed land use and improvements required. T.10.7 Transportation funding directed to projects in areas where annexation or incorporation is expected should require interlocal agreements with the affected cities to provide for joint funding of improvements and/or sharing of revenues. 87 Demand Management Strategies Most solutions to traffic congestion involve increasing the system capacity. However, in some cases, reducing demand can relieve capacity shortfalls. Since capacity shortfalls generally occur only during the peak morning and evening commute hours, management strategies that focus on reducing trips during the peak periods are particularly effective. Strategies already in place include car/van pooling programs, variable work hours, telecommuting, incentives for transit use, bicycling and walking. If utilization of these and other transportation demand management strategies can be expanded, transportation system demand can be reduced. Effective demand management measures can reduce the need for transportation improvements and can have the added benefit of reducing air pollution. Goal T.11 Reduce the use of single occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternate forms of transportation through transportation demand management strategies. Policies 1T.I 1.1 Promote programs aimed at reducing peak period traffic congestion. T.1 I.2 Endorse programs that support alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. T.11.3 Support the use of telecommunications technologies for telecommuting, tele-shopping and video conferencing as alternatives to vehicle travel. T.l 1.4 'Encourage working at home to minimize commuter traffic. T.11.5 Promote and facilitate ridesharing opportunities in cooperation with state and other transit agencies. T.11.6 Encourage employers to offer commute trip reduction programs for employees. 88 Environment The transportation system can have major negative effects on the environment. Air, Water and Noise pollution are often associated with transportation systems. Air pollution can best be addressed by minimizing traffic congestion. There are many Ways to reduce traffic congestion other than expanding roads. Transit use, transportation demand strategies and alternative transportation modes can reduce air pollution. Stormwater runoff from paved surfaces can be a major contributor to water pollution. Treatment of stormwater in grassed percolation areas and other means can substantially reduce water pollution. Noise from traffic can have adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Noise attenuation in the form of berms, landscaping or other noise barriers may be necessary to mitigate impacts Goals T.12a Develop transportation systems that avoid environmental impacts where possible and mitigate impacts where avoidance is not possible. T.12b Create transportation systems that work toward a sustainable community. Policies T.l2.l Design transportation improvements to minimize air, water and noise pollution. T.12.2 Ensure that new transportation systems avoid or mitigate significant impacts to natural areas or historic resources. T.12.3 Transportation facilities shall not be developed in areas where they will have a significant negative affect on the environment. T.12.4 Protect and preserve environmentally sensitive areas to the greatest extent practical when developing new transportation facilities. T.12.5 Develop transportation facility design standards, which are sensitive to community, cultural, aesthetic, historical and environmental needs. T.12.6 The transportation system in Spokane County shall conform to the federal and state Clean Air Acts. T.12.7 The transport of contaminants shall be minimized through residential areas and centers by restrictive routing and scheduling where practical. T.12.8 Enforce federal and state regulations for transportation of contaminants. 89 90 Chapter 6 - Housing • Introduction Home ownership and affordable housing have long been recognized as a foundation of social stability. In the past, Spokane County has taken pride in our large inventory of high-quality affordable housing. During the decade of the 80's, Spokane's economy experienced a downturn due to high interest rates and a recession in the resource-based industries, especially mining and forestry. The result was a depressed housing market that created some of the most affordable housing in the country. The early 90's were a period of high employment growth in Spokane, which caused housing shortages. Home values and rents increased at annual rates of 15 percent and greater. Housing affordability suddenly became a serious problem. Since the mid- to late 90's, housing prices in Spokane have moderated and affordability has increased to the point that the housing supply in Spokane County is among the most affordable in the state. An exception to affordable and available housing supply is found, however, in low-income and special- needs populations. Housing for these populations continue to be in short supply and many individuals and families may be forced to live in substandard housing located in areas where safety is a concern or where necessary support services are not accessible. Also important is the current status of housing for homeless persons. While the extent of homelessness is difficult and frustrating to determine, it is clearly a problem in our community. Vision Through work group meetings and other public participation programs, the following vision statement for housing was developed. Spokane County is a community that provides the opportunity for a variety of housing types and development patterns for all incomes and lifestyles while preserving the environment and the character of existing neighborhoods. I • • 91 Housing Goals and Policies The goals and policies of the Housing Chapter are intended to serve as a framework for long-term • planning and daily decision-making on housing-related projects and programs. The Chapter promotes housing policies that will lead to affordable, safe housing options for all county residents. Regional Coordination Because of housing mobility, housing markets are not limited to jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, it is important that housing programs and policies be coordinated at a regional level. The following policies provide guidance to ensure coordinated housing programs. Goal H.1 Coordinate housing policies and programs with other jurisdictions, agencies and neighborhoods. Policies H.1.1 Encourage regional coordination among jurisdictions, agencies, neighborhoods and housing providers to ensure housing is available for all economic segments of the community. H.1.2 Support new and innovative financing programs to provide affordable housing and increase home ownership levels. H.1.3 Provide opportunities for early and continuous participation of citizens and neighborhood groups in land use and community development planning processes. H.1.4 Establish subarea planning programs that balance the concerns of neighborhoods with the need for providing affordable housing. • H.I.5 Encourage the creation and continued operation and effectiveness of neighborhood associations through neighborhood and subarea planning programs. H.1.6 Promote partnerships between public and private nonprofit organizations to increase housing and home ownership opportunities. H.1.7 Ensure, through the use of interlocal agreements, that residential development regulations and standards are consistent for all jurisdictions within Urban Growth Areas. 92 Housing Regulations Through its zoning and building regulations, the County can encourage affordable housing. Careful crafting of regulations can help prevent confusing, inconsistent and overly burdensome processes that create uncertainty and increase project costs. Zoning regulations also are often exclusionary to low- income and special-needs populations by prohibiting multiple-family, accessory units and manufactured housing. This section addresses the availability of affordable housing by providing policies to ease regulatory barriers and increase flexibility. Regulatory measures are also considered elsewhere in the plan. The Urban Land Use and Economic Development Chapters contain goals and policies relevant to the provision of affordable housing. Goal H.2 Reduce regulatory barriers and allow greater flexibility in the housing development process. Policies H.2.1 Periodically assess the effects of policies and regulations on the affordability of housing costs and examine the need to reduce regulatory barriers. H.2.2 When developing housing regulations, consider the balance between housing affordability and environmental quality, design quality, and maintenance of neighborhood character. H.2.3 Develop consistent, precise, fair and enforceable regulations that maintain environmental quality and public health and safety standards, while minimizing housing development costs. H.2.4 Develop standards and incentives that facilitate restoration and relocation of existing structures, and rehabilitation of substandard housing, H.2.5 Provide incentives for safe and decent housing that is in close proximity to jobs, transportation and daily activities. H.2.6 Provide for exemptions to or reductions of impact fees and/or permit fees to encourage the development of low income housing (See Facilities and Service Element, Impact Fees). H.2.7 Ensure regulations do not create impediments to fair housing choice. 93 Affordable Housing Affordable housing applies to a wide range of housing types at varying costs which can meet the needs of a diverse community. The marketplace is generally capable of meeting the housing demands of the upper- and middle-income segment of the population. Therefore, the primary focus of this element is on mechanisms to increase the availability of affordable housing for lower-income and special-needs households. Such mechanisms may include regulatory reform, mixed-use developments, incentives for increased housing densities and support for programs that rehabilitate and preserve existing housing. In order to establish policy and identify and prioritize issues, it is important to agree upon what we mean by"affordable housing." The following is the uniformly accepted definition. Affordable Housing is adequate, appropriate shelter costing no more (including basic utilities) than 30 percent of the household's gross monthly income. Implied in this definition are the following concepts: • It applies to the broad range of economic segments in the community. • Available housing is "safe and adequate," meeting minimum habitation standards. • Individuals and families have a choice of reasonable housing options, including type and location. The demand for affordable housing calls for county housing policies that support choice and flexibility in housing types, density and location. This in turn will allow the real estate and development communities to be responsive to the changing needs of the housing continuum. The County's special- needs policies should encourage financial and regulatory flexibility that allow creative housing options (e.g., accessory-unit construction, single-room occupancy, clustering, manufactured housing) and siting of institutions. Furthermore, county policies must support codes, ordinances and site plans that encourage development of special-needs housing and public/private investment in these projects. Goal H.3a Develop a variety of housing options for all economic groups. H.3b Ensure that all present and future residents of Spokane County have the opportunity to obtain adequate housing. Policies H.3.1 Encourage creative housing design and appropriate open spaces in areas of high-density housing. H.3.2 Ensure that the design of infill development preserves the character of the neighborhood. H.3.3 Encourage creative design practices that allow for residential uses in business zones. H.3.4 Encourage the development of residential accessory dwelling units, such as granny flats, garage apartments or elderly cottage housing units. 94 H.3.5 Encourage owner-built housing, adaptive reuse, rehabilitation, conversion, and other inventive techniques for increasing housing inventories. H.3.6 Allow manufactured, modular and mobile homes in areas where they are consistent with the majority of the neighborhood character. H.3.7 Allow development of residential buildings that have shared facilities, such as single- room occupancy facilities, co-housing facilities and boarding homes. Ensure compatibility of residential uses through development standards. H.3.8 Report annually on the progress made in the development and preservation of affordable housing and initiate corrections to the Comprehensive Plan when necessary. Low-income Housing Housing affordability is a serious problem among low-income households. Low-income individuals and families often make too much money to.qualify for housing assistance programs, but do not earn enough money to afford decent housing. This section provides policies to address the needs of low-income households. Goal H.4 Provide the opportunity for extremely low- through moderate-income households (as defined by HUD) to obtain affordable housing. Policies H.4.1 Promote an increased supply of lower-cost housing types such as apartments, small-lot cottages, manufactured housing and townhouses. H.4.2 Encourage a broad range of ownership and rental housing opportunities for extremely low through moderate-income households. H.4.3 Provide incentives for developments that provide rent-restricted, below-market-rate rentals or ownership housing opportunities. H.4.4 Provide incentives for the construction or rehabilitation of low-income housing. H.4.5 Support the efforts of low-income housing advocacy organizations and assist in the timely processing of applications for low-income housing. 14.4.6 Encourage the preservation and improvement of existing manufactured and mobile home rental parks. 95 Special-needs Housing This section provides policy guidance for special-needs housing for persons with physical and mental disabilities. The Supreme Court and Fair Housing laws talk about people with physical and mental disabilities as a protected class of people. Those included under disabilities are individuals with: severe mental illness, developmentally disabled, alcohol and drug addiction,physically disabled, frail elderly and persons with HIV/Aids. A shortage of available, decent and affordable living units makes it difficult for these persons and their families to maintain an acceptable living standard. Providing for people with special needs does not necessarily mean more social services or infrastructure. It means accommodating affordable special needs housing in land use plans and regulations and offering incentives to provide affordable, accessible housing. Goal H.5a Encourage housing that meets the requirements of special-needs populations in Spokane County. H.Sb Promote fair and equal access to housing in Spokane County for all persons with special needs. Policies H.5.1 Decisions on locating special-needs housing should be based on the facilities, impacts on infrastructure and services, and not be based on the circumstances of the occupants. H.5.2 Ensure that codes and ordinances allow for a continuum of housing and care opportunities for special-needs populations, such as emergency housing, transitional housing, congregate housing, independent living, assisted living, family-based living, intergenerational housing or institutions. H.5.3 Encourage the de-institutionalization of housing for the special-needs populations by improving opportunity for small-scale group homes. H.5.4 Provide incentives for the development of special-needs housing. H.5.5 Adopt a process, consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, for the siting of those special needs housing projects defined as essential public facilities. The process shall be coordinated and consistent within all Spokane jurisdictions H.5.6 Ensure the development of housing units for individuals with disabilities, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 96 Fairness in Housing The intent of fairness in housing is to encourage freedom of choice in the sale or rental of dwellings. Fair-housing rights are established through both tate and federal laws. The private and public sector housing agencies are very familiar with these principles as they apply to buyer/seller or landlord/tenant relationships. Discrimination based on race, color, age, sex, religion, national origin, familial status and disability is prohibited. Additionally, "special-needs populations" are guaranteed fairness in housing. Goal ' H.6 Ensure fair and equal access to housing in Spokane County for all persons. Policies H.6.1 Ensure fair-housing provisions that are consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Act. 97 Chapter 7 - Capital Facilities and Utilities Introduction County residents rely on facilities and services that help to define their quality of life and maintain their health and well-being. They expect their tax dollars to be used efficiently and want measurable and obvious returns on their contributions. They want their quality of life to be maintained and improved through the services and facilities that their government provides. Public facilities and services are often taken for granted. Yet, without coordination and conscientious planning for future growth, facilities and services may be interrupted or inadequate. One fundamental tenant of the Growth Management Act (GMA) is for local governments to ensure that both existing and future development are adequately served by public facilities and services. Existing facilities and services must be able to support new development or provisions for improvements must be made where deficiencies exist. If the level of service of an existing road decreases to an unacceptable standard due to the impacts of a development, then the road must be improved to a standard that is acceptable. The concept is simple. The planning process is not. A host of county, state and federal agencies, as well as private service providers, are important players in the process. Capital Facilities and Utilities are two of the six elements that the Growth Management Act requires to be included in Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan. These services and facilities are provided by both public and private entities and are the integral elements that link the entire Plan together. The growth scenarios envisioned in the land use elements will not become a reality unless it can be shown through the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) that there will be adequate facilities and services in place to support future development. It must also be shown that those improvements can be afforded, with funding sources identified. Some of the most important goals of the Growth Management Act are realized through the Capital Facilities and Utilities element of the Comprehensive Plan. Background Capital Facilities are characterized by their long, useful life and require significant expenditures to construct. They include facilities such as roads, water and sewer systems, parks,jails and solid waste. Capital Facilities are provided by both public and private entities. Services such as police and fire protection are also included within the Capital Facilities element. Capital facilities appear in other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. For example, transportation facilities such as roads and transit appear in the Transportation element and the Land Use elements. Parks and other recreational facilities are addressed in the Parks and Open Spaces Element: Perhaps the most important component of the Capital Facilities Element is the Capital Facilities Plan. 99 Capital Facilities Plan The Capital Facilities Plan is a 6-year plan for capital improvements that support Spokane County's current and future population and economy. One of the principal criteria for identifying needed capital improvements are standards for levels of service (LOS). The CFP contains LOS standards for public facilities and services and requires that new development be served by adequate facilities. The CFP also contains broad goals and specific policies that guide and implement the provision for adequate public facilities, services and concurrency requirements. The purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan is to prepare sound fiscal policies to provide adequate public facilities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and concurrent with, or prior to, the impacts of development. The CFP will allow Spokane County to achieve and maintain adopted standards for levels of service and to exceed the adopted standards when possible. Capital Facilities Plans are required in the Comprehensive Plan in order to accomplish the following. 1. Provide capital facilities for land development that is envisioned or authorized by the Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Maintain the quality of life for existing and future development by establishing and maintaining standards for the level of service of capital facilities. 3. Coordinate and provide consistency among the many plans for capital improvements, including: (a) Other elements of the Comprehensive Plan; (b) Master plans and other studies of the local government; (c) Plans for capital facilities of state and/or regional significance; (d) Plans of other adjacent local governments and (e) Plans of special purpose districts. 4. Ensure the timely provision of adequate and concurrent facilities as required in the GMA. 5. Document all capital projects and their financing. The CFP is the element that links the entire Comprehensive Plan together. Through it, level of service standards are established. The levels of service then become the basis for providing capital facilities concurrent with growth, thereby determining the quality of life in the community. The requirement to fully finance the CFP (or revise the land use plan) provides a reality check on the vision set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The capacity of capital facilities that are provided in the CFP affects the size and • configuration of the Urban Growth Area. 100 Planning for major capital facilities and their costs enables Spokane County to: 1. Demonstrate the need for facilities and the need for revenues to pay for them. 2. Estimate future operation/maintenance costs of new facilities that will impact the annual budget. 3. Take advantage of sources of revenue (i.e., grants, impact fees, real estate excise taxes) that require a CFP in order to qualify for the revenue. 4. Get better ratings on bond issues when the County borrows money for capital facilities (thus reducing interest rates and the cost of borrowing money). The Capital Facilities Plan is a separate document that is adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Service Agreements A number of public facilities and services are provided on a regional basis in Spokane County through interlocal service agreements. For example, the County's sewage is treated at the Regional Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility. Utilizing regional service delivery is often more efficient and cost effective for the County and its residents. Spokane County, its cities and districts need to continually explore opportunities for regional facilities and services. In particular, background research is needed to document the experience of other jurisdictions, analyze the extent to which such experience is relevant to Spokane County and develop alternative approaches to provide facilities and services on a regional basis. Another important issue is that Spokane County must work diligently with individual cities to establish interlocal agreements for service provisions within the Joint Planning Areas. The agreements are necessary to establish guidelines for public facility design standards, transfer of facilities upon annexation and consistency in service delivery. Focused Public Investment Focused public investment targets capital improvement expenditures in public investment areas to produce filly served land for development. Focused public investment maximizes the use of limited public funds by coordinating government expenditures and focusing development, first in some areas, then in others. The targeted public investment is an incentive for development to occur where the public's capital investment is focused. In order for public investment to be focused to produce fully served land, the County and other service providers will need to resolve the following issues. (1) What criteria should be used to prioritize public investments? (2) How should areas be selected for targeted investment? 101 Siting of Essential Public Facilities Local governments are required by GMA to include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities that are difficult to locate, such as jails, education facilities, land fills,and sewage treatment plants. Jurisdictions in Spokane County addressed this requirement through the Countywide Planning Policies, which provided the initial framework for the siting of essential public facilities. In 1995 the Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee was appointed by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials to develop a model for the siting of Essential Public Facilities, consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and the GMA. On May 3, 1996 the Steering Committee of Elected Officials approved the Growth Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report (Appendix D), which includes a Model Siting Process, an Inter jurisdictional Consistency Review Process and an inventory of existing essential facilities. Levels of Service (LOS) Levels of service standards are usually quantifiable measures of the amount of public facilities or services that are provided to the community. Levels of service may also measure the quality of some public facilities. Typically, measures of levels of service are expressed as ratios of facility or service capacity to demand (i.e., actual or potential users). For example, the level of service for parks may be expressed as acres of parks for every 1,000 people. Levels of service standards are measures of the quality of life of Spokane County. The standards should be based on the community's vision of its future and its values. Once Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan is adopted, the levels of service identified in the Plan will guide future capital facility and service decisions. Therefore, the Board of Commissioners makes the final determination to adopt levels of service that represent the community's vision. The Board's decision should be influenced by recommendations of the (1) Planning Commission (2) providers of public services (3) Steering Committee of Elected Officials, and (4) the public, through the County's citizen participation projects. Adopted Regional Minimum Level of Service (LOS) In 1996, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials adopted Interim Levels of Service standards for the region, in accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs). Each jurisdiction within the county may adopt a higher level of service if it is determined that the local needs and desires warrant an increased level of service. The following services have been assigned a minimum regional level of service. • Fire Protection • Solid Waste Processing • Public Transit • Domestic Water • Street Cleaning • Sanitary Sewer • Stormwater • Transportation 102 The original Countywide Planning Policies included police protection as a service that required a regional LOS. The CWPPs were amended to delete the requirement for a regional LOS for police protection. It was determined that each jurisdiction shall specify in its comprehensive plan the level of police protection that addresses the safety of its citizens. The CWPPs also require jurisdictions to establish LOS standards for schools, libraries and parks. Concurrency 1. One of the requirements of the GMA is for public facilities and services to be provided concurrent with development. Concurrency means that adequate public facilities will be in place to support new development when the impacts of that development take place or within a specified time thereafter (WAC 365-195-070[3]). For transportation facilities, the specified time is 6 years from the time of development. The impacts of development are usually equated with occupancy and use of the development (RCW 36.70A.020). Concurrency requires that facilities have sufficient capacity to serve development without decreasing levels of service below minimum standards adopted in the CFP. The GMA requires concurrency only for transportation facilities. However, the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) recommends concurrency for water and sewer systems (see WAC 365-195-070[3]). GMA also requires all other public facilities to be "adequate" (see RCW 19.27.097, 36.70A.020, 36.70A.030 and 58.17.110). Concurrency management procedures should be developed to ensure that sufficient public facility capacity is available for each proposed development. Utilities Utilities is one of six elements required by the GMA to be included in Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan. Utility plans often include;water and sewer facilities. For the purposes of this policy document, utilities are identified as electric, telecommunications and natural gas facilities. Water and sewer facilities are considered capital facilities and are not duplicated within the Utilities definition. In December 1995, a Regional Utility Corridor Plan (RUCP) was developed to fulfill the requirements of the Countywide Planning Policies. This plan includes an inventory and analysis of existing and proposed electric, gas, telephone/fiber optic, water and sewer"corridors". Through the inventory and mapping of existing and proposed utility corridors, it was determined that opportunities to share corridors may be limited. A Utility Corridor map, shown on page CF-12 identifies electric, gas and telephone/fiber optic corridors from various utility providers. The RUCP provides policies and action statements that are used to guide the goals and policies of this plan. 103 Capital Facilities and Utilities - Goals and Polices The Capital Facilities Element unites all the elements of this Comprehensive Plan. The function of the Capital Facilities Element is to establish a viable planning link between inventory, level of service and financing for future public facilities. The goals state the general Growth Management intentions of the County while the policies are guidelines for decisions on how goals will be achieved. Please see Chapter 5 for policies related to transportation facilities and Chapter 9 for parks and recreation policies. General Goal CF.I Establish appropriate Level of Service standards for public facilities and services Policies CF.1.1 Facilities and services should meet the minimum required Level of Service standards as adopted by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials. Full descriptions of Level of Service may be found in the Capital Facilities Plan. The following Levels of Service have been adopted: Facility, r Level of Service Standard* Domestic Water 800 gallons per residential equivalent per day. Sanitary Sewer Public sewer required where densities exceed 2 equivalent residential units per acre. LOS for operational analysis shall be as contained in the Spokane County Standards for Transportation Road and Sewer Construction. Maintain travel corridor time as established by Spokane Regional Transportation Council. New development shall not increase runoff volume off-site. Prevent flooding of property during a 25-year storm. Stormwater Prevent damage to buildings from a 100-year storm. Stormwater discharge to any surface or ground waters will be allowed unless the discharge will degrade water quality below standards. Law 1.01 officers per 1000/population. Enforcement 3.04 jail beds per 1000/population. Parks 1.4 community park acres per 1000/population Libraries .41 square feet per capita Solid Waste Solid waste processing will meet Federal and State regulations. Street Cleaning Implement adopted plan as identified in Transportation Element. Public Transit As adopted by Spokane Transit Authority Board of Directors. Fire and Urban areas served by Fire District with at least a Class 6 Insurance Rating. Emergency Fire Flow and hydrant placement per Uniform Fire Code. Services Urban areas must be within 5 road miles of station with "Class A" pumper. Urban areas shall be served by a basic life support(BLS) agency. Public Schools To be determined by individual school district CFP *See Appendix C for the Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials Interim Regional Minimum Level of Service Standards [04 Goal CF.2 Implement a Capital Facilities Plan which ensures that public facilities and services meet the established Levels of Service. Policies CF.2.1 Determine the quantity of capital improvements that are needed to eliminate existing deficiencies and to maintain the Level of Service standards for public facilities and services provided by Spokane County. CF.2.2 Establish priorities among capital improvements projects through annual amendments to the Capital Facilities Element and the County's Six-Year Capital Improvements and Transportation Improvement Plans. CF.2.3 Ensure that the estimated cost of all capital improvements does not exceed the estimate of available revenues. CF.2.4 Monitor the implementation of the Capital Improvement Program and development to ensure that the Land Use, Transportation and Capital Facilities Elements are coordinated and consistent and that established Level of Service standards for public facilities and services are achieved. CF.2.5 Finance capital improvements and manage debt consistent with the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. CF.2.6 Provide public facilities and services or accept their provision by other entities only if Spokane County or the other entity is able to pay for subsequent operation and maintenance costs. Goal CF.3 Ensure that public facilities and services support proposed development at established Levels of Service. Policies CF.3.1 Development shall be approved only after it is determined that public facilities and services will have the capacity to serve the development without decreasing levels of service below adopted standards. , CF.3.2 Assess the Comprehensive Plan and, as appropriate, reduce Level of Service standards, increase funding for new or improved facilities or reassess the Land Use element if the adopted Level of Service standards are not achieved. CF.3.3 Designate phases for development within designated Urban Growth Areas as follows: 105 Phase 1: Includes existing urbanized areas for which the 6-year Capital Facilities Plan provides urban services and facilities. Phase 2: Areas for which urban services and facilities are planned for years 7-20 of the 20-year planning period. Urban services and facilities will be provided by the developer concurrent with development or by public providers by implementing all or a portion of the capital facilities plan. CF.3.4 Provide public facility capacity, if available, for vested development approvals and vested preliminary plats, which were issued prior to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan for a period of five years plus one (one year) extension. CF.3.5 Spokane County will implement a Concurrency Management System to ensure that adequate public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development. The following facilities must meet adopted level of service standards and be consistent with the Concurrency Management System: Fire protection, police protection, parks and recreation, libraries,public sewer, public water, solid waste disposal and recycling, transportation and schools. Goal CF.4 Ensure that capital improvements are made in conformance with the goals and policies of the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies CF.4.1 Locate all County owned public facilities in conformance with the adopted land use map and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. CF.4.2 Integrate capital improvements with land use planning decisions. Goal CF.5 Establish and/or assess interlocal agreements with municipalities and other entities to coordinate efficient provision of public facilities consistent with the Capital Facilities Element. Policies CF.5.1 Establish interlocal/joint planning agreements with municipalities and other providers of public facilities to coordinate planning for, and development of, Urban Growth Areas. CF5.2 Assess existing interlocal agreements with municipalities and other providers of public facilities to coordinate planning for, and development of, Urban Growth Areas. 106 Domestic Water Systems Goal CF.6 Coordinate private and public water system planning to promote efficient service, protect the natural resources and ensure the orderly physical development of Spokane County consistent with adopted plans and policies. Policies CF.6.1 The Spokane County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP)/Water General Plan is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. CF.6.2 Ensure water system plans are consistent with anticipated population growth, the Comprehensive Plan and future subarea plans. CF.6.3 Prohibit the extension of water service to new development that will decrease the level of service of the existing water system below the adopted minimum level of service standards. • CF.6.4 Ensure water system planning is regional in design, utilizing efficiencies of scale and geographic continuity. CF.6.5 Ensure water systems for urban and rural developments include adequate supply and distribution systems for domestic use and fire protection per local, state and federal plans, policies and regulations. CF.6.6 The provision of water service and construction of water service lines or other water system facilities shall be allowed outside the Urban Growth Area boundaries (UGAs). Any such extensions shall not be an inducement to growth. CF.6.7 Encourage public and private water purveyors to implement measurable water conservation practices. CF.6.8 Encourage the continued cooperaton, coordination and consolidation of water purveyors to achieve greater efficiency in the delivery of water services. • 107 Sanitary Sewer Systems Goal CF.7 Coordinate private and public sanitary sewer planning to promote efficient service, protect natural resources and ensure the orderly physical development of Spokane County consistent with adopted plans and policies. Policies CF.7.1 The Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP) is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. CF.7.2 Prohibit the extension of any sewer system that will degrade the existing system below the adopted level of service. CF.7.3 Planning for County sewer systems should be done on a regional basis utilizing efficiencies of scale and geographic continuity. CF.7.4 Sewer planning should be consistent with anticipated population growth and developed in coordination with comprehensive plan land use policies_ CF.7.5 Existing and future sewage disposal systems shall meet or exceed all applicable local, state and federal regulations. CF.7.6 The location and capacity of existing and planned sewer facilities shall be important factors when determining the intensity and/or density of land use designations and in the subarea planning process. CF.7.7 Determine whether new proposed development inside the UGA can be accommodated within the planned capacity of the sewer conveyance and treatment system before approval. CF.7.8 Work towards implementation of a coordinated, regional wastewater service organization to provide sewer services to all urban areas of the County inside the Urban Growth Area. CF.7.9 Public sewer service shall not be provided outside the Urban Growth Area boundary, except as follows. 1. In response to an immediate threat to public health or safety; 2. when necessary for the protection of aquifers designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170; 3. vested development that is required to be served with sanitary sewer as a condition of development approval; 108 The design of sewers extending service according to the exceptions permitted in this section shall not be considered an�inducement to types or levels of growth that are not appropriate in the rural area. Stormwater Goal CF.8 Provide stormwater facilities and related management programs that protect surface and groundwater quality and habitat, prevent chronic flooding from stormwater, maintain natural stream hydrology and protect aquatic resources. Policies CF.8.1 New development within the UGA shall require stormwater management systems. CF.8.2 Best management practices should be utilized to treat stormwater runoff prior to injection of runoff into the ground. , CF.8.3 New development shall be designed to protect natural drainage functions including flood plains, drainageways, sink areas and other natural and existing drainage facilities. • CF.8.4 New development shall be designed to prevent on-site and off-site damage from stormwater runoff that result from site development or from the new land use activity. CF.8.5 New development shall consider, where feasible, the multiple use of facilities, such as the integration of stormwater facilities with recreation/open space areas. CF.8.6 Conduct stormwater management planning by drainage basin, treating basins as complete drainage systems, to assure that the most economical and beneficial stormwater controls are provided. CF.8.7 Encourage use of alternatives to impervious surfaces through rewards and credits. CF.8.8 Implement a coordinated, regional stormwater service organization to provide stormwater services to all urban areas of the County inside the Urban Growth Area boundary. CF.8.8 Watershed protection areas should be adopted for watersheds where steep slopes, high groundwater, shallow soils,poorly draining soils and other special physical conditions make on-site disposal of stormwater difficult. In these watershed protection areas, special stormwater management studies and techniques may be required. 109 Schools Goal CF.9 Coordinate with individual school districts to ensure that school sites and facilities meet the educational needs of Spokane County residents. Policies CF.9.1 Encourage school districts serving predominantly rural area populations to locate schools within designated Rural Activity Center. CF.9.2 Discourage locating new schools facilities outside of UGAs unless the school is located within a designated Rural Activity Center. CF.9.3 Encourage school districts to allow for shared access of facilities for recreational or other public purposes. CF.9.4 Assist school districts in developing Capital Facilities Plans that are consistent with the Growth Management Act and the County's Comprehensive Plan. CF.9.5 Develop land use designation and policies that protect and allow for the establishment of new schools in urban areas. CF.9.6 Encourage the expansion of school facility capacity to proceed at a comparable rate with that of private residential development and demographic trends. CF.9.7 Consider the adequacy of school facilities when reviewing new residential development. 110 Libraries • Goal CF.10 Provide library services efficiently and cost effectively to Spokane County residents. Policies CF.10.1 Encourage interjurisdictional cooperation, sharing of equipment and facilities. CF.10.2 Spokane County's Library Capital,Improvement Plan is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. • CF.10.3 Ensure that the expansion of library capacity proceeds at a comparable rate with that of private residential development and demographic trends. CF.10.4 Ensure that land use regulations allow siting of library facilities in locations convenient to residential areas. Police Protection • Goal CF.11 Provide police protection efficiently and cost effectively to residents of Spokane County Policies CF.I 1.1 Encourage interjurisdictional cooperation among law enforcement and corrections agencies to further develop, where practical, shared service and facility use. CF.11.2 Develop community benchmarks and program performance measures to evaluate police protection effectiveness. Such performance measures might include response time to calls, crime solution rates or other methods to determine actual effectiveness. CF.I 1.3 Require development of comprehensive emergency management plans consistent with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan. • 111 Fire Protection Goal CF.12 Provide fire and emergency medical services efficiently and cost effectively to residents of Spokane County. Policies CF.12.1 Limit growth to areas served by a fire protection district or within the corporate limits of a city providing its own fire department. CF.12.2 Include provision for road access adequate for residents, fire department or district ingress/egress and water supply for fire protection in commercial and residential developments. CF.12.3 Provide defensible space between structure and adjacent fuels and require that fire rated roofing materials be used on buildings in forested areas. CF.12.4 Encourage continued interjurisdictional cooperation among fire districts including the sharing of equipment and facilities. CF.12.5 Encourage development of community benchmarks and program performance measures to monitor outcomes from public safety efforts. CF.12.6 Identify and implement comprehensive emergency management plans consistent with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Solid Waste Disposal Goal CF.14 Provide solid waste disposal service to reduce public nuisance, health hazard and pollution to Spokane County's environment. Policies CF.14.1 The Spokane County Solid Waste Management Plan is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. CF.14.2 Encourage recycling to conserve resources and energy. 112 Siting Essential Public Facilitie's Goal CF.15 Facilitate the siting of public and private essential public facilities when the unincorporated area is the appropriate location. Policies CF.15.1 Consider the process for Siting Essential Public Facilities of a Countywide or Statewide nature contained in the Growth Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report. Utilities (electric, natural gas, telecommunications and cable) Goal CF.16 Provide utilities that are consistent and available to support land use policies. CF.16.1 Coordinate with utility providers to ensure that sizing, locating and phasing of utility systems are consistent with the Comprehensive Plans and meets anticipated population needs in a timely manner. CF.16.2 New development shall be consistent with established utility plans and procedures. CF.16.3 Promote conservation measures to reduce the need for additional utility distribution facilities/services in the future. CF.16.4 Ensure that utility facilities are designed to minimize adverse aesthetic impacts on surrounding land uses. Natural Gas Policies CF.16.5 Encourage availability and efficient use of natural gas. CF.16.6 Encourage coordination with utility providers in the provision of natural gas. Telecommunication Policies CF.16.7 Encourage coordination with utility providers in the provision of telecommunication services. CF.16.8 Promote long-term planning for telecommunications systems. CF.16.9 Require the placement of cellular communication facilities in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on adjacent land uses and utilizes existing structures where feasible. 113 CF.16.10 Encourage telecommunication services as a means to mitigate the transportation impact of development and growth. Electricity Policies CF.16.11 Encourage coordination with utility providers in the provision of electrical services. CF.16.12 Protect existing utility corridors to permit maintenance access and future expansion. CF.16.13 Provide for efficient, cost effective and reliable utility service by ensuring land is available for the location of utility lines, including their location within transportation corridors and by creating guidelines and permit processes that are conducive to utility operations. Utility Corridors Policies CF.16.14 Coordinate dimensional guidelines for regional corridors with effected utility providers and jurisdictions. CF.16.15 Promote the co-location of new utility transmission distribution and communication facilities when doing so is consistent with the utility industry practices, DOT requirements and national electrical and other codes. (Examples of facilities which may be shared are trenches, rights-of-way, towers, poles and antennas.) CF.16.16 Provide timely notice to affected private utilities of all major utility projects, including the maintenance and repair of existing roads, in order to promote the joint planning and coordination of public and private utility activities. CF.16.17 Where consistent with multiple uses, promote joint use of utility corridors with recreational and green space applications. (An example is the co-location of AT&T's fiber link and Spokane's Centennial Trail.) CF.16.18 Adopt the Regional Utility Corridor Plan through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 114 Development Impact Fees Impact fees are fees a local jurisdiction charges new development to at least partially fund off-site public facilities and services made necessary by the new development. The Growth Management Act authorizes local jurisdictions to establish fees to finance certain types of improvements. There is flexibility to tailor the fees, within limits, to meet local needs. The fees are generally levied based on the level-of-service standards established by a jurisdiction. • Goal CF.17 Growth and development activity should pay a proportionate share of the cost of planned facilities needed to serve the growth and development activity. Policies CF.17.1 Consistent with the Capital Facilities Plan, growth related impact fees may be imposed for public streets and roads; public parks, open space and recreation facilities; schools; and fire protection facilities. CF.17.2 Growth related impact fees: 1. Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; 2. Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; and, 3. Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development. CF.17. 3 New housing units meeting the standard federal and state definition of"low-income housing" shall be exempted from development impact fees. CF. 17.4 New housing units serving populations with special needs, such as persons with severe disabilities, should be eligible for a reduction or exemption to development impact fees. Ij 115 116 Chapter 8 - Economic Development The economy plays a central role in maintaining the vitality and quality of life within a community. A healthy economy creates good paying jobs, providing economic opportunities to all citizens. The economy also supports the tax base, providing for schools, police, fire protection, parks and many other community facilities and services. The importance of economic development is recognized in state legislation by the inclusion of economic development as one of the 13 goals intended to guide local comprehensive plans. From a regional perspective, Spokane County and all the cities and towns within the county have included economic development chapters in their comprehensive plans. . The purpose of the Economic Development Chapter is to present goals and policies that support and encourage a strong, vibrant economy. The Chapter focuses on business startup, business retention, expansion and recruitment; regional issues; environment; customer service/regulation; income; education and training; and tourism. While this Chapter focuses on these specific topics, it is important to recognize that the entire Comprehensive Plan can be considered as an economic development tool. The primary advocate of economic development in Spokane County is the Spokane area Economic Development Council (EDC). The EDC is a private/public nonprofit organization which is supported by a broad-based membership of businesses and organizations and by the City and County of Spokane. Over the years the EDC has been instrumental in attracting and retaining quality businesses in Spokane County. In addition to recruitment efforts, the EDC has been involved in studies of the regional Spokane economy, most notably the Pace Report, which analyzed strengths and weaknesses and made recommendations for recruitment strategies. Recent economic plans generated by community and business groups include the Focus 21 and the New Century Plan. Focus 21, A Regional Economic Growth Strategy for the 21' Century, is an economic development plan designed to create 10,000 new, higher-paying jobs for the Spokane and the Inland Northwest region. Focus 21 evolved from the successful Momentum program that existed between 1987 and 1997. The New Century Plan, initiated in 1996, is a community-based plan that has developed • strategies and benchmarks for economic development and quality-of-life issues. 117 Sustainable Regional Economic Development This section provides goals and policies that support cooperation and coordination at a regional level to ensure sustainable economic development. There are a number of established organizations in the region that are engaged in economic development activities. It is in the best interests of Spokane County to support and collaborate with these regional organizations. By focusing on common goals and allocating resources accordingly, government and private organizations can work together regionally to maximize successful business start-up, retention, expansion and recruitment efforts. Goal ED.1 Spokane County will cooperate regionally to: (a) Promote a sustainable, strong, diverse and healthy economy; (b) Promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses; (c) Foster the startup and development of new businesses; (d) Encourage the relocation of environmentally responsible businesses to the Spokane region; (e) Promote income levels that are higher than the national average; (f) Ensure the sustainable economic use of timber and agricultural resources and the safe and effective economic use of mineral resources as well as recycled resources. Policies ED.1.1 Provide for a diverse marketplace that recognizes and encourages a range of cultural, social and economic opportunities. ED.1.2 Improve the effectiveness of capital improvement programming by encouraging greater communication and coordination between local governments and the private sector. ED.1.3 Work with other jurisdictions, community organizations and business organizations to establish specific evaluation methods that will annually measure the community's overall quality of life and economic viability. The following issues, among others, should be considered when developing indicators to establish evaluation goals. (a) Quality of life issues such as crime rate, schools, health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities and cultural amenities. (b) Economic development issues such as wages; per capita personal and median household income; percentage of population below poverty level; business formation, expansion and retention; economic base and education. 118 ED.2 Capitalize on the community's positive characteristics and improve and enhance areas that may be lacking. ED.2.1 Support the greater utilization of downtown Spokane as a central hub for expanded residential, retail, business and cultural activity. ED.2.2 Encourage developments which contribute to community improvements (i.e., contributions to culture, recreation, tourism, public improvements, environmental improvements, business incubator system facilities, open space and other community projects). Tools and Strategies Business retention, expansion and recruitment efforts work hand-in-hand in maintaining a successful economy. Business retention and expansion programs address the issues that might affect decisions by established businesses and industries to remain or expand. Such issues might include availability of public services and facilities, permitting procedures, property taxes and labor-training programs. Recruitment programs largely focus on attracting industrial users as a major economic development strategy. Retaining, expanding and attracting industrial businesses is important because they generally provide higher-paying jobs, which creates an economic multiplier effect throughout the region. Goal ED.3 Create a healthy and sustainable regional economy by the retention, expansion and recruitment of businesses. Policies ED.3.1 Encourage economic development through a variety of mechanisms. to foster economic development. ED.3.2 Support regional organizations for business retention, expansion and recruitment efforts. ED.3.3 Support public and private programs and activities which act to diversify the economy. ED.3.4 Consider the establishment of a port authority/port district. ED.3.5 Encourage job recruitment efforts towards those sectors that: (a) are compatible with the environmental and quality-of-life standards of the region; (b) provide higher wages than the national average; (c) help diversify the economy; and (d) capitalize on the strengths of the region (e.g., low energy costs). ED.3.6 Support and provide, where appropriate, economic development techniques to provide a business climate conducive to new and start-up businesses. 119 • ED.3.7 Encourage creation and retention of home-based businesses that are consistent with neighborhood character. ED.3.8 Support efforts to develop a formal process involving government, civic organizations and businesses to study and develop strategies for business retention, expansion and recruitment. ED.3.9 Encourage development of contingency plans for the possible loss of any of the employers in the County that have a significant economic impact on the county as a whole. ED.3.10 Recognize and sustain the vital economic benefit that Spokane County receives from federal and state funding of all active duty, reserve and National Guard components of the Armed Forces. ED.3.1 I Protect the integrity and continued viability of military installations located within Spokane County by discouraging incompatible land uses. • 120 • Environment In recent years there has been a greater recognition that economic development should not come at the expense of environmental quality, which itself is recognized as an important component of the community. A balanced approach to environmental sustainability advocates a balance between the utilization of area resources and economic growth. Economic growth should not exceed the ability of the natural or built environment to sustain growth over the long term. Goal ED.5 Recognize the importance of environmental quality and acknowledge that protection of the environment will contribute to economic vitality. Policies ED.5.I Recognize that environmental quality and economic development are complementary objectives. • ED.5.2 Encourage recruitment of low-impact, environmentally friendly businesses. ED.5.3 Encourage programs that promote sustainable business practices (e.g., recycling, pollution control, solar energy, Commute Trip Reduction). 121 Regulation Economic development opportunities are enhanced by a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Goal ED.6a Provide consistent, fair and timely regulations that are flexible, responsive and effective. ED.6b Promote public/private partnerships that encourage innovation and creativity in the economic expansion of our region. Policies ED.6.1 Spokane County will support development of Master Environmental Impact Statement(s) for targeted area(s) to ensure timeliness in the processing of applications and to create a competitive advantage in the attraction of new businesses. ED.6.2 Create and encourage partnerships between government, the educational community, civic organizations and businesses to deal with economic issues at all levels. ED.6.3 Actively promote Spokane County's economic development goals and policies at the state and federal level to encourage legislation that supports economic development and to provide funding for economic development programs. For example, legislative changes can be pursued through direct lobbying of legislatures or through the combined efforts of the Washington Association of Counties. ED.6.4 Encourage state legislation that would allow a tax increment financing option to local governments. ED.6.5 Each individual citizen will be afforded the highest possible quality of customer service and attention to aid in facilitation of Spokane County's Economic Development. ED.6.6 Review development regulations continuously to ensure clarity, consistency, predictability and direction. Provide opportunities for citizens to initiate amendments to inconsistent, outdated, inappropriate or unnecessary or confusing regulations. Amendments shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ED.6.7 Ensure timely processing of applications by requiring that mandatory timelines, consistent with state legislation, are adhered to for permitting processes. 122 Income One of the primary reasons to pursue economic development is to increase the standard of living for the citizens of Spokane County. Employment opportunities in Spokane County diversified•considerably from 1979 to 1999. However, at the time of Plan preparation, Spokane County's average annual wage continues to be below the national average. One of the primary goals of this economic development element is to create more living-wage jobs. This issue has been identified as a top priority by the citizenry. A strategic approach in the pursuit of new jobs is to recruit, retain and expand the types of industries that provide quality, good-paying jobs. Goal ED. 7 Encourage the creation of jobs that provide annual incomes for all persons in the County to be above the Washington State average and above the national average annual income. Policies ED.7.I Encourage a regional effort to recruit and retain basic export industries which bring new money into the community and pay nationally competitive wages. ED.7.2 Encourage the creation of"living-wage"jobs which include health and retirement benefits. ED.7.3 Encourage the retention, expansion and recruitment of new businesses which hire local residents. ED.7.4 Recognize the special needs of low-income persons and address their needs by encouraging commitment of resources for, or where appropriate, planning and budgeting for, human services, community development, housing, economic development and public infrastructure to address inequalities. ED.7.5 Cooperate with other community agencies and organizations in the development of a specific plan to address disparity in income and employment opportunities. The plan should include measurable economic opportunities for low-income persons. ED.7.6 Encourage the Spokane County Community Development Department, in conjunction with other organizations, to develop an economic development strategy that is consistent with the County's Economic Development Element and the Spokane County Housing & Community Development Plan. 123 Qualified Labor Force Qualified labor is essential to retain and recruit business. The basic cornerstone in the development of a qualified labor force is the educational community. Located within Spokane County is a diverse group of higher-education facilities, including community colleges, universities, and private technical and business schools. These schools, as well as the K-through-12 public and private schools, should be encouraged to constantly evaluate their programs to be responsive to the changing job market. Partnerships between business and the educational community should be nurtured to further this process. Business should be encouraged to partner with labor unions and other organizations to develop specialized training programs to meet the needs of employers. Goal ED.8 Promote a qualified labor force which is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace. Policies ED.8.1 Encourage educational institutions to locate in Spokane County, especially those that provide technical training to support businesses targeted for recruitment and retention. ED.8.2 Spokane County should support and encourage K-through-12 education to include skills- based training and creative partnerships with business. ED.8.3 Encourage community colleges and technical schools to develop customized training programs for new and start-up businesses. ED.8.4 Encourage the development of the region's colleges and universities into a world-class higher-education consortium that prepares students for the highly technical jobs of the information age, improves communication skills and delivers comprehensive education (post-secondary through the doctorate level). ED.8.5 Encourage and support public/private partnerships, such as SIRTI, in training and education. ED.8.6 Encourage employers to provide and support continuing education for their employees. ED.8.7 Encourage cooperation between businesses, unions and other organizations in developing job training and educational opportunities. ED.8.8 Encourage an interactive relationship between schools and businesses through apprenticeship, mentoring and other programs. ED.8.9 Encourage creation of a `Quality Forum' inviting business, community groups, students, educational groups and other stakeholders to discuss ways to increase educational awareness of the workforce and work ethics. 124 Tourism The cultural, recreational and scenic opportunities in the Spokane region make tourism an excellent provider of employment. Within easy driving distance of Spokane, visitors can enjoy lakes, scenic mountains and desert wildflowers. In addition to these natural amenities, Spokane is also the cultural and entertainment hub of the Inland Northwest. This section provides goals and policies to promote and expand tourism as an economic development tool. Goal ED.9 Encourage the growth of tourism as a sustainable provider of jobs and markets in the region and work together with community groups and businesses to make the region a world-class tourist destination. Policies ED.9.l Support and promote the natural, historic and cultural features of the Spokane region as part of our economy and quality of life. ED.9.2 Promote outdoor recreation opportunities including but not limited to biking, hiking, kayaking, backpacking, fishing, boating, horseback-riding and touring. ED.9.3 Promote regional and national attractions such as a farmer's market, state basketball tournaments, children's museum, Spokane Interstate Fair, concerts, Hoopfest and Bloomsday. ED.9.4 Plan and support the physical infrastructure needed for new tourist attractions and tourist activities. 125 Infill and Redevelopment Infill and redevelopment programs provide an economic development tool to revitalize under-utilized areas. Infill development is the process of developing or redeveloping vacant or under used parcels of land within existing urban areas that are already provided with services. Infill development policies help utilize existing utilities and services before considering costly service extensions. The policies relating to infill and redevelopment provide special incentives to encourage infill development in areas that are already provided with services. Goal ED.10 Facilitate infill and redevelopment through the use of incentives and special development strategies. Policies ED.10.1 Identify and designate specific areas for infill and redevelopment. ED.10.2 Provide incentives to ensure development and re-use of infill and redevelopment areas. ED.10.3 Within designated infill areas, allow techniques such as a focused public investment program, reduced parking standards and administrative exceptions (minor variances) to dimensional standards to address the difficulties of development on small and/or nonconforming lots. ED.10.4 Encourage clean-up and utilization of sites such as those with toxic contaminants, pursuant to the Department of Ecology Standards, to allow current or future owners to utilize the site for productive commercial and industrial uses. 126 Adequate Infrastructure and Land Supply Each potential business has its own unique set of locational requirements. To attract new employers and to allow existing business to expand a diverse inventory of industrial and commercial land must be maintained. Sites must be available in a range of sizes and locations with appropriate zoning and compatible surrounding land uses. Infrastructure availability is one of the most critical factors to encourage economic development. Sewer, water, transportation facilities and communications facilities must be available or easily obtained. For attracting industrial uses, an adequate supply of usable industrial land unencumbered by conflicting land uses and/or environmental constraints, is important. Goal ED.I I Ensure an adequate amount of usable industrial and commercially available land in which new businesses may locate. Ensure adequate transportation and utility availability in order for new businesses to locate in the area. Policies ED.1 1.1 Encourage the development of business/industrial areas that can supply readily available sites for new businesses or industries. ED.1 1.2 Maintain an inventory of usable industrial and commercial land that is sufficient to meet projected demand and encourage marketability of the region. ED.1 1.3 Ensure that potential industrial and commercial land has the characteristics necessary to support commerce and industry. ED.I 1.4 Designate adequate usable land to meet future needs for industry and commerce. ED.1 1.5 Provide adequate transportation and utilities to support future industrial and commercial needs through capital improvements. 127 128 Chapter 9 - Parks and Open Space The development of Spokane County's park system began shortly after passage of the 1949 enabling legislation (Park and Recreation Services Act, RCW 36.68), which permitted counties to establish parks and conduct programs for public recreation. A group of citizens organized to help formulate a direction with support from the Board of County Commissioners. A citizens' park board was created and a statement of purpose and action was developed. A broad variety of resources were tapped for support and assistance, from the National Recreation and Parks Association to local civic and school groups. The Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks Department) was officially established as a county Department with a salaried director in the spring of 1951. Balfour Park became the County's first park, under the sponsorship of the Opportunity Recreational Council. Originally donated to the Valley Fire District for fire station purposes, it then was given to the County in 1951. An official dedication took place in 1953 after initial improvements were made. By 1965 funding at the federal level increased through the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Fund was intended to help local governments in purchasing natural resource areas for recreational use and offered a 50-percent match for parkland acquisition and development. In Washington State, under a comprehensive parks program administered by a new state agency, the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, additional funding of 25 percent was made available to local governments. Through the program, Spokane County purchased its first waterfront property, Fish Lake. In 1978, a steady decline in Spokane County's available general fund dollars began reducing the annual Parks Department budget allocations. Compelled to reduce staff and operating expenses, the Parks Department cut both programs and parks. By 1984, the fully maintained parks numbered only 13. Two swimming pools were closed and only those programs that were largely self-supporting remained. A handful of parks were maintained with assistance from community groups. Others were sold or returned to their owners. Facilities in nonmaintained parks were left to deteriorate. In 1987 a $2.2 million bond issue was passed to improve county parks. Following this, the Spokane Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution creating a nine-member Parks Advisory Committee. In passing the resolution, the Commissioners recognized the positive role that citizens play in support of county parks and open space programs. The resolution established an ongoing means of linking park policy with the broader interests of county residents. The members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners for three-year terms. With its unique range of outdoor recreational opportunities, Spokane County has much to offer outdoor enthusiasts. The four distinct seasons and holdings of public lands have made this area an increasingly popular place in which to recreate. Fishing and hunting, skiing, equestrian activities, snowmobiling, hiking and biking are some of the more popular types of outings. However, with funds limited, Spokane County's ability to establish and maintain parks and open spaces has traditionally taken a back seat to more pressing needs. Homes, businesses and roads are replacing large sections of open space. This growth brings a very real need for more park and recreation services. 129 Dual Purpose of Parks and Open Space Chapter The Parks and Open Space Element serves two related purposes. The first purpose is to determine the type and level of park and recreational services that are desired by the residents of Spokane County. This chapter provides information and direction to decision makers on park issues and identifies future park and recreation needs so that available resources may be efficiently allocated to meet those needs. The second purpose of this chapter is to identify and protect a system of open space corridors for Spokane County. The distinction between parks and open space corridors is an important one. Open space, in this instance, includes land that may or may not be publicly owned. Open space corridors are valued for wildlife habitat, trails, recreation and connection of critical areas. Open space corridors serve multiple purposes, including greenbelt buffers between developments and may be used for agriculture and forestry. General Goals Spokane County citizens value the long-term benefits of parks and recreation. It is important to retain the connection with the outdoors and the wildlife it hosts as well as provide for passive and active recreation activities for the citizens. This will be done by acquiring, maintaining and/or preserving a network of parks which provide diverse recreational opportunities for all residents. Goal P0.1 Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities and services to benefit the broadest range of age, social, economic and special group interests and abilities. Policies P0.1.1 Adopt by reference and maintain a detailed Spokane County Parks and Recreation Plan. The plan should be updated at least every 5 years or sooner if conditions alter the effectiveness of the existing plan and shall: 1. identify existing parks; 2. identify future parks needs; 3. identify potential park locations; 4. identify and prioritize strategies to meet level of service standards identified in the Comprehensive Plan; 5. identify funding sources necessary to meet the level of service standard and maintain park facilities and recreation services; and 6. ascertain economic feasibility of all new parks. P0.1.2 Development of new parks and recreation facilities shall be consistent with the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and the Spokane County Parks Plan. P0.1.3 Park and recreation facilities should be developed, renovated and maintained to serve the widest possible cross-section of citizen needs and interests, including handicap accessibility. 130 P0.1.4 Locate parks to provide for a variety of outdoor activities and to preserve and protect important habitat areas, corridors and linkages, natural amenities (e.g., wetlands and shorelines), unique landscape features (e.g., cliffs and bluffs) or other outstanding natural features. • P0.1.5 Allocate parks and recreation facilities throughout the county in a manner that provides an equitable distribution based on population density considering geographic limitations. P0.1.6 Respond to the diversity of public needs by offering a range of recreational experiences from passive to active, from unstructured activity to organized recreation. P0.1.7 Involve the public and other agencies with expertise, in the decision making process regarding parks, recreation facilities and programs. P0.1.8 Target waterfront areas (lakes, streams and rivers) to provide public access within the carrying-capacity limits of the water resources and adjacent natural systems. Acquisition and Development . Coal P0.2 Acquire and develop parks and recreation facilities to meet the needs of the public within available resources. Policies P0.2.1 Coordinate and cooperate with both public and private sector interests to further park and recreation opportunities. P0.2.2 Park planning and land acquisition efforts should be coordinated across jurisdictional boundaries and consider existing and planned infrastructure, population served, environmental constraints, and available resources. P0.2.3 Work with nonprofit and for-profit recreation providers to enhance the quality and quantity of available recreation facilities at the lowest possible expense to the taxpayer. P0.2.4 Make acquisition and development of waterfront property for parks a high priority. P0.2.5 Acquire and develop regional parks in rural areas as opportunities occur. P0.2.6 Acquire parkland for community parks in urban reserve areas. 131 Level of Service for Community Parks The Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning projects an increase of 68,114 people in the unincorporated areas, for a total of 265,158 people by the year 2020. The County must establish a minimum level of service standard desired by the citizens and plan to maintain this standard as the population grows. A standard measurement of park level of service has been developed to provide a means of measuring and evaluating park facilities that is consistent and objective. The level of service is based on developed acres of community parkland per 1,000 population. It is recognized that school facilities provide recreation opportunities for the citizens of Spokane County. Goal PO.3a Obtain a level of service for community_parks of 1.4 acres per 1000 population inside the urban growth area by the year 2020. Policies P0.3.1 Coordinate level of service standards for parks based on local and regional needs in • cooperation with other local governments in Spokane County. P0.3.2 Offer neighborhoods and communities within the unincorporated county the ability to increase park and recreation opportunities through the formation of self-taxing park service areas. Neighborhoods may include this option within their individual neighborhood plans. P0.3.3 New development shall mitigate a portion of its direct impacts on the availability of parks, open spaces and recreation facilities. Methods may include, but are not limited to, dedication of land, donated labor, equipment and materials and/or an agreement with Spokane County to provide for the payment of a fee. P0.3.4 County recreation facilities (e.g., water parks, golf courses, sports complexes, ice arenas) should be designed and operated to recover costs when practical or possible through user fees. P0.3.5 Encourage innovative strategies and incentives (e.g., adopt-a-park, adopt-a-trail, adopt-a- space) to enhance existing programs for park maintenance, safety and accessibility. 132 Park Maintenance and Design It is important that the County maintain existing parks and open space to ensure safety, security and cleanliness. Well-designed parks will contribute to the aesthetic qualities of the County as well as the welfare, safety and security of its citizens. Goal P0.4 Continue to provide a parks system that is well maintained and effectively managed to meet both current and future needs. Policies • P0.4.1 Maintenance of existing park and recreation facilities shall take precedence over acquisition of new facilities. P0.4.2 Design standards for parks should ensure safety, security, cleanliness, accessibility and ease of maintenance. P0.4.3 Best management practices should be utilized in the design of county parks and recreation facilities. P0.4.4 Parks should be designed and located to provide ease of access for pedestrians, handicapped persons, bicycles, autos and public transit. P0.4.5 To the greatest extent possible, retain the natural features of proposed parks and recreation areas. If appropriate, designs should incorporate the use of native vegetation. 133 • Open Space Goals and Policies The farms, forests, parks and natural areas of Spokane County provide abundant open space for recreation, wildlife habitat and the production of food and other commodities. Spokane County open space is also valued simply for its scenic beauty. Open space contributes directly and indirectly to the economic value of property nearby and to the economic value of the community by enhancing its attractiveness to existing and prospective residents. Over time, this abundant open space is slowly being displaced by development to satisfy the needs of a growing community. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a policy framework to preserve the open space areas that function as a system of corridors so that opportunities for recreation, trails, wildlife habitat and connection of critical areas are maintained. Vision and Overall Goal The following vision and overall goal for Parks and Open Space was developed through the citizen participation process. Vision To preserve and create viable natural habitat and trail corridors integrated with and whenever possible, connected to, a well-distributed system of neighborhood, community and regional parks designed to enhance the quality of life by providing recreational opportunity, preserving open space and protecting important elements of Spokane's great natural heritage for future generations. Overall Goal To enhance the quality of life for the residents of Spokane County by providing the highest quality and quantity of parks and open spaces. Goals PO.Sa Preserve and protect existing and designated open space areas and corridors throughout Spokane County. These open spaces shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails and connection of critical areas. PO.Sb Establish natural areas to maintain a physical and functional system of open space corridors which protect environmental resources, provide circulation linkages and ensure adequate separation and buffers between various land uses. Policies Open Space Planning Program P0.5.1 Spokane County will promote interlocal agreements with other jurisdictions in the County to designate a regional system of open space lands within and between Urban Growth Areas, based on community needs, values and population increases through establishment of a regional open space planning committee. P0.5.2 Monitor change in open space quantity and quality to evaluate the cumulative impacts on the existing system of open space over time and take the necessary steps to ensure open space is protected. I34 P0.5.3 Encourage public awareness and utilization of the current-use or preferential tax assessment (RCW 84.34) for open space lands. Provide educational material to the public to encourage participation in the open space program. P0.5.4 Support land trusts and other private efforts to acquire property and/or secure easements or development rights for open space, wildlife habitat and recreation. P0.5.5 Develop and continue additional revenue sources for the funding of open space. Funding sources may include, but are not limited to, bond issues, additional levies, conservation futures program, land dedication and the use of impact fees. P0.5.6 Where appropriate, conserve existing public lands in a natural state through careful planning and cooperative agreements between government agencies and public and private groups. P0.5.7 Through subarea planning, open space corridors shall be established as appropriate to serve as greenbelt buffers, trails, wildlife habitat and recreation areas between and among developments. Open Space Designation P0.5.8 Identify and designate open space areas and corridors throughout Spokane County. These open spaces shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails and connection of critical areas. P0.5.9 The open space designations must be based on community needs and values over time, as population increases. P0.5.10 The designation of the open space category shall be based on the following criteria. I. Wildlife Corridors and Landscape Linkages as defined by the University of Washington (and refined by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) study, Wildlife Corridors and Landscape Linkages, An Approach to Biodiversity Planning for Spokane County, Washington 2. Lands classified as Forestry Zone 3. Wetlands and riparian areas and their associated buffers 4. County, state and federal parks, conservation lands, natural areas and wildlife refuges 5. Lands permanently protected as open space through conservation easements 6. Active and proposed trail systems Open Space Acquisitions and Dedications 135 P0.5.11 Public Open Space designations should be accompanied with funding, planning and acquisition techniques as shown below, that ensure the land will be available for use as open space. 1. Conservation Futures Tax 2. Conservation Easements 3. Land Trust 4. Transfer of Development Rights 5. Public Acquisition of property 6. Private acquisition 7. Donation 8. Planned Development/Clustering and bonus densities. 9. Dedication 10. Impact Fees P0.5.12 Within the Spokane County Parks and Recreation Plan, establish a public process for prioritizing future park and open space land acquisitions. The acquisition policy should be flexible enough to permit the capture of an unanticipated opportunity. P0.5.13 Solicit involvement by the general public, agencies and individuals with expertise in open space land acquisition decisions through the Spokane County Parks Advisory Committee and through the comprehensive planning process. P0.5.14 The provision of public access to the county's lakes, rivers and major streams shall be a high priority, provided adequate safeguards are in place to protect drainage ways and sensitive riparian areas. P0.5.15 Encourage the preservation of open space by nonprofit organizations and private individuals. Mechanisms available to these groups include: 1. dedication 2. conservation easements 3. land trust 4. transfer of development rights 5. planned unit development/clustering and bonus densities. 6. donation P0.5.16 Encourage the retention of all publicly owned open space areas. Open Space-Implementation Regulations P0.5.17 Respect private property rights and allow for continued agriculture, ranching and forestry while preserving open space corridors through regulatory means. P0.5.18 Implement the open space designation (which includes wildlife habitat) through zoning, other regulatory techniques, and incentives, to provide an open space system and to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas. Zoning and other regulatory 136 techniques might include residential clustering, low residential density requirements, and the result of establishing critical area buffers and wildlife management plans. Incentives might include property tax incentives, transfer of development rights, bonus densities and other land-use tools. P0.5.19 Promote the inclusion of functional open space within planned unit developments for residential, commercial and industrial development. Goal P0.6 Encourage the multiple use of open spaces and wildlife corridors. Policies P0.6.1 Ensure that recreational uses are consistent with the protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive open spaces and wildlife corridors. P0.6.2 Review development proposals to evaluate opportunities for multiple use of proposed open space. P0.6.3 Encourage multiple use of open space for passive recreation, wildlife habitat, natural resource uses and rural residential development consistent with maintaining other open space uses. 137 Open space map 138 -- _ Pend Oreille County Open Space Corridors , ` i� �""ifPW LEGEND a -• - Ilk r-r • %1 Urban Growth t = `'�- 'Corridor - rrS Area Boundary t 4 • r MI r, f Community Paris N Centennial Trail � � ' Ns Regional Park '`•' Columbia Plateau TrailIlli1 �( t 141‘11 ---`, �� Conservation Area n/ Spokane Fish Lake Trail , ;'�* 1 ` -• . NO ORV Park I/ Proposed Link of • l._f • . Centennial Trail ,a' 1 ® State Park _. I Federal Reserve "e Potential Rails to Trails '_�1 jr h iji, 111 - } Incorporated Area A'...';/ North-South Condor Trail '_ , . � • Landmarkif. s {; - - P .., Return to Chapter Table of Contents —. r \i„.....„ , *Open Sppaace Corridors include, V Wildlife Comdors&Landscape Linkages, tr r7 , DNR type I streams(250'buffer). ` - DNR type 2-3streams(100'buffer). -IvTh p Wetlands(75'huller), I Conservation easements, _ Natural drainage ways. Flood hazard arras, n 2`, �„ ix} PHS Riparian. N _ J-- - ' N. t , . • _,/,-)......:,..\ , I" • l _ ) Al J_ ,4 \ 11.\\L)/ -,.,..:, ,;!,..- . . ...; ...„ __. . .. -1111pikillt _ r ,. - lig ., , 14 1 ' 1 ‘.4' �nMilc 1 ► l 11 I I, %ii W 1, ' ti • tl 1 ) L, , N (i • v� . r-- tliiiiiribilifili l. ( an Moab . , '7 - '• ••+ _i, J . - '+., Y Y Oris On:hards ' :. iiill .�' -� . \.wrNner I 1 I o ‘/ q A\/ �s Ciry o ..Y t J�'' , pi -‘91111- ....4100.,.: , • e' -a ,••• - .— • r ^•a' 1 it _ • -4, I� o �j,� `y� 20ti1 "I Help /7; r� , 1 Nan d., gI ... - a iro.iirClock -- t-d --:V .Z S ;` :••-•":r — �f .� *it F [child A.'.�. 1 9 i J1 1- " •I I� Y-- • _- -- - s Mount.,`:"•'.in t ', 5!' :.: 'i �r°- 90z' .� • �I 3143 - • P+.' TS ai 41,....„. n Ilan l:d:y1 h , 0 ) • '. iii . . . -` , - V- • k 46 s-c:,---"' -._ ._ .. , f r• .: _ „ .. . , .•,. ,...._ , . . /- . , . • , y i .,... 4 ,,ii,C ` L� _,. , €,, ____--...y , ._.,- . , . I 111 . .,„„.. _. ._. . %ti int N (_--, (� I 1 t funtull i : �--' • r +r' 'wildlife Refuge :! _ - ti f 1� 1 f r A" ,,t--.) . .. di-- ,..... i., ) ; • .i.../ II / 4 , ./. , 1 1,-s) • :._). 4 ._.. . ...... ____. \• . ...01 . _, , ..__ -. ......")• _ _, • /...I : -k\--..,1k\''., i -- \,...., . 1110,"frir q .., --- . ,--:, r I iii r , msf�. f ! :'1,--/ 1 `'N,N41 / i. ---,- ,--/ . .--:1:1/-L->-‘,T 1:--71-.7 I Ca:jp14'6-/IIIPIPlirl.: 71 '1-- It' -,/ ' '1 -. .".:4Y- 1 ' -[:-. -_, *-- • • '1 °‘-:'p/-i-,.. .. .1„., :), ../: ,_ . ., . / / 1_, ... .....„, . . ,,,,._ i.., , ,_ , . . \ , \-,./-Thi , -- ( , ) F__ - .- z, . }I - . .. Whitman County Whitman City ■ n This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Placating as a general d planning tool.Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot Wit accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and then:fore,there are no warranties J; SrcaA7 which accompany this material. • Washington Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Trails Goals and Policies Spokane County's trail system is widely used throughout the county. It is a source of recreation for pedestrians, bicyclists and other nonmotorized vehicle users. The trail system is an ongoing process of linkages that began in 1989 and continues to this day. It is a goal of the County to have a trail system that will link population centers, community facilities, work places, neighborhoods, schools, recreation areas, open space and cultural/historical areas. The following policies contribute to the vision of recreational route corridors providing bicycle/walking facilities to link residents of various geographical areas. Goal P0.7 Create a countywide system of multipurpose nonmotorized trails that meet present and projected needs. Policies P0.7.1 Provide trails for pedestrians (including handicapped and wheelchair users), bicyclists, equestrians, skiers and other nonmotorized vehicle users. P0.7.2 As part of the County's adopted park plan, prepare and maintain a recreational trails plan. The trails plan should link population centers, community facilities, workplaces, neighborhoods, schools, recreation areas, open space and cultural/historical areas. Coordinate with other agencies to ensure a comprehensive approach to trail planning. P0.7.3 Separate recreational trails from motorized vehicle traffic where feasible. P0.7.4 Inventory and examine existing rights-of-way (including abandoned rail and utility easements) for possible use as multipurpose nonmotorized trails. • 139 Chapter 10 - Natural Environment The Natural Environment Element combines several environmentally related topics, including Critical Areas (wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas), as well as tree conservation, shorelines, surface water quality and quantity and air quality. The diversity of Spokane County's natural environment is illustrated by ecosystems that range from sub- alpine forests to semi-desert scablands. This diversity supports a broad spectrum of wildlife, from the moose of Mt. Spokane to the Western Painted Turtles of Granite Lake. Numerous lakes, rivers and wetland areas provide linkages and corridors for wildlife. Spokane County's natural environment also includes the Spokane-Rathdrum aquifer, which is one of the most productive aquifers in the United States. Spokane County has attracted desirable businesses in recent years because of the natural environment that contributes to a high quality of life. Protecting and enhancing this unique natural environment is the purpose of this Chapter. By ensuring the availability of clean air and water and preserving critical areas and natural features, we will continue to make Spokane County an inviting community. Through workgroup meetings and other public participation efforts the following guiding principles were developed. • Critical areas, including wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas and flood hazard areas, shall be preserved, protected, managed and restored so that the functions and values of these areas are maintained. • Shoreline areas shall be protected from land uses that degrade water quality and wildlife habitat. • Surface and groundwater should maintain adequate quantity and shall maintain adequate quality, with land uses designed to ensure continued protection. • Air quality shall be maintained at levels that protect human health, prevent injury to plants and animals and preserve clear visibility. Critical Areas Counties are required to protect critical area through the adoption of policies and regulations. Critical areas include these areas and natural places: (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for domestic purposes; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; (e) geologically hazardous areas. Spokane County recognizes the importance of protecting the functions of critical areas. Preservation of these areas helps to maintain the high quality of life that is enjoyed by the residents of Spokane County. These natural systems play valuable roles in stormwater disposal, flood prevention, water quality preservation, as well as providing recreational opportunities. Protection of critical areas makes economic sense, since the alternative is expensive engineered systems for protection from floods and geological hazards and for purification of drinking water. 141 NE.8 Encourage cooperative and coordinated protection programs for critical areas between Spokane County and the cities within the County. NE.10 Cumulative effects of land use activities on critical areas shall be considered in land use decisions. NE.11 Consider the multiple uses of open space and wildlife corridors for other uses, as recommended by qualified wildlife managers, such as utility corridors when conflicts do not exist or can be mitigated. NE.12 Best available science will be used in the designation and protection of critical areas. • Policy NE.12.1 It will be the responsibility of the Division of Planning to coordinate the identification of Best Available Science and to provide a recommendation to decision-makers for use in designating and protecting critical areas and shorelines, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172, WAC 365-195-900, RCW 90.58.100(1) and WAC 173-26-020. • 143 NE.14.3 New regulations developed should recognize the potential impact to wetlands that are located within planned urban areas. NE.14.4 Wetland alteration from development or other activities should not cause adverse impacts to the wetland or its buffer area; however, where no reasonable alternative is feasible, wetland degradation shall be mitigated. NE.14.5 The greatest wetland protection shall be provided to wetlands of the greatest functions and values. NE.14.6 Proposals for wetland restoration, creation or enhancement shall include consultation with the appropriate agencies to ensure adequate design and consistency with other applicable regulations. NE.14.7 Wetland regulations and policies should consider individual property owner's rights and community values. If wetland regulations prohibit all economically viable or beneficial uses of property and variance or reasonable use exceptions are not applicable, there will be liability to the property owner for just compensation unless it can be demonstrated that the proposed uses are prohibited by laws of nuisance or other preexisting limitations on the use of property. NE.14.8 Land use regulations/decisions should consider density transfers, transfer of development rights, bonus density, natural wetland preserves, wetland banking or other mechanisms to retain wetlands whenever possible. NE.14.9 Encourage public and private groups to consider protection and/or acquisition of wetlands and their buffer areas. Goal NE.15 Protect and enhance wetlands so that they are able to perform their natural functions and maintain their beneficial values. Policies NE.15.1 Maintain the natural ability of wetlands to store and gradually release drainage and stormwater. NE.15.2 Discourage development and/or land use activities which will adversely impact wetlands' ability to store and discharge drainage and/or floodwater storage. NE.15.3 Retain, restore and/or enhance native and/or appropriate vegetation to slow velocity of stormwater runoff and improve surface and groundwater quality. NE.15.4 Protect wetlands from erosion and siltation. NE.15.5 Restore and enhance native and/or appropriate vegetative types in wetlands and their buffer areas. NE.I5.6 Protect water quality and quantity within wetlands by preventing overuse of surface and groundwater beyond recharge capacities. 145 Pend Oreille County • Wetlands / - 1. 111P2 \q- LEGEND '...`,.. 1 . , *I '. .9'. 1.•• .mm.m... V .low Elk ' '' .ii. . = Wetland . r.O.:, 1„, •tf .. o , .., • ,....... . s , • t...._,/liks-.4 . , ... .. Open Water .--f- .* i ''-.• ''.4. I,,..... e• I I incorporated Areak. \ ' ,TILT7P-Dri .'' '•Milan 4'7 ass L • . Wetland Stream -4 V/ , 2 1 i/ • •‘‘. Urban Growth Area Boundary _ , sa . • '% Ack ...., A./ Highway . , e 1 - • Landmark -1/4, •-- .......- ,.. ,,, . t Spokane lev.5878 . -- - ,,„,-....• E1: el- !. _ ....._,. 2 _,... -,.-• .,v. . r 1 • „,.. ) ,. • ,, .... ,. , , . . 5 • , • • . ( cateri '. A — . . . .,...-, i . ri . . s 11 , ffine Mile Falls.1111 --err' . _--- • oa..112...,LrilL.-".....:.............4ro/ --.. wk... . t r.4 ' .41tilig flealalt . It' ci.. i '''t• - . 4.. - -- .1 • \ v - .1 E:3/ ..7., . / .-. • - - . '''-•,. • . t, •••••.‘ .1 • `- - Mile It.. r • . '.ik. • . • . . , • , L Newman e L-- I _ _./ . .. Mush • -. 41. lia ., , I 1 • --il • • • III ••' It . ...„,,... , t ri • . _ • I', ....- --I I L :- •, . -' i. .1 illwobtl-- ,` • _I, (his Orchards ,C . • ,4...-' 0 • r . . ,a, rilmilikst*"1"th"City 0 .i s.r, i• spo,„ -5 1.* NTWI '',014 j----1\--'"...N.•1 416,41P.1.9ke: .‘" ."*. . .- -:.; ;_ c..... .r.:41111/4. 0 C • • Hite . ...- . O.) • 9 '-5'• #11111011101.11114111 •-.As --iii i Nular . • i__ B Deep Crkvk •I 1, r . :r-•-••-• • CA i -- l•- -...14.fir i %. ..1 I"" .....t • • ' r-•'1..- .4 _ - .- . r•s „ i ..• I-.a ,..J / I . a ' . t • I 414. i 1 .. s I 1 c 4. 0--"anola , - ‘-;-\; ' r•--.4 • .rr" ' .• • I: r r • 41 ''..•... A,. r,„.. .1. ;•sr $4 = 8-• • -..,. i i( 4, i•• -1.„ (5 i/4/1 • -, -- .. • - 41 I— Y /0 •... .10' / Browne's Mountain Elev.3144 - ... Mica Peak c ....,:.-100,......e.• 'oz.. ) .' 1' Elev.5225 -5 .! - .-.. . 44, . c.) fr , *lir —t . ''':.17:*5` 4. • :3 ' ,, /. 1....,N. Maisluill ' • _ 4'?.• ,:f i;i1 4 ,• •. ' 4,% . , , • ) • ,...rt . • j A • . Four Lakes . 4 Mi.... !'4 ,1! , . :II% • a i'-.4.. I. ' ril°r"ik 1 .: • '...' . 11\ di 7 ' u''` ayalleyford •."; ' 'I : .. ,. ,, .. . • __..... ., t •. ..'"f '• --•• ,,r . 4,- •. . • . " ,, • ' j re), ' ••= . . -; _ ,...._... ,-=man ‘ ‘ - ‘.•.• .,.. •,., 99 , . . . . . .phe i : f t" • 2o - . - '1 -- . b,.!:-....." l 4" k, ; ,....,,.,„,,,; . • cc -i..• e;.1, F• / .,.. .. ..,_• ,s ,.... i ••• !-- s , c . - -,._ ...,,,,..-• ,.....- ., ... . .1. ,Yi .2•-ft ,..,-. •- rr" i• '4, • .27 i r •';4' •-1.. ). • . , i. I. ,, il,i,I y. f?,, f 1 . I 1 ' j - , • ') ,::.: .' s .,..; ....--,,,.... ..... 14, r ,- ,,> , ,F.- ! .t, f•/#,,X, • -., ri•r",,, • ,, Ji.,f- ' • 'I.i'.4, , ', cv .iii-4,•-.. . !oil(•141r• • .1-ii ..:4 ,..! .r , ... ,• 1 .• . , . .• r,600•..- 101-.1 /i...r f;. i ii••et_r-r". ..- ,- e. •1/4./, Rod. ;ockf ord It` 7- . ' .. re ' '''' :c;fill.P.._-'1• :4;04ke•-•, i;.. •e'. i , - ,f. S•:.;gle N.? z;i‘ d .,.• ;• • ,36; j,•.,.-- ' ' .., ;•- l'At ''f.• • t • '' - •' * . Aft - . .•,•'• ,'•/7:..-'-.,. • ei,,----. , . .r .E:L.;,-/-,-;'; . ....- 4, _ . ,.., . •, ., ,,,,,,w- „,. ...-. ... _ , „ •,. . , tr Ay. •••• / "V ift.f.' J 'A . I 1,- "."1 ge ,,A4.0!.:.r ! . . /<-_-_-2./ r -.lip_4, IF 2„..--• ' /;',•4:1i. : ''' 5.5. I• i• /, .1 t 4 ...-W7 , .# 40 I -.4 • • _.47r,..... ••i. f.• ,....rZH 0.'' ..19 ,I Il 111 9 ...dY .."'r .•..:.; - amP -z•-../-"-- iut- .4-„ ,rr-.' 4,.*• f (*) Fai cid &' j • .. 1 `., .4,-.4'``,.•-• t yitr9'. • , -,.(••. it' .; (-. • - 1, -•• .' -.J4- -' -fr<il r- _ ,' .);i'-')v. r'• ' - '1 . • . x I '--- - /,•,.....i... .•..-. 17 i ir •,..,r. ;..; ....; ' 4,,0 1„ ..-r., i .!— iir . d -,--. • ,„,„ ,4:,_•- "t - r,/,' 14,P, ..I 10 1 1 .119 • ,4 f .1 .11. s, 14( 1. . I ' '''. i f r t ory,-• 4.,.!):.•--•., ,,;...5 <!..: 1/4-. . ,...,,, . 1 , Ef; vi t;• 7:--, . 1 ,:i.i) . 0 . 1 4,2 ....) ...., i:.' I 1 r ?- 'fipto"I‘4''' , • N., ,40\.',,..4 1 i , NIValy . ,, . (..-,,' . ://, .1 ' - •". .' ,4 P .1,,..". • OP_ IS .•_• - t -.1 1,..' -.• . ,';' )1 . ' . . 2.../ : ', N (,,• ..64; 1% 7 7.' .1.' - • 1, ,r. . • 'i 4.. pk. , ...-, • .- ., „. .. . - 7. •5,.): . j ,,4 , .04 ' • 1 4-.. • . .••'''''...:( .4,-.).-.,c.r, •• .I,4.4. .-•, 'V 4 . I •1`4•4e • --Pli •'0 i'' l'i . ' — ., ... - • . red, -.-•'' / ..F1,....'• ' i 3'. .. :. .... , •.. 1 : •tah .27.- -:-.' 7... ..:S• .;•, . , ' ',}i'''' \..1: .. : ...,..- 4 Elog, -...—/ „... . , ,tr - ' ,s, • A` . • Spring Valley - , ,._ Whitman County Whitman County This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general planning tool.Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and therefore,there are no wananties which accompany this material. Scurf Oxior Washington ----- --- I Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Wetlands Map Here 147 NE.17.10 Require appropriate stormwater runoff and spill control provisions for those who use and/or store critical materials within critical aquifer recharge areas. NE.17.1 1 Support and develop wellhead protection measures with water purveyors countywide. Coordinate with agencies across the Idaho state line to protect source waters and designated wellhead protection areas. NE.17.12 Prohibit new industries, which will store, handle or use critical materials from locating within a wellhead protection area designated by a public water supplier. NE.17.13 New Industries, which will store, handle, or use critical materials, should be encouraged to locate outside of highly susceptible critical aquifer recharge areas. NE.17.14 New residential subdivisions within critical aquifer recharge areas must not exceed an overall density of one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres when located outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA). NE.I7.15 Solid waste disposal sites (landfills) shall be prohibited within critical aquifer recharge areas of medium and high susceptibility; except that inert and/or demolition solid waste disposal sites may be allowed within critical aquifer recharge areas of medium susceptibility, provided adequate safeguards are in place to protect surface and groundwater. NE.17.16 Pits for the mining of gravel over an aquifer may be allowed if the groundwater is not exposed and measures are in place to prevent inappropriate land uses near the pit. NE.17.17 In situations of documented contamination of public water supplies in violation of Washington State water quality standards, development, which would either contribute to or be impacted by the pollution shall be prohibited until such time as all necessary utilities, facilities and services can be provided in compliance with applicable standards. NE.17.18 Encourage development activities that do not use critical materials in highly susceptible critical aquifer recharge areas. NE.17.19 Sewer service, stormwater runoff and spill-control provisions shall be provided when critical materials are used, handled or stored by industries or other land uses when they are located within critical aquifer recharge areas. NE.17.20 Best management practices should be utilized to treat stormwater runoff prior to injection into the ground. NE.I7.25 Encourage the application of permeable and semipermeable surfaces to parking areas and other innovative storm water control alternatives to facilitate storm water treatment and disposal. Coal 149 Goal NE.19 Provide public information programs for land users to demonstrate how to protect critical aquifer recharge areas from degradation. Policies NE.19.1 Provide the public with information on practices that threaten water quantity and quality. NE.19.2 Encourage all land users to employ best management practices appropriate to their land use to discourage excessive water use and to protect public health and safety. NE.19.3 Provide convenient public access to county groundwater modeling documents and regulations to protect critical aquifer recharge areas. NE.19.4 Make the public aware of the long-term expense and public health consequences of failure to protect critical aquifer recharge areas from degradation. NE.I9.5 Encourage area schools, colleges and universities to include education about groundwater pollution prevention. NE.19.6 Encourage area civic groups to become involved with groundwater protection. NE.I9.7 Create a Spokane County internet web site that will provide continuing education and information to citizens regarding groundwater quality. NE.I9.9 When feasible,Create incentives to reduce the use of hazardous chemicals by households and businesses. NE.I9.10 Organize a region wide aquifer protection committee, including nearby counties and cities in Washington and Idaho. NE.19.1 1 The Spokane County Water Quality Management Program should compile, prints and distribute a pamphlet for small-acreage owners describing methods of protecting groundwater and other best management practices. Goal NE.20 Consistently enforce regulations, effectively monitor compliance and provide incentives to protect critical aquifer recharge areas. Policies NE.20.2 In moderate and highly susceptible critical aquifer recharge areas, no variances, deviations or exceptions to the groundwater protection regulations shall be allowed except with alternative mitigation measures that provides protection of groundwater equal to or better than the stated regulations. 151 Goal NE.21 Regularly update critical aquifer recharge area protection measures so they are more effective, enforceable and equitable. Policies NE.21.1 Update the aquifer susceptibility analysis when sufficient new information is available to justify an update. NE.2I.2 Conduct additional studies to better define the extent of contamination,physical extent, water capacity, background water quality and the rate of flow of water in Spokane County aquifers. NE.21.3 Reconsider and revise the list of critical materials every five years. NE.21.4 Regularly revise aquifer protection measures to reflect additional best available information. 153 i Pend Oreille County Contamination Susceptibility � , f of Aquifers ' ;4J • E _.4,,_/?` .v.jitt, 4ft-' LEGEND 1 XCI� r' 1 Low Ai Urban Growth \ � Arun Boundary . � }CI-- Ann Moderate ) Milan \J---'1", s�f �, t'/ Highway " ! �I High S • Landmark ,�.' . O� ASA Boundary _lc' N ASA Watershed Boundary U Iy c:,--v--i AJ I corporated Boundary Illk * f i , >, �' t Spokane c= Ili r n{ ley.5878 ,.„, 3 ,,, 41111b,!Pap, v ci LA 4 1 ''''61-6- ' . � . t. - A, q, # . qtr 1 trDa 1i\ - .z Nilic 'Ailphr,„, .Nil, it 4401111S ..- ,. ..,:— '"\ *14° U _.,,,,-. a . It'll_ i ...,,_,-----/----' . / le.r). . ,.010",... All 41 I al 41111111111k " { ri ,J� , I \ , „� b w Mite ` / O til HZ ,i -_-= r? Deep Creek ^ rf_ ir J _240 • „,,,..! .._,,i , . h e. / ,457.0.,----1;1 c).--'-' -:- : CD '11 sr INV (.3/ 1,-,3 - 0 3 n t Elev. -10 t.,., ir l t�s i r r; � Four Lakes \ V icu )-) /L-6) i 1,3 ”)r, .1 . 43ilr,ak 1 i L, ,.. teyfuld 411 '1 % 6-'- if' \ c) 421W / 'Ai3 ''9'' � r r.,,,,__,(----'1' -MINIM 1/Ve /111C '' ! . lr''! , -A• > r 19 elj .. , 004101 .1Cycs\_ F ._,., U ✓ liff ..... .-1,& c-)--,. ' . ..,.., dord �",_41 .•' ''� G2 l',...- e. 1 S le r? ✓`' --2-7 ....._ i.l�VVi),llife Refug rel f� t - .1 4 r F ' Id rfr �V ". c:f'" '7T-\ \v,..001A,.. IP ate' t '17,----CI 7 / iq:014evii..\,,,,..4 •,---‘`` J4- 1 � i lams 9k !i'L „./x7 �'t��ti } i 195j lic ”."''..''. i- V45 d ,_71:1 q 4._,_.fci cy/- .8 ,, ,2_,,, zodna r_y _ h --, V li i �---4,, r . .- _ Spring�'JIev 1.10 .__.-- '''''- 4 0 ,,, / f l Whitman County Whitman County __ This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general r planning tool.Due to the dilTenng quality of source documents.the Division cannot d accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and therefore.there are no warranties il which accompany this material. '' rr'il Ii Scro+O 'i Data: Spokane County Utilities Division, Water Quality Management Program Washingtonl Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Surface Water Quantity and Quality Water quality and quantity influences the domestic, economic, recreational and natural environments of Spokane County. Historically, clean water has been taken for granted. As growth and development have increased, so have problems associated with maintaining water quality and quantity. Industry, commercial business, agriculture and residences all contribute to reduced water quality and quantity. From this perspective, a comprehensive approach must be taken to ensure future water quality and quantity. Spokane County has a large number of surface water bodies that provide a variety of economic, recreational and aesthetic benefits and use. Almost all the perennial streams within the County are listed within the State's "303d" inventory as having impaired water quality. Probably the most important water body listed as an impaired surface water is the Spokane River. The use of the Spokane River as a receiving water for sewage effluent discharges and storm runoff makes it an important resource for waste assimilation. This function must, however, be balanced with the river's economic, recreation, wildlife habitat and aesthetic values. There is evidence that pumping from the Spokane Rathdrum Aquifer reduces the flow in the river. The flows in the Little Spokane River are also negatively affected by withdrawals from the Little Spokane Aquifer. While lakes within the county exhibit better water quality than streams, several lakes have shown or are showing signs of lower water quality. Lake restoration programs are in effect for three lakes (Medical, Liberty and Newman), as well as the Long Lake Reservoir. Stormwater The increased impervious area resulting from development changes the amount and the quality of runoff water. If left unmanaged, discharges of stormwater can cause flooding and water quality degradation, especially in already impaired water bodies. Increased impervious areas may also adversely impact groundwater recharge. The major stormwater problem areas are located in Glenrose/Central Park, Eaglewood, Five Mile Prairie, West Plains and the Saltese area (including the Ridgemont, Morningside and Bella Vista areas). These areas are underlain by geology that does not readily absorb water; therefore, they tend to experience acute stormwater problems just after a heavy rain or rapid snow melt. Precipitation falls and either runs off, pools in low spots and soaks into the ground or accumulates on the surface either as wetlands, ponds or lakes. Some of the runoff flows on the surface and some flows under the surface. Flooded basements and other property damage is often the result. Long-term solutions to stormwater problems will require creative problem-solving on a case-by-case basis. In drainage basins where development has already occurred, much of the natural stormwater system may be altered so that it no longer functions effectively. In areas where wetlands have been filled and natural drainageways altered, substantial investment in stonnwater collection and disposal systems will be required. In newly developing areas where stormwater disposal has not yet become a problem, it is important to preserve the natural system of wetlands and drainageways to prevent problems from occurring as a result of future development. 155 Goals NE.22a Assure continued provision of both adequate quantity and quality of surface water for the County of Spokane. NE.22.b Encourage land uses, which are consistent with long-term protection of surface water quality and quantity in Spokane County. NE.22c Work regionally with the State of Idaho and its counties and the State of Washington and its counties to restore water quality in currently impaired surface waters. Policies NE.22.1 The Spokane County Water Quality Management Plan and the Spokane County Wastewater Management Plan are adopted by reference as part of this Plan, however, future updates to these plans should consider methods of storm water and waste water disposal that reduce impact on surface and ground water such as irrigation of golf courses, parks, landscaping and agricultural crops not intended for human consumption. NE.22.2 Within the Peone/Deadman Creek, Newman Lake, Liberty Lake, Saltese, Chester Creek, Glenrose/Central Park, North Spokane and West Plains drainage areas or other areas with drainage problems, special studies and/or conditions of approval for development proposals may be required if necessary to mitigate storm water runoff and other pollution sources. NE.22.3 Impacts of a proposal upon surface water quality shall be considered before development is approved. Denying or conditioning proposals may be necessary to protect water quality. NE.22.4 Develop and maintain an area wide Water Quality Management Plan that is coordinated with the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and the Water Quality Management Plans for adjacent Washington and Idaho counties. NE.22.5 The County shall develop an education program to inform its people of the sensitivity of the surface water to both excess use and contaminants. The purpose of the program would be to reduce contamination. NE.22.6 Encourage the Department of Ecology to continue enforcing the minimum flow of 115 cubic feet per second in the Little Spokane River at Dartford. • NE.22.7 Support the establishment of a minimum flow standard for the Spokane River that is adequate to protect wildlife and maintain water quality. NE.22.8 The more restrictive residential density requirements imposed either by the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area or Surface Water Quality and Quantity goals and policies or by each land use category's goals and policies shall apply. 156 • NE.22.9 Trucks and trains carrying critical materials should be encouraged to use preferred critical material routes where emergency spill response plans exist. NE.22.10 Treated sanitary waste water shall meet or exceed the Department of Ecology standards prior to discharge to surface waters. NE.22.11 Where increased storm water runoff potential exists due to a proposed development, runoff management procedures shall be required. NE.22.12 Establish enforcement procedures for the safeguarding of surface waters in Spokane County. NE.22.I3 Time extensions for approved preliminary plats short plats and binding site plans shall be subject to current applicable local, state and federal regulations regarding water quality protection. NE.22.14 Work with agricultural agencies to limit the use of excessive fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide application and work toward finding other, less damaging soil fertilizers. NE.22.15 Encourage biological water treatment using native plants. NE.22.16 Continue the ban on phosphorus in detergents. NE.22.17 Implement standards that adequately control erosion from development sites. Special emphasis should be placed on erosion and stormwater control from private roads, which may affect surface waters. 157 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas include: • Areas with which specifically identified species have a primary association. These specifically identified species include: endangered, threatened, sensitive and candidate; and secondarily: monitor and priority species (game and nongame), as identified by the Department of Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and species lists, hereinafter referred to as priority species, compiled in compliance with WAC-365-190-080. • Habitats and species of local importance. • Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat. • Waters of the state. • Lakes, ponds, streams and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; or • State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation means land management for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations are not created. This does not mean maintaining all individuals of all species at all times,but it does mean cooperative and coordinated land use planning is critically important among counties and cities in a region. Fish and wildlife are part of our heritage. Fishing, hunting and simply watching wildlife are valued recreational activities that contribute to the local economy and quality of life. Preservation of the fish and wildlife habitat is the key to the continued existence of these species in the future. The following goals and policies articulate the high value that residents of Spokane County place on conservation of the local fish and wildlife. Goals NE.23 Identify fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and their ecosystems. Recognize the multiple values of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and educate people as to these values. NE.24 Protect, maintain and improve critical fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and habitats of local importance through a variety of methods including public ownership of the most critical areas and incentives for privately owned land. Policies NE.24.1 Guide development by environmental concerns, including natural limitations of habitat. Incentives and mitigation measures may be used to guide development. NE.24.2 Land use regulations and decisions shall consider density transfers, bonus density, nature area preservation or other innovative mechanisms to retain Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas whenever possible. 158 NE.24.3 Development proposals and their design shall consider the retention and maintenance of critical fish and wildlife habitat areas and shall provide buffers to protect corridors and water habitats. NE.24.4 Spokane County will seek individuals and/or groups to assist in identifying and protecting species and habitats of local importance. Coals NE.25 Spokane County shall strive to minimize fragmentation of habitat 1) by protecting important fish and wildlife areas and open space; and 2) by interconnecting corridors to form a continuous network of fish and wildlife habitat and ecosystems. NE.26 Spokane County shall strive to ensure that priority fish and wildlife species as identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and species of local importance do not become imperiled due to land use changes, habitat alteration and other human activities. Policies NE.26.1 Recognize that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) manages fish and wildlife resources and that Spokane County should coordinate with WDFW in land use planning and management of fish and wildlife resources. NE.26.2 Spokane County shall strive to implement measures that contribute to the recovery and/or management of priority species. NE.26.3 Encourage restoration of lost and damaged habitats. NE.26.4 Activities allowed within designated Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas should not compromise the areas' habitat quality or function. Compatible uses may include rangeland, forest production, open space and passive recreation. 159 Pend Oreille County .' - Ca nden Fish & Wildlife Critical Areas 0-.LEGEND I= White Tail Deer — Cliffs&Riparian I 1 Urban Nat Open Space NM Old Growth Forest I I White Tail Deer& A Endangered Species y,..... Urban Nat Open Space A Threatened Species IMO Moose Habitat A Candidate Species Mil Elk Habitat "MP.M 0 .. ..1. Milan Monitored Sp,xies 7a6 Jill r°`` Steppe I I Incorpoarated Area Endangered Species i`o Urban Growth ® Threatened Species Arm Boundary " t I 1 Water Fowl Corridor Al Highway I I Wetland • Landmark A Riparian A •I D 1 i Cliffs/BIutT co i vi il' SI c Lv . •Colbert "l. --- 2 CDt /t - • • ,:. .. 5.^._, • ...' .lo ti --1,-.5,,,•,,.."` Iskyrbp' s )read .. LSO. /s i-. ii:.... . .,.. (7 p . 1111 ti -t t r- 1 -/ 1 .6", [IIWObtl` t 1 O tis• Onitar is ' riAllippli s • .. tea, .111111101111"'"‘ -- O Rilet I� +^ Mit _ / ��Ac:pCnxk 41111.1111111 l'''‘ -' C) itom - .�-,Z '`' ,� / F =had AF.� •L •t ,_• "JI r L(t:uwla -!P: 'i- 3 r, rr.' -- Browne"s Mou tea Peak c F. 1 ,11 Elev.3144 *teaElev.Peak 1 t e 1 ° /az ` , - • c5225 _ f ,.„k .;. , Marshall y ilV • 11(114116 '�a ir• FourLalti � .r , ... r--11``-"��c' ; -- /4'�'! •valkytunt " buil — 711,04 195 4 ' t- Z--• *r. A ► xa ockford S/:-gle `i"� Tyler Si WildllifelRefuge 1.G _r' Fair eld e i ... - Ai . f rc t` is 1 195 l Plaza - "zz 1 Spring Valley �. [21# f . :'' 4.1i.' Whitman County Whitman County 1111111 This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general planning tool.Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and therefore,there are no warranties which accompany the material. Washington Spokane County Comprehensive Plan • Tree Conservation Much of the landscape of Spokane County is dominated by evergreen forest. The aesthetic appeal of the area is closely linked to the native vegetation, especially the trees. The conifers that cover the hills and mountains are important to the economy of the area as a renewable natural resource for paper and building materials. However, the aesthetic and wildlife habitat value of the trees also contributes to the economy of the area to a significant extent. Although the forestry industry has declined in importance in recent years in Spokane County, the aesthetic value and wildlife associated with the forested landscape continues to be a force that draws people and jobs to this area. For the area to maximize its economic development potential, it is essential that Spokane County conserve its identity as an area of scenic natural beauty. To this end, conservation of the trees that are native to this area must be considered as part of the development process. Goal NE.27 Preserve the unique natural beauty of Spokane County by conservation of the native trees through public education, conservation incentives and special consideration in the development process. Policies NE.27.1 Encourage public awareness of the increased property values associated with tree conservation. NE.27.2 Encourage programs that provide assistance to the public in caring for and nurturing trees. NE.27.3 Encourage tree-planting programs that emphasize native species and encourage species diversity. NE.27.4 Adopt tree conservation development regulations that discourage removal of mature trees, require appropriate tree replanting when removal is necessary to accommodate development and provide incentives to conserve trees. • • • • 161 Frequently Flooded Areas Frequently flooded areas are lands in the floodplain subject to a I-percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. These areas include, but are not limited to, streams, rivers, lakes, sink areas, major natural drainageways and wetlands. Frequently flooded areas are-natural physical features of a watershed that play an important role in stormwater storage and disposal. The purpose of these goals is to maintain the natural function of these frequently flooded areas in order to protect private and public property and reduce the need to construct flood control facilities as well as protect the environment. Goal NE.28 Recognize the multiple values of frequently flooded areas and educate people as to those values. Policy NE.28.1 Recognize that frequently flooded areas are a natural physical feature of a watershed. The function of a frequently flooded area is to convey and store runoff during periods of heavy rainfall and snowmelt when overtopping of the normal river, stream or drainage channel occurs and adjacent low-lying areas are flooded. Goal NE.29 Identify frequently flooded areas and drainage ways, sink areas, runoff areas, floodways and meander belts that contribute to frequently flooded areas. Policy NE.29.1 Standard hydrologic and hydraulic study methods shall be used to identify frequently flooded areas. Coal NE.30 Protect and improve the natural dynamics of frequently flooded areas. (Recommended) Policies NE.30.1 Frequently flooded areas, marshes, floodplains and floodways should be used as rangeland, forest, wildlife habitat, open space, recreation and other appropriate uses. NE.30.2 Minimize impacts of new development on existing floodplains and frequently flooded areas though design that accommodates flood events without property damage. NE.30.3 Maintain, protect or restore natural drainage systems to protect water and environmental quality. NE.30.4 The natural drainage network should be preserved and utilized for flood control and to maintain environmental quality. NE.30.5 New developments and land use activities should be designed to: 162 1. Protect the drainage functions of flood plains, natural drainageways, sink areas and other existing drainage facilities; 2. Preserve and incorporate natural features such as streams, ponds, significant drainageways and wetlands in a manner that maintains their natural functions; 3. Consider the site's topography as it relates to frequently flooded areas in the design and placement of physical improvements such as roads and structures; 4. Retain natural vegetation strips adjacent to the high water mark of a perennial or intermittent stream or other frequently flooded areas; 5. Retain trees and native vegetation which contribute to controlling erosion on slopes adjacent to frequently flooded areas. Goal NE.31 Manage frequently flooded areas to enhance environmental quality and to minimize the risks to life and property. Policies NE.31.1 Minimize impacts from flooding problems such as erosion,property damage, potential property devaluation and impaired ground and surface water quality. NE.31.2 Use bioengineering techniques, where possible, rather than hard engineering structures to stabilize the floodway if risk to life or property is threatened. • NE.31.3 Guide development away from identified 100 -- year floodplains (one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year) and county designated flood areas. NE.3I.4 Permit and encourage land uses compatible with the preservation of natural vegetation within frequently flooded areas. NE.3I.5 The Hangman (Latah) Creek Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan is adopted by reference as a part of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. NE.31.6 Development should not occur on lands identified as being within a 100-year floodplain (I-percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year) or as having a history of flooding, unless the developer provides mitigation measures acceptable to the appropriate regulatory agency. • 163 Flood Hazard Maps Here 164 ^� 4 Pend Oreille County Camden Flood Hazard LEGEND " Elk Incorporated AreaFEMA FI ; '''-- '' 1 �\ A "-1:-='j gt Y �! oodplalns e'e .w' Urban Growth - •Milan Area Boundary i I a lk\ :'., `e_ N Highwayti It. • Landmark 1 1 • tSpokane 'lev.5878 13 IY � : o / cn W I 4;:- p 0 "+ .Colbert s 1 1 ' NineMile Fals . 4 � �," i•� 1 1 , ilk.- e."".......47iil L.` E N t 1 1 Moab .1111 ji .. 1 -jl , 1 wo 1 1 Otis Oict�ds 1 • "''City o .pokan• : o Mite { cp : tit •-• ••. _ • : }_S • 1- 113 1111 1 F: child A.•.$.r 1 _r• 'j e s &1 ,. 'NIL114rspanola1 r1 1 BO 1 _- • U _ • -_ Browne's M. . 1 1 ° Elev.3144 Mica Peak g . ie 1 t Ots.• Q _ Elev.5225 o • ... , ii, A ' • Fourla !� Lakes -r r d i` C l •an.1 En I — 3 4 '� roman 'it / .i. so •zv Le) .. 'I 0:4 • 1 pK18 �..\ ...I4Ir .oc' ord I_ Spi 1e 1 �- 0- TYie No Turnbull AI Wildlife Refuge ilitLfIr< 1 Fair eld y d"it •1061'4*. if I wa 1 f eff 4d '1 y it' d — ". Jr Plate \ Rodna ' 1.1/ s. il atah ,, !„ifi / 0..r g Valley v y l Whitman County Whitman County This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general planning tool.Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and therefore,there are no warranties whieh accompany this material. 9v0ottpr Washington Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Geologically Hazardous Areas _ Geologically hazardous areas are areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake or other geological events are not suited to siting commercial, residential or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns. The purpose of these goals and policies is to ensure that areas subject to geological hazard are identified so that hazard mitigation is incorporated into designs. The public safety must be protected by prohibition of development in geologically hazardous areas unless hazard mitigation is assured. Goal NE.32 Development should be discouraged in geologically hazardous areas unless it can be demonstrated that a hazard area can be developed consistent with public health and safety. Development permits may be conditioned to mitigate certain hazards. NE.32.1 Any new subdivision or short subdivision that is determined to be in a geologically hazardous area where significant risk has been identified shall have specific language placed on the face of the plat (dedication) and title stating that the hazard is present. NE.32.2 Residential, commercial and industrial development in geologically hazardous areas should minimize disruption of existing topography and vegetation; and shall incorporate opportunities for phased clearing and grading. NE.32.3 Construction should minimize risk to the natural environment and/or structures. Construction shall not increase the risk to the site and/or potentially affected adjacent properties. NE.32.4 Clearing and grading activities in geologically hazardous areas shall consider limitations based upon seasonal weather conditions. NE.32.5 Within geologically hazardous areas, site alteration, grading and filling shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish approved designs/plans. NE.32.6 Proposals should describe the hazards present, such as erosion, landslides, etc., and provide mitigation measures acceptable to the appropriate regulatory agency. NE.32.7 Construction and development on geologically hazardous areas should have negligible effects on the quality and quantity of potentially affected surface and groundwater. Mitigation measures acceptable to the appropriate regulatory agency should be provided. NE.32.8 Development in geologically hazardous areas should not be allowed without appropriate mitigation. NE.32.9 Development proposals within geologically hazardous areas should submit an erosion control plan prior to receiving approval. 165 NE.32.10 Land use regulations and decisions should consider density transfers, bonus density, nature belt preservation or other innovative mechanisms to retain geologically hazardous areas whenever possible and to facilitate implementation of the goals and policies for geologically hazardous areas. Goal NE.33 Geologically hazardous areas may be used as open space for recreation, rangeland, forest,wildlife habitat and other uses as appropriate. Policies NE.33.1 Geologically hazardous areas demonstrated to be highly sensitive to modification by development activities shall be preserved in a natural condition for uses other than development. NE.33.2 These highly sensitive areas should be inventoried and reviewed for consideration of the most appropriate nondevelopment related use. 166 , Pend Oreille County ,P t Geologic Hazards & Constraints I a • LEGEND _ • + 1 _ I Erodible Sods .#••r Urban Growth rg_ 1 4 Area Boundary I'°e �R.I _ • �_ �- �.rT Alluvium ► . - 1 - *,.. +ate' ;_ ,i // ^/ Highway `'- ' Landslide Deposit f " • Landmark r,,: -1 = •�1 ' ;. • \ � Latah Formation a \E © r. 1. • 't'� ^�_ Incorporated Area - 1i ,_ , ' `^ I = .------ T '. "---li e. ,-- ..-...... Mt Spae Pi o * ` Elev.587 i/ �1.� IIGO •.. eV:1:4 f ,,,' ,• �' .4. 1�,,yr ,. 1 CI) I:. . . "', ./1 , ,_ --, lid :. ..,,,,if . ,. \ . . ,,..• ..,,,,t,p'el, . •••• • -- - ,se ,, 0 ) 'ar - y —......-- Str,6 .z. �1.. © ='� 0/,'‘'' e s' l'"' ti '-%:' %Oi-''. N _... ,,, .,., , i ,. .... ...... • , ..... ,./, ., ...... . . _ ....._ , IF I: - _ loil r fi G t �+ .71: MI IIC' :Lk 31 - /� 11Ayy b MIMI '',N.'( NI[rc. !alis .i 1L:,, S? f ® Er�strar • ry �•.7. r /// i hi�//fes .' itilite6.-. III �'ll /_el I 1 �lt +ry/i/1 11 Ili 1 • `It) Moab !4•I _-0 ► .t?�'- n sr,,_ , �r -.11 ./,• a 4 .,. .9"` 8'""C.ityo .pokane r 3poipillaill 11:61 .41101 . . .1 1° rit114°P- ', Hite i O ''' ,:,) • 1119; 111110.1111111111r ' -........ F: hildA '.1#. '' , ter- ., t'-__ �,r .r t *'i '� = ap r Espanola _ .051_ _, . '. et! o ' © ' w,.►n•' ._ H __ -- Browne's tlount -` , �e Uev.3144 ica Peak o _ _ Elev.5225 • , --„, .. .... ,.. , _, . ir _ ,,.. ., ....,...,_ ,. itka LA/a it• fastaaker 1.• .....' •_ •• -. • 47 MO Erxman / • g4.f 1. 6 A -t-'.Ile af'. o , ( .,.....---li ..... / irg, t2% , - n ...'- i 1 IP°2 ® ,iocktbrd - m: I , li '� Spill r ito Lyle M 1 ler .1::-_- .' A. _ •Wildlife Refug 4-11 ........—3 �� Y r.' 1 / _ -;./..----"" 44. - .- ` afr9 -;r _tea-- `.- Farr ld ;*,-; "....... . - i 'cll.. Jir . Po - i 4110111:00ey...41 ,it,4. !for. 10 f 4...e .4:(3 7,1 7 ..: : .......=-::-. , . %, ..01.- i °41A1141% ' 1AILA NI, \ �.. r. ngValicy - • — . Whitman County Whitman County This map replaces all Geologically Hazardous Areas maps made prior to 1-:April 1999. This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general l planning tooL Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot ii3 accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and therefore,there are no warranties SwaCaat1 which accompany this material. Washington Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Geo haz map here 167 Shorelines Shorelines are among the most valuable and fragile of environments. The purpose of these goals and policies is to manage the use of the shorelines so that their protection, preservation and restoration is assured. The intent is to foster reasonable and appropriate use of the shorelines but also to protect the natural character of the shorelines, preserve the ecology and resources, increase public access to publicly owned shorelines and to increase recreational opportunities for the public. Bodies of water with a mean annual flow of greater than 20 cubic feet per second(in the case of flowing water)and an area greater than 20 acres (in the case of standing water)are considered Shorelines of the State and are subject to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The SMA area of jurisdiction is the body of water together with an adjacent strip of land generally 200 feet wide, measured landward from the ordinary high watermark. In compliance with the SMA, Spokane County adopted a Shoreline Management Program in 1975. The Shoreline Management Program established goals,policies and regulations to protect shoreline areas. Developments after 1975 have been conditioned to comply with the Shoreline Master Program. RCW 36.70A.480 requires that the Shoreline Master Program goals and policies be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan. However, ongoing changes in state law concerning the development of local shoreline programs make an update to the 1975 SMA Program untimely. A major update to the Shoreline Management Program shall occur following adoption of the revisions to state requirements for local shoreline management programs. Goal NE.34 Protect shorelines in Spokane County designated under the state Shoreline Management Act with the Spokane County Shoreline Master Program until it is replaced or amended under pending state law and administrative regulations. Policies NE.34.I The Spokane County Shoreline Program shall be updated once legislative changes are enacted to ensure consistency between the Shoreline Management Program and the Critical Areas Program. NE.34.2 The 1975 Spokane County Shoreline Program, as adopted and amended, are included by reference as part of this plan. NE.34.3 The Spokane County Shoreline Program shall be reviewed and updated periodically as required by law. 168 Air Quality Several conditions contribute to air pollution in Spokane County. Human activities, including automobile use, wood stove use, industrial and agricultural operations, generate airborne substances that can affect air quality. In addition, Spokane has been affected substantially by windblown dust from the entire central portion of the State. The Spokane Valley is also a natural basin in which air pollution is concentrated by an occasional temperature inversion (a situation in which lighter warm air overlies heavier cool air). A variety of air pollution control strategies have been employed in Spokane County. The strategies include auto emission inspections, restrictions on open burning, wood stove certification and restriction on wood stove use when pollution levels are high, oxygenated fuels for cars, road paving, use of chemical deicers as an alternative to road sanding and others. These measures combined with cleaner- burning cars have significantly improved air quality. However, traffic volumes continue to increase which could lead to degradation of air quality in the future. Air quality is intricately related to land use and transportation. The challenge presented to the region is to balance land use, transportation and air quality in such a way that the community can continue to grow and prosper without compromising quality of life. Goals NE.35a Maintain air quality in Spokane County which protects human health, prevents injury to plant and animal life and preserves clear visibility. NE.35b Promote the physical, economic and social development of Spokane County which is consistent with a good air quality and visibility. NE.35c Comply with federal and state air quality standards. Policies NE.35.1 Establish a variety of transportation systems as alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle such as dispersed employment opportunities, flexible working hours, telework, light rail, monorail,other transit, car pooling, bicycling and walking paths. NE.35.2 Establish multiple high-density travel corridors while preserving the unity of established neighborhoods. NE.35.3 Encourage the development and expansion of high-density urban centers which facilitate alternative transportation modes to reduce traffic congestion. NE.35.4 Support regional efforts to improve air quality. NE.35.5 Promote public education to increase the level of responsibility for air quality. 169 Chapter 11 - Cultural Resources The Importance of Protecting Cultural Resources In many ways, Spokane's historic and archaeological resources are similar to our rich natural resources. Like wetlands, forests, agricultural lands and other natural resources, historic properties are a finite and endangered resource. Also like our natural resources, once an historic or archaeological property is destroyed, it is lost forever. Cultural resources such as historic buildings, monuments of historic events and archaeological sites are statements of Spokane County's identity. People especially value our authentic, homegrown cultural resources that set us apart from other counties. This element of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan sets forth policies and a course of action for the preservation and treatment of these historic and archaeological resources. The Plan reflects local attitudes toward historic preservation, establishes preservation as public policy and puts these values into writing. Purpose of Plan for Cultural Resources The purpose of this plan is to protect and preserve our Cultural Resources, both identified and potential, by establishing public policy that ensures: • Management decisions about cultural resources are based on solid information obtained through credible research programs; • County planners, Preservation Office staff, developers, property owners and citizens have ready access to the information they need to make informed decisions about actions that could affect Spokane County's cultural heritage; • All available information on cultural resources is fully integrated into planning tools for local and tribal decisions about land use. Decisions concerning land use will include active participation by the wide variety of people whose heritage and traditions are at stake; • Both financial and technical assistance is available to individuals organizations, communities and tribes. Technical and financial assistance programs are administered by the Washington State Historic Preservation Office and the Spokane City/County Historic Preservation Office; • Cultural resources owned by Spokane County are in good condition; and • County support for cultural and historic preservation programs becomes increasingly stable and reliable as evidenced by achievement of the goals and policies contained in this chapter. 171 Definition of Cultural Resources A large part of Spokane County's special identity and civic pride is derived from its heritage. From the Native Americans who first established trading centers to the continuing waves of newcomers from around the world, all have left their mark. Cultural Resources are those buildings, structures, sites or associations left behind by a group of people and are generally over 50 years old. Cultural Resources consist of three types of properties. Historic Properties Cultural Resources include historic structures and landscapes engineered and built by man. 1. Historic buildings - houses, barns, commercial buildings, churches, schools. 2. Historic structures - bridges, dams, stone fences. 3. Historic districts - a grouping of buildings with related historic character. 4. Historic objects - statues, monuments, sculpture 5. Landscapes—gardens, parks, urban and rural Traditional Cultural Properties and Archaeological Sites Cultural Resources include properties that were held in spiritual or ceremonial honor or by a cultural group or tribe. Cultural Resources include properties, which may no longer show evidence of man-made structures, but retain an historical association with an event or period. Archaeology sites, battlefields, campsites, cemeteries, burial sites, rock carvings, pictographs, trails, village sites, fishing sites, trading sites, religious and ceremonial sites. *Note: The specific location of these sites is often very sensitive in nature. Gathering information concerning these properties should be undertaken with careful consideration and involvement of the cultural group involved. 172 Identification and Protection of Resources The purpose of this goal is to ensure the identification and protection of important cultural resources (historic and archaeological sites, buildings, structures and traditional cultural properties). Spokane County recognizes that these cultural resources are finite, irreplaceable and nonrenewable resources. There are inventories of archaeological and historic sites. Not only do the lists need to be checked to confirm that evidence of the site/building remains, but a better means to identify and preserve evidence of significant archaeological and historic sites is needed. Goal CR.1 Identify maintain, update and protect archeological and historic sites and structures to guide decision-making in resource planning, environmental review and resource management. Policies CR.1.1 Identify and evaluate archaeological and historic sites to determine which should be preserved. Identification and evaluation is a constant, ongoing process. CR.1.2 Identify those lands which are most likely to contain unrecorded archeological or historic sites CR.1.3 Nominate cultural resources to the local, state and national Historic Registers. The Cultural Resources Inventory should be used as a reference in the identification of significant structures and places eligible for nomination. CR.1.4 Maintain the Spokane County Register of Historic Places to provide a means to recognize and preserve cultural resources of local significance. The Cultural Resources Inventory should be used as a reference in the identification of significant structures and places eligible for nomination. ' CR.1.5 Review of land use actions should be sensitive and give consideration to protection of cultural resources. 173 Stewardship The purpose of this goal is to provide guidance for the treatment of cultural resources owned by Spokane County. Spokane County is a major owner and manager of cultural resources, some of which are identified and some of which are not. Many of these resources are public buildings or elements of the public infrastructure, such as bridges, roads or park landscapes. Goal CR.2 Provide stewardship of County-owned cultural resources. Policies CR.2.1 Maintain County-owned cultural resources in an appropriate manner by following the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, in consultation with the City/County Historic Preservation Office. CR.2.2 Identify, on a regular basis, County-owned properties which may be historically significant. Listing in the Spokane Register of Historic Places should be considered for county properties when appropriate. CR.2.3 When economically feasible, the County should give preference to historic structures when they wish to purchase, rent or lease property which serves a particular County purpose. Incentives to Encourage Historic Preservation The accomplishment of historic preservation comes through the use of effective tools. This goal describes policies that relate to planning for preservation and provides incentives and administrative procedures that encourage preservation. Goal CR.3 Devise and implement strategies and incentives that encourage historic preservation. Policies CR 3.1 Spokane County should continue to fund the joint City/County Historic Preservation Office to provide a county program to direct historic preservation activities. CR 3.2 Continue to utilize the City/County Landmarks Commission as the authority and advisor to the County Planning Commission, County Commissioners and other county agencies in matters of historic preservation. CR.3.3 Expand the variety of incentives available to property owners to encourage historic preservation. Although many cultural resources are in private ownership, public agencies can offer incentives for their preservation and maintenance 174 CR.3.4 Develop methods to link cultural resource preservation with local economic development strategies, such as rehabilitation of commercial buildings, neighborhood revitalization and tourism. CR.3.5 Coordinate preservation of existing affordable housing with city and county historic • preservation programs and incentives; promote preservation and restoration of significant historic features in the rehabilitation of historic buildings and sites for housing. Promotion of Cultural Resources Public understanding and support of the diversity of Spokane County's heritage is essential to cultural resources management. This goal requires education about the importance of historic preservation and a wide variety of involvement in preservation issues. Goal CR.4 Promote the appreciation of Spokane's diverse heritage, as expressed by its cultural resources. Policies CR.4.1 Provide a program of public education concerning the need to preserve cultural resources and keep the public informed of actions to carry out preservation plans. CR.4.2 Promote a wide variety of community involvement in preservation issues by linking the public with preservation groups and resources. CR.4.3 Establish and maintain government-to-government relations with Native American tribes for the preservation of archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties. CR.4.4 Spokane County shall pursue its cultural resource goals through collaboration with residents, property owners, cultural organizations, public agencies, tribes, schools districts, library districts and others. CR.4.5 Develop and promote a program which encourages property owners to donate cultural resources to agencies or organizations that will preserve them in perpetuity. I75 Appendix The following appendices are available at the City of Spokane/Spokane County Historic Preservation Office. 1. Assessment of Current Historic Preservation Policy 2. Existing Data on Historic Preservation 3. Public and Private Historic Preservation Organizations 4. History of Spokane County 5. Maps of Spokane County Cultural Resources 6. National, State and Local Registers of Historic Places 7. Incentives for Historic Preservation 176 Chapter 12 - Subarea Planning The Spokane County Comprehensive Plan is a generalized document that meets the mandates of the Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies. The generalized plan should include a process to allow development of smaller scale or detailed plans. This Chapter provides the framework for conducting subarea or detailed planning. In identifying areas for urban growth and rural development, the Comprehensive Plan establishes patterns for future land use, transportation and other infrastructure needs that will require more detailed planning on a geographic basis. These subarea plans include plans for neighborhoods, mixed-use centers and joint planning areas. The adoption and incorporation of subarea plans into the Comprehensive Plan adds greater detail, guidance and predictability to the Plan. Subarea planning will provide residents a greater opportunity to be involved in a planning process that is more identifiable and predictable. Neighborhoods and centers will be defined and plans will be tailored to address the issues of the community. Subarea planning will afford local residents and the development community a more defined understanding of the potential changes that may affect their neighborhoods. The purpose of this element is to provide guidance for conducting subarea planning. Subarea planning may be appropriate for urban and rural neighborhoods, mixed used centers and areas, and joint planning areas. Background In 1986 the Board of County Commissioners amended the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan to include a Neighborhood/Community Planning Program. This program established a detailed methodology to guide the subarea planning process. Two neighborhood plans, West Terrace and Pasadena Park, have been adopted in accordance with the goals, policies and procedures of the Neighborhood/Community Planning Program. The two existing neighborhood plans will remain in effect and continue as county policy until they are reviewed and revised to be consistent with the GMA Comprehensive Plan. In the case of conflict or inconsistency between the policies of the existing neighborhood plans and the GMA Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan will govern. The following provides a brief description of each Plan. West Terrace In 1988 the Board of County Commissioners designated the West Terrace Neighborhood as the first neighborhood study area and directed the Planning Department to begin the planning process. West Terrace is approximately 10 miles west of downtown Spokane and lies adjacent to Interstate 90 (I-90). The entrance to the community is the Medical Lake interchange. Except for the Fairways Golf Course and surrounding subdivisions, the community is largely undeveloped. The intent of the West Terrace Neighborhood plan is to guide development with regard to aesthetics, land use compatibility and a functional infrastructure. The plan allows for medium and high-density residential uses, as well as heavy and light industrial uses. A significant amount of land at the 1-90 177 interchange entering the community is designated for regional shopping. On September 11, 1990 the Board of Commissioners officially adopted the West Terrace Neighborhood/Community Plan. Pasadena Park Pasadena Park was the second neighborhood designated for study by the Board of County Commissioners, with the planning process beginning in February of 1991. The Pasadena Park neighborhood is approximately two square miles in size and is bounded by the Spokane River to the south. The neighborhood is bisected by two main arterials, Argonne Road (north to south) and Upriver Drive(east to west). The focus of the neighborhood plan is to maintain the character of the neighborhood as a predominantly residential community, with commercial uses' being limited to "cottage industries" or home occupations. On May 11, 1994 the Board officially adopted the Pasadena Park Neighborhood/Community Plan. Identifying Subareas The term subarea is used to describe geographical divisions or areas of the county. The following section describes different subareas where detailed planning may be appropriate. Neighborhoods Neighborhoods are identified in a variety of ways and can be found in both urban and rural settings. Urban neighborhoods are generally small residential areas with distinctive characteristics. Some urban neighborhoods are defined by elementary school attendance boundaries. Others may be formed by physical barriers, such as a highway or major arterial, a river, railroad tracks or a change in topography. Rural neighborhoods typically encompass much larger geographic areas when compared to traditional urban neighborhoods. Rural areas often have unique issues that provide a common ground for social interaction. Due to these unique issues, identifying subarea boundaries for rural areas can prove to be very difficult and will require significant involvement from residents and neighborhood groups. The subarea planning process will provide the opportunity for interested people to identify their own neighborhood boundaries. It is certain that some neighborhoods will cross jurisdictional boundaries. In these instances, all residents will be afforded the opportunity to participate in the planning process. City residents will have an equal voice in planning for neighborhoods that cross into the unincorporated county. It is also certain that some residents may feel they belong to more than one neighborhood. Establishing boundaries for neighborhoods is a necessity to understand and apply Comprehensive Plan designations as well as implementing regulations. A Neighborhood Map has been developed by Spokane County, which depicts organized neighborhood in Spokane County. The map is being used by planning staff to notify neighborhood organizations of development projects that may affect their neighborhoods. Neighborhood groups and citizens are encouraged to make suggestions for improving the map. The map will be used as one tool for delineating areas for neighborhood planning in the future. 178 Mixed Use Areas Throughout this Comprehensive Plan, mixed-use areas are presented as an alternative to meet the objectives of reducing urban sprawl, protecting critical areas and resource lands and preserving open space. The concept is to focus growth in a more compact form than traditional development patterns. A component of this compact development is to identify self-contained activity centers in both urban and rural settings that will allow mixed commercial, business and residential uses. Mixed-use development provides certain benefits to the community, including reduced automobile trips, by allowing people to live closer to where they work or to provide shopping opportunities closer to home. Allowing mixed uses is contemplated in both urban and rural settings within identified activity centers. Policies related to the design of mixed use areas are detailed in Chapter 4, Urban Land Use. The following are descriptions of the various mixed-use areas. Neighborhood and Community Centers Mixed uses will be allowed within identified neighborhood and community centers. Ideally, urban neighborhoods will have identified centers containing a civic green or park, a transit stop, neighborhood businesses and services, a day care center and perhaps a church or school. Neighborhood centers will be identified and defined through neighborhood planning efforts. A community district is generally composed of two or more neighborhoods joined by common commercial or special service areas and is sometimes defined by attendance area of the junior high or high school. Ideally, community districts will have identified community centers containing locally serving commercial, civic and recreational uses. These centers provide a focal point and contribute to community identity. Community centers will be further identified and defined through the subarea planning program. Urban Activity Centers (UACs) Urban Activity Centers are designated, self-contained residential and commercial neighborhoods located in the urban areas of unincorporated Spokane County. They provide opportunities for redevelopment of underutilized commercial areas and increase the viability of high-speed transit. Residential densities in UACs must be high enough to encourage walking, support efficient transit service and provide adequate markets for neighborhood stores. Rural Activity Centers (RACs) Rural Activity Centers are easily distinguishable, compact, unincorporated centers, supported with limited commercial and community services. RACs are intended to provide local services for surrounding rural areas and are often formed on crossroads, typically around a focal point such as a store or post office. Other typical uses found within RACs may include residential development, churches, schools, restaurants, gas stations and small shops. Joint Planning Areas Joint Planning Areas (JPAs) may be identified by the Board of County Commissioners as areas where a coordinated planning process between cities, towns and the County may be conducted. JPAs are located adjacent to cities or towns within the adopted UGA and are designated in accordance with Countywide Planning Policies. 179 The purpose of designating Joint Planning Areas is to ensure coordination between Spokane County, communities and jurisdictions for which the JPA was designated to identify and reconcile potential conflicts. The JPA designation indicates areas that may be appropriate for future expansion of the corporate limits of a city or town. However, the designation makes annexation neither mandatory nor automatic. Subarea Planning Procedure The purpose of this section is to provide a general framework for conducting the subarea planning program. It is important to establish a standardized process in order to provide consistency between the various subarea plans. A standardized process will be easier to administer during the normal evolution of change in county government. However, the process will encourage unique community visions to be represented in the individual plans. The goal of the process is to give everyone the opportunity to participate in shaping the future of his or her neighborhood. Program Authorization Subarea planning requests may come from neighborhoods with County/City jurisdiction, the Planning Commission, the Spokane County Division of Planning, other County agencies, municipalities, regional planning entities, special purpose districts, or the Board of County Commissioners. Subarea planning requests shall be in the form of a letter directed to the Board of County Commissioners. Restrictions on budget and staff may limit the number of subarea planning programs that can be reviewed and developed in any budget year. Because of the potential for limited resources for subarea planning projects, it is imperative to prioritize the subareas to ensure the maximum benefit to neighborhoods and the County in general. The Board will prioritize subareas based upon specific criteria to determine the order in which subareas will be studied. The criteria are included within the policies of this element. The Division of Planning will maintain the prioritized list of subareas. Planning Methodology Upon authorization from the Board of County Commissioners, the Division of Planning and the Planning Commission will adhere to the following general subarea planning methodology. 1. The Division of Planning will coordinate the subarea planning project with the Planning Commission. The Commission will appoint one or more members to participate in the subarea planning meetings. 2. The County will attempt to identify all stakeholders, including existing neighborhood groups and leaders, neighborhood residents, property owners, business owners, and other interested parties. 3. A citizen participation program will be developed consistent with the adopted Spokane County Growth Management Act (GMA) Public Participation Program Guidelines [BCC Resolution 98- 0144 or as amended]. The public hearing and plan adoption process shall be consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70. 4. The subarea plan and process shall meet all State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements. 180 5. A subarea inventory will be prepared. The inventory will include existing land uses, housing, capital facilities plans, natural resource lands, parks and open spaces, natural environmental features, zoning, circulation patterns, utilities, community facilities and services, urban design features, general physical conditions, history, demography, social analysis, economic base and other appropriate data. A preliminary subarea boundary will be mapped for public review. 6. All subarea residents, businesses and interested parties will be notified of the planning effort. An informational meeting will take place, with opportunity for public interaction and comment. 7. A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) will be formed. The CAC should be a representative cross-section of the community and will not be limited in size. 8. An analysis and assessment of the land-use inventory will be conducted by the CAC to determine the needs of the subarea. The needs assessment will identify issues around which the remainder of the planning work will revolve. 9. The CAC should strive to achieve consensus on the priority of the identified planning issues. 10. A preliminary subarea plan will be developed. The plan will state goals and describe policies, strategies, and specific actions, developed through the citizen participation program, to affect the prioritized issues. The preliminary plan should include alternative goals and policies. The plan will be made available for public review and comment. 11. Planning staff will analyze the preliminary plan and its alternatives to ensure consistency with Spokane County's Generalized Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Management Act, and SEPA. 12. Formal public meetings will be conducted to gather comments on the draft plan alternatives. The Citizens Advisory Committee will make recommendations for a final document. Minority opinions within the Committee may be included in the final recommendation. 13. Planning staff will incorporate final recommendations into the plan. The final plan will not only include the Committee recommendation but also may include minority opinions and a staff analysis and recommendation. The final plan will be made available for public review. 14. The Citizen Advisory Committee will then, present the final plan document to the Planning Commission. Upon review of the final plan, the Commission will hold a hearing and accept public comment on the plan. The Commission will: a) Forward the plan to Board of County Commissioners with recommendation for approval b) Send the plan back to Citizen Advisory Committee to incorporate recommended changes or c) Develop a recommendation of its own to forward, along with the Committee recommendation, to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration. 181 15. Subarea plans approved by the Board of County Commissioners will be adopted by formal resolution as an amendment to the Generalized Comprehensive Plan. Plan Implementation Implementation is the key to making the goals and polices of the subarea plan a reality. The combination of regulations, incentives and other implementation techniques will determine the success of a land use plan. Implementation tools and techniques shall be consistent between subareas, but will allow unique community visions to be implemented as desired. The process should allow for implementation measures to be developed and presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners for simultaneous adoption with the subarea plan. The Division of Planning will develop land use regulations and other implementation techniques that will address the goals and policies of the subarea plan. Public comment will be sought for all proposed regulatory changes. Implementation measures must be consistent with existing plans and ordinances and with the Generalized Comprehensive Plan. (Refer to Appendix A and B for a full discussion of plan implementation and monitoring) Subarea Planning Purpose Subarea plans are the more detailed and specific plans of the Spokane County and City of Spokane Comprehensive Plans. These plans preserve and enhance the character of these vital communities. Preamble In recognition of subarea planning as a critical tool to implement the Spokane County comprehensive plan, the following six goals will drive the process: SP.1 Provide all residents and stakeholders the opportunity to participate in shaping the future of their subareas and neighborhoods through collaborative planning relationships with Spokane County and City governments and all other regional entities. SP.2 Define a clear role for subarea plans in decision-making. SP.3 Develop subarea plans which reflect the knowledge of the people of each subarea about local conditions, history, neighborhood character, needs and values. SP.4 Implement a strong, effective subarea planning system. SP.5 Complete the adoption of subarea specific plans within five years of the initiation by the subarea's planning group. SP.6 Develop and maintain joint plans for those unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) adjacent to cities or towns and identified as a Joint Planning Area (JPA), which promote consistency and certainty about how the area will be planned and developed in the future. 182 Goals and Policies Goal SP.1 Provide all residents and stakeholders the opportunity to participate in shaping the future of their subareas through collaborative planning relationships with Spokane County and City governments and all other regional entities. Policies SP.1.1 Establish a program that emphasizes the County's commitment to subarea planning. SP.1.2 Maintain consistency between subarea plans and the County Comprehensive Plan. In the event of an inconsistency between the comprehensive plans and a proposed subarea plan, options may include: (a) Amendments to the subarea plan (b) Amendments to the comprehensive plan SP.1.3 Encourage the involvement of design professionals, government service providers, business people and community residents in subarea planning to help facilitate creative designs for commercial districts and neighborhood, community and urban activity centers. Goal SP.2 Identify a clear role for subarea and neighborhood plans in decision-making. Policies SP.2.1 Subarea plans should describe how County comprehensive plan goals would be achieved. SP.2.2 Throughout Spokane County, implementation regulations shall be consistent with respect to subareas and mixed-use areas. SP.2.3 Subarea plans shall ensure predictability and consistency in the development regulations that implement the plans. SP.2.4 Plans for subareas and mixed-use areas should establish consistency of land use designations and the concurrency for development with the size, type, and timing of capital facility improvements for urban governmental services. SP.2.5 Plans for subareas and mixed-use areas will further define the type, location and mix of land uses, the intensity and density of development, and the level of service for facilities and services planned for the area. SP.2.6 Subarea plans shall consider the timing of fiscal, legal and administrative priorities for the subarea and the county when recommending capital improvements expenditures in their individual area. r 183 SP.2.7 Development should be consistent with adopted subarea and mixed-use area plans. Goal SP.3 Develop subarea plans which reflect the knowledge of the people of each neighborhood about local conditions, history, and neighborhood character. Policies SP.3.1 A subarea plan may also make subarea-specific policy recommendations on other issues of interest to the subarea. SP.3.2 The subarea and mixed-use area planning process shall allow for unique subarea characteristics to be addressed through goals and policies that: enhance compatibility between subareas and maintain consistency between subarea plans, mixed-use area plans and the County Comprehensive Plan. Goal SP.4 Implement an effective subarea planning system. Policies SP.4.1 Either a subarea or the County may initiate the subarea planning process. SP.4.2 Provisions should be included in the County annual budgets for subarea planning. Subareas may contribute additional funding and resources for their subarea planning process. SP.4.3 Provide guidelines for subarea planning processes, content and technical analysis to promote consistency of subarea plans. SP.4.4 Subarea boundaries may not be changed without a public participation process. Subareas may choose to plan together. SP.4.5 Each subarea plan must include a section for the following topics: land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities and utilities, parks and open space, population and land capacity, economic development, natural environment, cultural resources, and implementation. Additionally, rural subareas shall consider rural land use and natural resource lands. A subarea plan may conclude that the County comprehensive plan adequately expresses the vision and goals of the subarea for any of these topics. If that occurs, a statement reflecting this conclusion will satisfy this requirement. SP.4.6 Each subarea plan containing an urban activity center, rural activity center, central business district, district center, commercial center, neighborhood center, employment center and industrial center must: Amend or confirm the boundaries of the designated area 184 Establish, amend or confirm boundaries of the center or district contained within the subarea planning boundaries Establish growth targets for the designated center or district that either confirms or modifies the growth planning estimates or growth targets in the comprehensive plans Amend or confirm transportation, capital facility and utility inventories and analysis for the designated area provided by the appropriate governmental body (i.e., city, county, contract utility purveyor) A subarea plan containing another use that generates substantial activity must confirm or propose a change to the comprehensive plan designation SP.4.7 The subarea boundaries and the growth estimates established in a comprehensive plan serve as starting points for plans in designated areas. If a subarea chooses not to propose changes to subarea boundaries or the growth estimates in a comprehensive plan they will be made final. Subarea boundaries and growth estimates not covered by a subarea plan will be made final as part of the comprehensive plan amendments process. SP.4.8 Planning staff will work with subarea organizations to incorporate the subarea planning that results in adoption of their specific subarea plans into the comprehensive plan. Subareas that chose to plan without County input will have no guarantee of review, adoption or action by the County. SP.4.9 The subarea planning group may assess, annually, subarea planning needs and make recommendations during the county budget process. SP.4.10 Subarea and mixed-use area planning processes shall be consistent with each other and may be undertaken in either the rural or urban areas of the County. SP.4.11 Establish priorities to be considered in allocating subarea planning resources including: 1. Where the greatest degree of change is expected 2. Where a new subarea is planned 3. Interest among the residents and businesses in an area to participate in a subarea plan 4. Evidence of declining investment, deteriorating housing conditions, high vacancy rates in residential and/or commercial developments, high unemployment rate, high percentage of low-income residents, need for community facilities or neighborhood improvements, opportunities for redevelopment or business district revitalization pursuant to applicable land use policies 185 SP.4.12 Encourage continuing use of innovative planning concepts and techniques for subarea planning. SP.4.13 Establish a collaborative process for creating subarea plans that includes: 1. Full and fair participation from all interested parties, such as local stakeholders, community organizations, institutions, utilities, special taxing districts, and local government agencies 2. Consistency with Spokane County Public Participation Guidelines, Countywide Planning Policies, and other applicable laws 3. Identifying roles for citizens and county 4. A basis for group working processes that encourages sharing, understanding, and views on issues 5. Providing opportunities for strong partnerships among residents, businesses, and institutions. SP.4.I4 Define the roles of the general public, community organizations, county and city neighborhood councils, homeowner associations, business organizations, institutions, the planning commission, and other County/City organizations. SP.4.15 Provide a single document(or kit) that clearly explains the subarea planning purpose, scope, and process. This document will provide all guidance, guidelines, examples, tools, templates, forms, references, etc. required for stakeholders to initiate and complete their portion of the subarea process. SP.4.16 Specify information/data that, at a minimum, the county will provide for the subarea planning process. SP.4.17 Specify any county fees or other costs required for the county to process subarea plans. SP.4.18 Collaborative planning shall be used in developing subarea- or neighborhood-specific plans in the County, the City and the Joint Planning Areas (JPAs). Goal SP.5 Complete the adoption of subarea specific plans within five years from the initiation by the subarea's planning group. Policies SP.5.1 Evaluate the progress of subarea plans. 186 Goal • SP.6 Develop and maintain joint plans for those unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) adjacent to cities or towns and identified as a Joint Planning Area (JPA), which promote consistency and certainty about how the area will be planned and developed in the future. Policies SP.6.1 The planning process for Joint Planning Areas shall be established through interlocal agreements between Spokane County, the city or town and affected special purpose districts and will include additional requirements. 1. Interlocal agreements between jurisdictions will be required to implement joint planning area plans after specific land uses and responsibility for specific transfer of services are identified within the plans. 2. For those subareas that cross jurisdictional boundaries, interlocal agreements are required for plan implementation. SP.6.2 Participation in the joint planning process shall be sought from residents of the city or town, residents and landowners in the JPA and other interested individuals and groups. SP.6.3 Plans for JPAs should be adopted as part of Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan when they are finalized. (RCW 36.70A.130 allows the Comprehensive Plan to be amended upon the initial adoption of a subarea plan.) In addition, the joint plans shall be adopted by the • legislative authority of the respective city or town and should be adopted by the governing body of affected special purpose districts. SP.6.4 Development proposals and other County land use decisions must comply with adopted JPA plans if and when they are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Until JPA plans are approved, development shall be in accordance with Spokane County development regulations. SP.6.5 The joint plans for the JPAs may address, but are not limited to: I. Establishing the type, density and design of planned land uses 2. Identifying the responsibilities for provision of urban governmental services and establishing appropriate levels of service 3. Identifying the need, cost and timing for capital facilities 4. Distribution of costs for infrastructure improvements within the JPA 5. Arranging for sharing costs of facilities or services as appropriate 6. Providing reciprocal notification of development proposals and opportunities to propose mitigation for adverse impacts on County, city or town and service provider facilities 7. Determining design standards for County roads, parks, buildings and other urban standards through interlocal agreements between the County and city or town 8. Transferring local parks, recreation facilities, open space sites and similar facilities 9. Establishing that the JPA area is principally for urban uses 10. Providing environmental protection for designated critical areas 187 11. Identifying the major capital facility and service deficiencies within the JPA and establishing a schedule for resolving them 12. Establishing a dispute resolution process 13. Identifying potential annexation areas within the JPA 14. Transfer of government and services. SP.6.6 Spokane County, the affected city or town, special purpose districts and Spokane County citizens shall collaboratively establish level of service standards and costs for providing services. I88 Glossary Accessory An additional dwelling unit, including separate kitchen, sleeping and sanitation Dwelling facilities, attached or detached from the primary residential unit. May Unit alternatively be referred to as a"granny flat,""mother-in-law apartment," "accessory cottage,""accessory apartment"or"garage apartment." Adaptive Reuse The development of a new use for an older building or for a building originally designed for a special or specific purpose. It is particularly useful as a technique for preserving older buildings of historic or architectural significance. It also applies to the conversion of other special use structures such as gas stations, train stations, school buildings, hospitals, warehouses or factories that are no longer needed for their original purpose. Adequate Public Facilities which have the capacity to serve new and/or existing development Facilities without decreasing levels of service below locally established defined minimums. See concurrency. Affordable Housing Housing is considered affordable if the cost of the home is 30 percent of 80 percent of median household income in Spokane County. Affordable rental housing is adequate, appropriate shelter costing no more (including basic utilities) than 30 percent of the household's gross monthly income. Implied in this definition are the following concepts. 1. It applies to the broad range of economic segments in the community. 2. Available housing is "safe and adequate," meeting minimum habitation standards. 3. Individuals and families have a choice of reasonable housing options, including type and location. Available Public Facilities, infrastructure and services that are in place, or for which a financial Facilities commitment or other funding mechanism is in place, to provide the facilities or services within a specified time. In the case of transportation, the specified time is 6 years from the time of approved development. See concurrency. Best Available RCW 36.70A.172 requires best available science to be included in developing Science policies and regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Best available science shall mean conformance to RCW 90.58.100(1) and 36.70A.172 and WAC 365-195-900 through WAC 365-195-925. Best Management State of the art technology as applied to a specific problem. (Best management Practice practices are often required as part of major land development projects. The best management practice presents physical, institutional, or strategic approaches to solving problems.) Bonus Density Allowing density of development to exceed what would normally be allowed in an underlying area or zone, provided that certain criteria or conditions are met. Examples of such conditions might include clustering of residences, use of community wells, and development of affordable housing. 189 Border Easement The areas on curbed roads, between the right-of-way line and the back of sidewalk dedicated as an easement. Capital Facility Those public lands, improvements, and equipment necessary to provide public services and allow for the delivery of utility services. They include,but are not limited to, streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks, fire and police facilities, recreational facilities, and schools. Capital Facility A section of the comprehensive plan that outlines capital facilities planning and timing Program: Chicane A traffic-calming technique that is created when drivers are forced to deviate around fixed objects in a roadway that is otherwise straight. The road is narrowed, through tit use of curb extensions or staggered parking, from one side,then the other. Chicanes break up the typically long sightlines along the street and thus combine physical and psychological techniques to reduce speeds. Certificate of A document issued by Spokane Countyywhich serves as formal notice that a Exemption division of land is exempt from compliance with certain state and local land development laws and regulations as identified in the exemption provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Cluster A group of the same or similar elements (housing in this context)occurring close together. Clustering A development design technique that concentrates buildings on a part of the site to allow the remaining land to be used for open space, recreation, agriculture, forestry, preservation of environmentally sensitive areas or reserved for future development. Cluster A cluster subdivision is a form of development that permits a reduction in Subdivision minimum lot size, provided there is no increase in the number of lots permitted under a conventional subdivision or increase in the overall density of development and the remaining land is devoted to open space, active recreation,preservation of environmentally sensitive areas or agriculture. I90 Co-Housing Co-housing is a type of collaborative housing that attempts to improve the sense of . community. It is characterized by private dwellings with their own kitchen, living/dining room, etc., but also extensive common facilities. The common building may include a large dining room, kitchen, lounges, meeting rooms, recreation facilities, library, workshops and/or child care. Usually,co-housing communities are designed and managed by the residents and are intentional neighborhoods: the people are consciously committed to living as a community; the physical design itself encourages that and facilitates social contact. Collaborative The process of identifying relationships between public and private land Planning development or service projects and/or activities and assuring the maximum possible coordination of any related actions; all participants work together in a joint effort to formulate a program to guide and regulate the physical development of a region. Coin inercial Land that is occupied or utilized by an activity carried out for pecuniary gain or Land Use loss, generally involving retail goods and services. This land use category is not occupied or utilized for industrial uses. Community Community Centers contain commercial, civic, higher-density residences and Centers recreational uses. These centers provide a focal point and contribute to community district identity. Community A community district is generally composed of two or more neighborhoods joined District by common commercial or special service areas and is sometimes defined by the attendance area of a junior high or high school. Comprehensive Plan The Plan Text and future Land Use Map of Spokane County, Washington and additional elements as adopted or later amended by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Chapter 36.70 RCW that serves as a guide to the orderly growth and development of Spokane County. Community Commercial activity that is intended to provide goods and services for a Commercial Community District. Concurrency A concurrency management system establishes a process to manage new Management development based on impacts on levels of service(LOS)and the concurrency of Ordinance needed improvements or actions. The Growth Management Act(GMA) requires (system) jurisdictions to adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the LOS on a facility to decline below the standards adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, unless improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made`concurrent"with the development. Concurrent with development means that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development or, in the case of transportation improvements, that financial commitment is intact to complete the improvements or strategies within 6 years. Concurrency Concurrency means that adequate public facilities are available when the service demands of development occur. This definition includes the two concepts of adequate public facilities and of available public facilities, as defined above. 191 Critical Materials Substances present in sufficient quantity that accidental or intentional release would result in the impairment of one or more beneficial uses of aquifer water. Current beneficial uses of aquifer water include, but are not limited to, domestic and industrial water supply, agricultural irrigation, stock watering and fish raising. A critical materials list has been established, as part of the Spokane County Zoning Code, that includes the names of specific chemicals and classes of chemicals which, based on current criteria and standards, are known to affect beneficial use of water. Dedication The transfer of property by the owner to another party. Such transfer is conveyed by written instrument and is completed with an acceptance. The dedication is often for a specific use. Typically, dedication may include land for roads and open space is a requirement of subdivision or site plan approval. Density Zoning Density zoning is the averaging of residential density over an entire parcel without restriction to lot sizes. Density, Gross The numerical value obtained by dividing the total number of dwelling units in a development by the gross area of the tract of land(in acres) within a development. This would include all non-residential land uses and streets in the development, as well as rights-of-way of dedicated streets; the result being the number of dwelling units per gross acre of land. Density, Net The numerical value obtained by dividing the total number of dwelling units in a development by the area of the actual tract of land (in acres) upon which the dwelling units are proposed to be located and including common open space and associated recreational facilities within the area; the result being the number of dwelling units per net residential acre of land. Net density calculations exclude rights-of-way of publicly dedicated streets, unbuildable areas, and critical areas. Detached A one-family dwelling that is not physically attached to any other dwelling by any Single-family means. Single-family housing units are individual structures, including Housing conventional houses and manufactured homes. Elderly Cottage A small, removable modular cottage on a concrete foundation or slab in the rear or Housing side yard of a dwelling. It provides a housing arrangement that offers the elderly Opportunity an opportunity to maintain independence and privacy while living in close (ECHO) Unit proximity to care-givers. Environmentally See Critical Areas Ordinance. Sensitive Areas Essential Public Includes those facilities such as airports, colleges, universities, correctional facilities, solid waste stations, sewage treatment facilities, major highways or Facility freeways, and inpatient facilities, including substance abuse treatment facilities, mental health facilities, and group homes. Flexible Setback The ability to modify or adapt yard, building envelope or structure-to-lot line • Requirements separation standards for the purpose of protecting unique site characteristics (for example, existing trees, watercourses, historic features and environmentally sensitive areas). Floor Area The total gross floor area of all buildings or structures on a lot divided by the total Ratio (FAR) lot area. (FAR=total gross building floor area+total lot area). 192 Geologically Hazardou See the Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance. Areas Greenbelt An open area that may be cultivated or maintained in a natural state surrounding development or used as a buffer between land uses or to mark the edge of an urban or developed area. Also referred to as an open space corridor. Heavy Industrial activity that primarily processes raw materials into products or by- Industry products and which may have a negative impact on adjacent land uses by producing noise, vibration and/or odors. These industries are generally less attractive aesthetically and are less compatible with other land uses than light industry. Hone An occupation, profession or craft, excluding an adult bookstore or adult Industry entertainment establishment, in association with a primary residence, which is of such intensity or broad scope of operation that public hearing review, as a Conditional Use Permit, is necessary. Therefore, by character and definition, home industry is different from home profession or general commercial, industrial and business uses. Home. A profession or craft, excluding an adult bookstore or adult entertainment Profession establishment, carried on within a residence by the occupants, which activity is clearly incidental to the use of said residence as a dwelling and does not change the residential character of the dwelling or neighborhood and is conducted in such a manner as to not give any outward appearance of a business in the ordinary meaning of the term. (See the Spokane County Zoning Code for criteria to define a home profession.) Industrial Land that is occupied or utilized by an activity of an industrial nature. Land Use Infill The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered vacant or undeveloped sites in a built-up area. Indicator A standard chosen that reflects the measurable performance toward reaching the goals and objectives in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. Joint Planning Areas designated as Urban Growth Areas assigned to a city or town for future Areas (JPAs) urban development but located in the unincorporated county where a coordinated planning process between the cities, towns and the County will be conducted. Level of Levels of service standards are quantifiable measures of the operation or quantity Service(LOS) of public facilities or services that are provided to the community. Levels of service may also measure the quality of some public facilities. Typically, measures of levels of service are expressed as ratios of facility or service capacity to demand(e.g., acres of parkland per 1,000 population). Light Industry that does not produce environmental impacts such as excessive noise, Industrial odor or vibration that may affect adjacent properties. Generally, light industry is considered to be more compatible with other land uses than heavy industry. 193 Lot Averaging A design technique permitting one or more lots in a subdivision (generally used in Planned Unit Developments)to be undersized, providing the same number of lots in the same subdivision are oversized by an equal or greater area. Low-income Housing that is economically feasible for families whose income level is Housing categorized as how within the standards promulgated by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). HUD Income Group Standards: O Extremely low income-below 30 percent of median income. • El Very low income—between 31 percent and 50 percent of median income. El Low income-between 51 percent and 80 percent of median income. El Moderate income—between 81 percent and 95 percent of median income. O Middle income—between 96 percent and 120 percent of median income. Minimum The least number of residential dwelling units per acre that is allowed within a Density land use category. It is a regulatory tool for assuring that urban land and urban services are efficiently utilized. Mixed-income Residential development provides affordable housing opportunities for a broad Development range of income groups. Mixed-Use As opposed to segregated land use, a pattern of building use where a variety of (also: mixed-use infill complementary land uses occupy buildings in close proximity to each other, development; mixed- including generally residential, retail sales and services, offices, recreation, use developments; schools, churches and government. Mixed-use areas enhance opportunities to live, mixed-use centers; work and meet daily needs with less dependence on auto transportation. mixed-use urban villages; mixed-use neighborhood centers; mixed-use community centers) Neighborhood A neighborhood generally ranges in size from one-half to one square mile, with populations ranging from approximately 3,500 to 8,000 people. Neighborhoods often contain a civic green or park, a transit stop, neighborhood businesses and services, a day care center and perhaps a church or school. They are often defined by elementary school attendance area boundaries. 194 Neighborhood Neighborhood Centers are commercial areas with defined boundaries providing Centers convenient goods and services to a neighborhood. Neighborhood Commercial activity intended to provide convenience goods and services to a Commercial neighborhood. Open Space An area of land set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment. Open Space designation is based on the following criteria. I. Wildlife Corridors and Landscape Linkages as defined by the University of Washington study, Wildlife Corridors and Landscape Linkages, An Approach to Biodiversity Planning for Spokane County. 2. Lands classified as Forestry Zone. • 3. Wetlands and riparian areas and their associated buffers. 4. County, state and federal parks, conservation lands, natural areas and wildlife refuges. 5. Lands permanently protected as open space through conservation easements. 6. Active and proposed trail systems. Open Space Multiple Open Space used for passive recreation, wildlife habitat, natural resource Use uses and rural residential development consistent with maintaining other open space uses. Park A tract of land that often includes lawns, trees, equipment, playfields and courts for active or passive recreation. Park, Community A community park serves more than one neighborhood and users will frequently drive or bicycle to it. Residents within a two-and-one-half mile radius will use these parks. The minimum desirable size is 10 acres. Swimming pools,picnic shelters, tennis courts, soccer and baseball fields, trails, restrooms and parking lots are typical. Park, Neighbor/rood A park (generally between 3 and 10 acres) that is intended to meet close-in recreation and open space needs within walking distance for the people living within a residential neighborhood. Neighborhood parks are generally located within a city's boundaries. Park, Regional Generally within one hour's driving time, will serve large geographic areas which may encompass several communities or towns. Generally with at least 100 acres, they are typically areas with outstanding natural features or qualities associated with such features. Picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping and trail uses are customary. Performance An activity that shows the progress toward specific results targeted by the goals Measurement and policies in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. Performance measurement provides an examination of the County's performance in relation to the goals stated in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. 195 Performance A set of criteria or limits relating to certain characteristics that a particular use or Standards process may not exceed. The standards usually cover noise, vibration, glare, heat, air or water contaminants and traffic. It is a more precise way of defining land use compatibility. The performance-standard approach to land use is based on the ability to quantify activities and to measure them to see whether they meet the standards. Recreation Active: Leisure-time activities, often of an organized nature and often performed with others, requiring equipment and specially designed sites or fields. May involve large concentrations of people. Passive: Activities of a relatively low intensity, such as walking, hiking, nature watching or photography. Areas used for passive recreation are often undeveloped and in a natural state. Regional Business that is intended to serve retail and service needs of a geographic area that Business may encompass several communities or towns. Regional Land use carried out for pecuniary gain or loss intended to serve a geographic area Commercial that may encompass several communities or towns. Land Use Right-of-way Land, generally a strip, over which facilities such as highways, trails, railroads and utility transmission lines are built. Rural Activity Small unincorporated rural communities and centers that provide small-scale Centers residential areas and convenience goods and services to the surrounding rural (RACs) areas. RACs are designated by identifiable boundaries and limited by size and scale. Shared Community (See definition of co-housing.) Resources Single-room A type of housing that is commonly one room, often with cooking facilities and Occupancy with private or shared bathroom facilities. Examples of SRO units are found in (SRO) residence hotels and apartment buildings. SROs may have the potential to meet some of the need for lower-cost housing without the use of subsidies. Special-needs Housing Housing that accommodates special-needs populations. Special-needs Individuals who, by reason of age,physical, mental or other characteristics, Populations require nontraditional living arrangements and in some instances are not able to operate a motorized vehicle. It may include, but not be limited to, the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, people who are HIV positive or are diagnosed with AIDS and related diseases. [HUD] 196 Stakeholders Persons or groups of persons who have any kind of an interest in or reason to desire to influence an action Strip Commercial Commercial or retail uses,usually one-story high and one-store deep, that front on Development a major street. Typically characterized by street frontage parking lots serving individual or strips of stores. Strip commercial differs from central business districts and shopping centers in at least two of the following. (1)There are no provisions for pedestrian access between individual uses. (2) Uses are only one-store deep. (3) Buildings are arranged linearly rather than clustered. (4) There is no design integration among individual uses. Subarea A designated geographical area of the county such as a neighborhood or larger area with common economic, social,physical or natural characteristics that has a distinct boundary defined by service area, road, topographic features, water courses or other political boundary or physical feature. Subarea Plan A plan for land use, transportation and other issues as identified by participants in the planning process to guide the development and/or preservation of the subarea. A subarea plan may be more detailed and address issues not addressed in the comprehensive plan but should be consistent with the comprehensive plan per RCW 36.70A.080. Sustainable For a community to be truly sustainable, it must adopt a three-pronged approach Community that considers economic, environmental and cultural resources. Communities must consider these needs not only in the short term, but also in the long term. Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. A sustainable community is one which: 1. recognizes that growth occurs within some limits and is ultimately limited by the carrying capacity of the environment; 2. values cultural diversity; 3. has respect for other life forms and supports biodiversity; 4. has shared values among the members of the community; 5. employs ecological decision-making(e.g., integration of environmental criteria into government, business and personal decision-making processes); 6. makes decisions and plans in a balanced, open and flexible manner that includes perspectives from the social, health, economic and environmental sectors of the community; 7. makes best use of local efforts and resources; 8. uses renewable and reliable sources of energy; 9. minimizes harm to the natural environment; 10. fosters activities which use materials in continuous cycles. And, as a result, a sustainable community: I. does not compromise the sustainability of other communities; 2. does not compromise the sustainability of future generations by its activities. 197 Sustainable Economic development that is supported by the built environment and natural Economic resources without degrading the natural environment and exhausting natural Development resources. Sustainable economic development meets the needs of the present while not compromising the ability of the future to meet its own needs. Template A guide in making or doing something accurately and consistently. Transfer of The transfer of the right to develop or build on land in one area (sending district) Development to land in another area(receiving district) where such transfer is permitted. Rights (TDR) Underutilized Developed land parcels that have a large portion of the area in nonbuilding uses (Commercial) such as surface parking or storage yards or that have a high percentage of the Areas structure(s)vacant or that have a low floor area ratio (FAR) or that have buildings which are abandoned, dilapidated or otherwise seriously impaired by physical deficiencies. Urban Activity Urban activity centers are planned residential and commercial areas. Generally Center the boundaries of an urban activity center will be sized with a one-quarter-mile radius so that the entire center is walkable. Convenient bus and/or light rail service and pedestrian/bicycle paths are important transportation features of urban activity centers. Residential types found in urban activity centers include single- family homes on small lots, duplexes, apartments and condominiums. Housing densities are generally higher than the community average. Offices, recreation and cultural facilities, shopping and services are all found in urban activity centers. Urban Governmental As defined in RCW 36.70A.030(19) Services Urban Growth An area that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources, rural uses, rural development, and/or natural resource land. As defined in RCW 36.70A.030(17). • 198 Urban Growth Areas "Urban growth areas" - Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 designates an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. As defined in RCW 36.70A.030(18). Urban Reserve A Rural Land Use category that designates land outside the Urban Growth Area to Area (URA) be preserved for future growth within a 40-year planning horizon. Utility A service provided to the public, such as electricity, water, and sewer deemed necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare. Viewshed/Viewscape An area visible from a road, highway, waterway, railway, trail or public space that Corridor provides vistas over water, across expanses of land (such as farmlands, woodlands (also:scenic or wetlands) or of mountainous areas. Views may be from mountain tops or corridor) ridges, as well. Scenic corridors can also view the built environment, such as a famous urban skyline. Vistas A unique view to or from a particular point. The view may be that of great natural beauty, farmlands, mountains, settlements, villages or spectacular urban scenes. • 199 Appendix A - Plan Implementation Introduction The Spokane County Comprehensive Plan provides goals for achieving a future that is perceived as being better than the future that would happen without planning—and a set of policies that will move the County toward that future. Developing a meaningful implementation, monitoring and evaluation program is essential if the goals and policies of the plan are to be realized over the 20-year planning period. Implementation of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan will require specific regulations and more detailed neighborhood and subarea planning to shape the strategy of the Plan into reality. Coordination and cooperation among various jurisdictions, service providers and agencies is essential for the successful implementation of the plan. In addition to Spokane County, these entities include all of the neighboring counties, the 11 cities and towns within the county borders, various service providers (water, sewer, schools and fire protection) and various state and federal agencies. The purpose of this element is to discuss how implementation of the goals and policies embodied in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan will proceed successfully. It will discuss Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, major issues involved in implementation, interjurisdictional coordination, implementation techniques and strategies. Plan evaluation through a Performance Measurement Program will be discussed in the second half of this element, Performance Measurement (15B). Growth Management Act Requirements "The county and each city that is located within the county shall adopt a Comprehensive Plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan" (RCW 36.70A.040[4][d]). "Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, and each city within such county, shall adopt development regulations...to assure the conservation of agricultural, forest, and mineral resource lands" (RCW 36.70A.060[1]). "Regulations must be consistent with Comprehensive Plans developed pursuant to the act and they must implement those Comprehensive Plans" (WAC 365-195-800). 201 Major Issues Coordination and Cooperation Among Jurisdictions, Service Providers and Agencies Implementation of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan will require specific coordination efforts to assure consistency between and among neighboring entities' plans to manage growth. "The Comprehensive Plan of each county or city that is adopted...shall be coordinated with, and consistent with, the Comprehensive Plans adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 of other counties or cities with which the county or city has, in part, common borders or related regional issues" (RCW 36.70A.100). In addition, "state agencies shall comply with the local Comprehensive Plans and development regulations and amendments thereto adopted pursuant to this chapter" (RCW.36.70A.103). It is important that numerous jurisdictions and agencies be involved with the County in the implementation of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. These various jurisdictions include the following. Counties: Whitman, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Lincoln, Adams and Kootenai (Idaho). Cities and Towns: City of Spokane, Deer Park, Airway Heights, Medical Lake, Cheney, Spangle, Waverly, Latah, Fairfield, Rockford, Millwood and Fairchild Air Force Base. The County will work with many of these jurisdictions to develop land use plans and interlocal agreements for managing development in the joint planning areas. For others, coordination of plans will be necessary to ensure that plans for transportation facilities and land use are compatible between jurisdictions. Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) Each city in Spokane County has adopted its GMA Comprehensive Plan. These plans provide a greater level of detail for their particular urban growth areas than that found in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. The County will monitor growth to know when expansion of the urban growth area is needed and work closely with each jurisdiction to ensure that urban growth area boundaries and service issues and standards are addressed. Critical Areas/Resource Lands Spokane County has increased the consistency of its own regulations dealing with critical areas by combining the requirements for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat and geo-hazard areas into a single Critical Areas Ordinance. The natural resource land designation should be reviewed for consistency with adopted protection regulations. Additional mineral land sites may be evaluated for designation. Shoreline Master Programs The 1995 amendments to RCW 90.58 require a shoreline element in Comprehensive Plans adopted under GMA. Shoreline management regulations must be adopted that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other regulations, such as critical areas and open space. 202 Stormwater Management Plans Stormwater management requires the cooperation of all jurisdictions within a stormwater management area, since water is not influenced by municipal boundaries. The state requirements for management of stormwater quality in the Spokane urban area will require significant capital investment. Innovative planning at a more detailed level is necessary to solve storm drainage problems in areas currently experiencing drainage problems. To meet this challenge, cooperation is needed among the affected jurisdictions. Open Space Corridors Each city and county shall identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas (RCW 36.70A.160). Open space corridors must include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails and connection of critical areas. Natural features that favor open space corridors may not end at the city limits or other jurisdictional boundary. For an open space corridor to fulfill its intended functions (e.g., aesthetics, recreation, wildlife migration, definition of urban form, etc.), coordinated planning is needed. Additional regulations may be necessary to protect open space; these regulations may take the form of a residential cluster ordinance, large-lot zoning, bonus density provisions or critical-area regulations. Essential Public Facilities Some public facilities are essential to the community, but difficult to site (e.g.,jails, landfills, sewage treatment plants, etc.). Proposals for these facilities typically generate a "not-in-my-back-yard" (NIMBY) response from neighboring residents. These facilities cannot be excluded in a Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act. Some adjustments to the Zoning Code maybe necessary to ensure siting for these facilities. Transportation Plan The Spokane County 1999-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) provides a six-year plan and identifies specific projects, their cost and a source of funding. This plan is updated each year, consistent with the adopted goals, policies and plan maps, to respond to emerging needs. Joint Planning/Interlocal Agreements The GMA requires the establishment of Urban Growth Areas (RCW 36.70A.110). The Growth Management Act further establishes that the County and the cities within its boundaries must reach agreement on the location of an urban growth area within which the city is located (RCW 36.70A.110[2]). Spokane County and each jurisdiction must plan jointly in the establishment of Urban Growth Areas and for future activity within those areas. Policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas are required (RCW 36.70A.210[3][f]). Some examples of how interlocal agreements might be used are annexations, development regulations and road and construction standards. The County will be responsible to ensure joint planning within Urban Growth Areas. Neighborhood/Subarea Planning The Comprehensive Plan is general in nature. More detailed planning will be needed to implement some of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. This level of detail will be accomplished through subarea/neighborhood planning. 203 Implementation - Strategies, Tools and Techniques Implementation is the key to effective land use planning. A statement of goals and policies is an important first step in planning. In the final analysis, however, it is a community's combination of regulations, incentives and other implementation techniques that will make a land use plan a success or a failure. While zoning is the workhorse of land use regulation, it is not a panacea. In some cases, a combination of regulation, incentives, acquisition and public improvements may be necessary to address a particular problem effectively. Developing the right combination requires creativity, sensitivity, experimentation and an understanding of all the facets of the problem. An awareness of the experiences of other communities and a recognition of the limitations of many individual regulatory tools is also necessary. Implementation can be the most creative aspect of land use planning. Several types of measures can be employed to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning regulates the use of land. In other words, zoning specifies what can and cannot be done to develop or use land within the community. The Capital Facilities Plan is an implementation tool that directs public decisions about how to spend dollars. All land uses and land development require supporting facilities and services. The community's decisions • about the level of public investment which will be spent in what locations at what time for such facilities has a significant effect on when, where and the cost of development. Through impact fees and other measures, communities can require developers to finance a proportionate share of the facilities to support each development. Policies may also call for the development of more specific plans and programs to carry out actions. These specific plans and programs, when developed, should then direct specific implementation approaches. The following is an outline of 15 implementation strategies that may be used by the County to facilitate accomplishing the goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan. The implementation strategies are followed by some of the implementation tools and techniques Spokane County may employ to bring the vision portrayed in the Comprehensive Plan to reality. Implementation Strategies 1. Revise zoning designations and official zoning maps throughout Spokane County to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map, goals and policies. 2. Develop new, or modify existing, subdivision and zoning standards. 3. Develop urban design and standards, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, to address compatibility of new development, preserve neighborhood character and create pedestrian-oriented and transit-supportive development. 4. Ensure preservation and protection of the County's natural resource lands consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Develop interlocal agreements with the cities in Spokane County to facilitate and accomplish joint planning and consistent development regulations within the designated Joint Planning Areas. 6. Develop a transportation improvement plan (TIP) that is consistent with and complements land use and transportation planning policies. 7. Ensure that adopted zoning regulations are consistent with housing policies of the Comprehensive Plan, with adequate provision for affordable and special-needs housing. 8. Develop a comprehensive Capital Facilities and Utilities Plan which is updated on a yearly basis. 204 9. Promote economic development through the implementation of programs and policies as outlined in the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan. 10. Protect existing rural and urban open spaces and promote the establishment of new interconnected open spaces, consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, primarily through planned unit developments, cluster development and other zoning regulations. Continue open space acquisition through the Conservation Futures Program. 11. Protect the natural environment through the adoption and enforcement of programs and regulations concerning critical areas, shorelines, ground- and surface water quality and quantity and air quality. 12. Develop a subarea/neighborhood planning program consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 13. Develop a comprehensive Performance Measurement program to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. 14. Provide an annual review and report on the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. Provide for yearly amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as necessary to realize Comprehensive Plan goals. 15. Adopt interim regulations as necessary during the time the Zoning Code is being updated. Implementation Tools Zoning: Strategies 1, 2 & 3, revise zoning designations to be consistent with the Land Use Map and the policies of Spokane County and develop new, or modify existing, regulations. Defined simply, zoning is the classification of land according to use. Zoning is the most familiar and widely used technique for land use control. Some of the generally accepted rationales behind zoning include preservation of property values-or community character and the promotion of the public's general welfare. Zoning standards such as lot size, lot coverage, building heights and setback requirements and off-street parking control the density of development. Density usually refers to the number of dwelling units per acre of land. Minimum lot size expressed in square feet is the most common means of expressing density. Density designations are often included in a zoning classification. For example, UR-7 may indicate a residential designation with a maximum density of 7 units per acre. Large-lot or low-density zoning refers to large lot sizes such as 10 or 20 acres. Open space zoning is another form of this technique, which uses large minimum lot sizes to preserve land for agriculture, forestry or recreation. The Spokane County Subdivision Ordinance is designed to encourage sound land use planning. These regulations provide for the expeditious review and decision on requests for divisions of land. They also ensure that the requests conform to the adopted zoning standards and adopted plans and policies of Spokane County. The Spokane County land use regulations will be updated at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with the goals and policies in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan in the development of the regulations is an important implementation technique. 205 Transportation Plan: Strategy 6, annual update of the six-year Transportation Improvement Program/Develop a Concurrency Ordinance. According to RCW 36.70A.110(6)(c)(ii), a multiyear financing plan based on the needs identified in the Comprehensive Plan must be prepared. This will then serve as the basis for a six-year street, road or transit program required by RCW 36.81.121. The Transportation Element is part of the Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the land use element. The Transportation Element encourages efficient multimodal and intermodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with the various cities' plans and the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The GMA establishes that each city and county shall enact development regulations that are consistent with and implement their Comprehensive Plan. A new component of the development regulations will be a concurrency ordinance (RCW 36.70A.110[6][e]) that requires that adequate public facilities, including transportation facilities, will be in place to serve new development. This ordinance will require proposed projects to determine what their impact will be on adopted level of service standards. The analysis will show whether acceptable levels of service are maintained on the transportation system as a result of the traffic added by the proposed development. If the development will cause the transportation level of service to degrade below adopted standards, then the development cannot go forward unless service levels are mitigated. The concurrency ordinance and the Transportation Improvement Program will be major components of the implementation toolbox for the Transportation Element of the Plan. Capital Facilities Plan: Strategy 8, update Capital Facilities Plan on a yearly basis. Capital Facilities is one of six elements that the Growth Management Act requires to be in a Comprehensive Plan. GMA requires a Capital Facilities Plan consisting of: (a) an inventory of existing capital facilities, (b) future needs for capital facilities, (c) proposed locations and capacities of capital facilities, and (d) a six-year plan that clearly identifies sources of funding for capital facilities. Through the Capital Facilities Element, level of service standards and a financing program are established. The Capital Facilities Plan then becomes the basis for providing capital facilities concurrent with growth. The Capital Facilities Plan is intended to: (a) provide capital facilities for land development that is envisioned or authorized by the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan; (b) affect the quality of life envisioned in the community's Comprehensive Plan by establishing and maintaining standards for the level of service; (c) coordinate and provide consistency among the many plans for capital improvements, including: i. other elements of the Comprehensive Plan such as the transportation and utilities elements; ii. master plans and other studies of the local government; iii. plans for capital facilities of state and/or regional significance; iv. plans of other adjacent local governments; v. plans of special districts; and vi. Parks and Recreation Plans. 206 The Shoreline Master Program: Strategy 11, protect the natural environment through the adoption and enforcement of programs and regulations concerning critical areas, shorelines, ground- and surface water quality and quantity and air quality. The Shoreline Master Program is considered an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Washington State Department of Ecology is currently developing guidelines to ensure shoreline program consistency with GMA requirements. The shorelines goals, policies and regulations should be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and specifically the Critical Areas Program. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas: Strategy 11 (see Shoreline Master Program). Review adopted policies and regulations for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Program, including Wildlife Corridors and Landscape Linkages in Fish and Wildlife mapping designations. Natural Resource Lands: Strategy 11 (see Shoreline Master Program). The agriculture, forest and mineral lands designations will be reviewed and updated as necessary. The Natural Resource Land regulations will be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan policies, especially those for Rural and Open Space. Subarea Planning: Strategy 12, develop a subarea planning program consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan itself is considered a generalized policy plan which will be adequate to meet the mandates of the Growth Management Act. In order to realize many of the goals in the Plan, more detailed planning will be necessary following adoption of the Plan. In identifying areas for urban growth and rural development, the Comprehensive Plan will establish patterns for future land use, transportation and other infrastructure needs, which then will require more detailed planning on a geographic basis. The Generalized Plan will include a process to identify areas for the development of detailed neighborhood/subarea plans. The adoption and incorporation of subarea plans into the Plan adds detailed design to the Plan that will be necessary to realize goals-for mixed-use and pedestrian/transit- oriented development. In rural Spokane County, subarea plans may be prepared to identify and plan for local rural needs, including rural activity centers. 207 Implementation Techniques Urban Design: Strategy 3, develop urban design standards. Creating a community-based design review process and developing an urban design handbook will aid in providing quality commercial development, housing and neighborhoods through design review and examples. The adoption of urban design standards will promote consistent neighborhood character and aesthetics and promote a pedestrian-friendly environment. Some concepts which may be addressed include the following. 1. An ordinance and/or zoning regulations to foster traditional neighborhood design 2. Standards for siting and design of multifamily residential uses 3. Requirements for underground placement of power and telecommunication lines 4. Adoption of commercial sign and billboard standards 5. Development of performance standards that allow flexibility and innovative design 6. Adoption of provisions that promote public art Historic Preservation: Strategy 3, develop urban design standards to preserve neighborhood character and historic resources. The Spokane Register of Historic Places is the local government's official list of those properties that have contributed to the community's history. The Register was established by ordinance in both the City and County of Spokane in late 1981 and early 1982. These ordinances deem the Historic Landmarks Commission responsible for the stewardship of historic and architecturally significant properties. There are benefits for properties placed on the Register. These include tax advantages that can reduce the amount of property tax an owner pays and potentially higher sales values for designated properties. A variety of special incentives are available to owners of historic properties in Spokane County. A brief description of each follows. Investment Tax Credit(ITC) (Feaeral Legislation) A federal income tax credit may be granted to commercial properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and on which "substantial rehabilitation" is performed. Pre- certification and completion of review and approval by the state Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the National Park Service is required. Rehabilitation must comply with federal standards for preservation of historic properties. Special Valuation Tax Incentive (State/Local Legislation) A reduction on the portion of an owner's property tax tied to "improvements" on his tax parcel (structures) and on which "substantial rehabilitation" is performed is also available. Eligible properties are determined by a designated local review body(Landmarks Commission) and must be listed on the Spokane Register of Historic Places. Rehabilitation must comply with federal standards for preservation of historic properties. The tax abatement lasts for 10 years. 208 Facade/Conservation Easement (Federal/State/Local Legislation) In exchange for the donation of an easement, consisting of either a portion of land or a building facade, an owner may: a) claim a one-time federal income tax deduction and b) realize a permanent property tax reduction based on the value of the donated property. The easement must be granted to a qualified entity, and in exchange, the owner must agree to maintain the donated property. Conditional Use Permit (Local Legislation) A permit allowing a nonconforming use may be granted to a historic property by the Hearing Examiner. The property and use may be declared eligible by the local historic review body (Landmarks Commission). Building Code Relief (Local Policy) Relief from building code requirements may be granted to historic properties by local code enforcement officers. The local historic review body(Landmarks Commission) may recommend historic property eligibility and code deviation. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and Cluster Development: Strategies 10 and 11,protect existing natural environment and open spaces and promote the establishment of new interconnected open spaces, consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, through implementation and enforcement of programs and regulations concerning critical areas, shorelines, water quality and quantity and air quality. If rural clustering is approved, the County will need to make provisions to facilitate such developments. Cluster development is a technique which allows for an adjustment in the location of dwelling units on a site so long as the number of dwelling units does not exceed the number of units otherwise permitted in the zoning district. This concept can be employed in various land use categories. In a cluster development, residences are grouped by means of a density transfer rather than spread evenly throughout a parcel as in conventional large-lot development. In a cluster development, dwelling units are grouped on certain portions of a site, while the rest of the site remains undeveloped. Lots are smaller than in conventional rural subdivisions and are normally located on the part of the site that is most suitable for development. A technique related to clustering is the Planned Unit Development. PUDs are similar in that they involve variations in controls related to density and design. They also may include an open space component. They are different from clusters, because they are more often used in urban development and the open space is often improved for passive or active recreation. PUDs also may allow mixed uses and may be used for single-family or multifamily housing. Annual Review To make sure that the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan remains current, the Plan will be reviewed annually to assess whether the County is reaching the goals and objectives set forth in the Plan. The results of this performance monitoring program will be presented to the Planning Commission and will assist the County in evaluating the progress of the County in reaching the goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. The second half of this element (15B) will deal with the performance monitoring program. 209 Appendix B - Performance Measurement Introduction After implementation, it is important to monitor Spokane County's progress in achieving the adopted goals and policies. Evaluation will be accomplished by developing a Performance Measurement Program that will function to evaluate the progress of Spokane County in its implementation efforts and produce a yearly report to the County and State. By monitoring its progress, Spokane County can make adjustments to the Plan if necessary. By monitoring changes in chosen indicators, Spokane County will get a clear understanding of where it is and what it needs to do differently. The concept of monitoring progress towards the desired future is integral to the Comprehensive Plan process. A well-designed Performance Measurement Program can help the Planning Commission, County Commissioners and the public understand both progress and setbacks in achieving the Plan's principles. More importantly, the program can direct staff and decision makers towards revisions for more effective strategies. Eventually, a Performance Measurement Program will become the tool that will assess the progress being made by Spokane County towards the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. A Performance Measurement Program measures progress, but also engages community members in a dialogue about the future, identifies areas which need attention and provides an avenue to alter community outcomes. Growth Management Act Requirements Legislation contained in the State of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the County to prepare and adopt the Comprehensive Plan and regularly report on the outcomes of the Plan. "Each county and city that adopts a plan...shall report to the department annually for a period of five years...and each five years thereafter, on the progress made by that county or city in implementing this chapter" (RCW 36.70A.180[2]). What Are Community Indicators? An indicator is a measurement which can be used as a reference or as a standard for comparison. The program should initially focus on key indicators and expand over time. The program should include appropriate indicators from each of the main Plan areas. Each indicator should have the following characteristics. • Use readily available data • Be measurable over time, e.g., annually • Provide meaningful information relating to the Plan's principle elements • Be sensitive to change • Be easily interpreted Additionally, each indicator should meet the following criteria. • It measures an outcome related to the Comprehensive Plan's vision and to one or more Comprehensive Plan goals or policies. • Reliable information about the indicator is already collected on a regular basis. • The relationship between the indicator and the Comprehensive Plan is easily understood. • When all the indicators are evaluated together, progress towards the framework goals of the Comprehensive Plan is shown. 211 Different governmental agencies monitor different kinds of data at different geographic levels and at different frequencies. Following are some common indicators that may be monitored by Spokane County. I -•--,x-, - ,. , -s ,�.7 ndicator_µ ,,I_ Source of Information` ` > t Urban Growth 1. Residential building Spokane County Division of Building permits/units and Planning 2. Employment concentration in Washington State Employment urban areas, rural areas Security Department Status of 1. Overall residential density Spokane County Division of Building Sprawl change, urban area/rural area and Planning 2. Density of approved Spokane County Division of Building preliminary plats and Planning 3. Density of multifamily Spokane County Division of Building building permits and Planning 4. Utilization of previously Spokane County Division of Building platted and approved lots and and Planning subdivisions 5. Changes in infrastructure Spokane County Division of availability- where and how Engineering and Roads much Transportation 1. Average trip distance and Spokane Regional Transportation time to commute Council 2. Transit ridership per capita Spokane Transportation Authority 3. Travel time on congestion Spokane County Division of management system Engineering and Roads, Spokane corridors Regional Transportation Council 4. Total lane miles Spokane County Regional Transportation Council Economic 1. Median household income The Real Estate Report, U.S. Dept. of Development Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2. Percent population below The Real Estate Report, U.S. Census poverty Bureau 3. Employment change by Spokane County Economic industry Development Council 212 -11 .Concept 4 .Indicator ..< rSourceofInformatron=i;` 4. Unemployment rate Washington State Employment Security Department Economic Development, continued 5. Industry gain/loss in Spokane Spokane County Economic Development Council 6. Compare Spokane County U.S. Dept. of Commerce average wage to U.S. average wage 7. Retention of industry Economic Development Council, Chamber of Commerce • 8. Number of requests to Economic Development Council relocate - of requests, how many did relocate? 9. Annual assessment of Economic Development Council tourism activities - compare on yearly basis 10. Fluctuation of number of Spokane County Division of Building home-based business and Planning Housing I. Home prices by county The Real Estate Report Affordability quadrant 2. Housing Affordability Index The Real Estate Report 3. Average rent by county The Real Estate Report quadrant 4. Rent/income Ratios The Real Estate Report 5. Amount of first-time home The Real Estate Report buyers 6. Availability of low-income Spokane Housing Authority housing units Regulatory I. Plat applications Spokane County Division of Building • Environment and Planning 2. Average time required for Spokane County Division of Building final action on rezoning and Planning applications 213 Concept ':Indicator17. ;, :Source gijickrmahon u_ 3. Average approval time- Spokane County Division of Building preliminary plats and Planning Regulatory 4. Average approval time- Spokane County Division of Building Environment building permits and Planning continued 5. Monitor Building and Solicit and track public comments Planning Division performance 6. Number of planning/zoning Spokane County Division of Building hearings held and Planning'Hearing Examiner 7. Number of citizens testifying Spokane County Division of Building in planning process and Planning/Hearing Examiner Natural 1. Natural resource and Washington State Department of Resource agriculture employment Employment Security Industries 2. Amount of timber harvested Department of Natural Resources 3. Status of mining resources Department of Natural Resources, Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning Open Space 1. Acres of neighborhood and Spokane County Division of Parks and and regional parks per person Recreation Recreation 2. Pedestrian/bicycle path miles Spokane County Division of Parks and Recreation, Spokane County Engineer and Washington State Parks 3. Park usage estimates Spokane County Division of Parks and Recreation 4. Acres of permanent natural Spokane County Division of Long open space, e.g., wildlife Range Planning Geographical refuge, conservation futures Information System (GIS) and conservation easements 5. Open space taxation acres Spokane County Division of Parks and Recreation 6. Usable equestrian trails Spokane County Division of Parks and Recreation 214 Environment I. Number of days in each air Spokane County Air Pollution Control quality index category Authority 2. Number of separate air Spokane County Air Pollution Control quality violations Authority 3. Nitrate levels in public water Whitworth Water District, Spokane supplies Water District 3, Washington Department of Health 4. Incidence of groundwater Public water purveyors supply contamination Land Supply I. Vacant, underutilized and Spokane County Land Quantity and partially used land Population Capacity Report 2. Preliminary plat lots Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning GIS 3. Final plat lots, binding site Spokane County Division of Long plans and certificates of Range Planning GIS exemption 4. Monitor land availability in Spokane County Division of Long each land use category Range Planning 5. Monitor any and all rezones Spokane County Division of Building and Planning 6. Maintain a current map of Spokane County Division of Building submitted and approved land and Planning use applications 7. Number and type of building Spokane County Division of Building permits and Planning 8. Acreage of critical areas Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning 9. Acreage in RCW 84.34 - Spokane County Assessor's Office Current Use Taxation Program 10. Number of Comprehensive Spokane County Division of Long Plan amendments Range Planning 11. Ratio of buildable lands to Spokane County Division of Long critical areas Range Planning 215 Citizen 1. Number of appeals to Growth Eastern Washington Growth Participation/ Management Hearings Board Management Hearings Board Coordination 2. Maintain and publish any Spokane County Division of Long citizen input regarding the Range Planning Comprehensive Plan Public 1. Number of students per Superintendent of Public Instruction Facilities square foot per district and Services 2. Distance of residence from Spokane County GIS fire station 3. Police officers per 1,000 Spokane County Sheriff population 4. Average response time to fire Spokane County Fire District - Central alarm Dispatch 5. Number of libraries per 1,000 Spokane County Division of Long population Range Planning 6. Number of septic tanks Spokane County Division of Utilities replaced by sewer system Historic 1. Number of sites subtracted Spokane County Historic Preservation Preservation from and added to NRHP, Office WSRHP and SRHD 2. Number and value of Spokane County Division of Building building permits for and Planning remodeling/rehabilitation per unit of residential inventory This list is partially taken from recommendations from the Economic Analysis of Interim Urban Growth Area Alternatives for Spokane County, Washington, November 1996. Through the citizen participation process, indicators may become more specific, be changed and/or new indicators added. The Performance Measurement Program will be designed to provide early warning if the policies are not having their intended effects. The system will provide sufficient information to enable policy-makers to determine whether different actions to implement the policies are needed or whether revisions to the policies are required. The results of the monitoring and evaluation program will be presented annually in a public report to the Planning Commission. The report should include proposed revisions to the Plan to promote its viability and the viability of the county planning process. This report, for maximum effectiveness, will be 216 prepared in accordance with the County's annual budget cycle, so proposed work items can be included in budget requests. Performance measurement can be used to help the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the other jurisdictions establish priorities, take joint actions and direct resources to solve problems identified in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, as well as comply with RCW 36.70A.180, which states that each county must produce a yearly report and submit it to the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. 217 218 Appendix C Interim Regional Level of Service Standards, Steering Committee of Elected Officials, May 3, 1996. Available at: Spokane County Division of Planning 1026 W Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 (509) 477-7200 219 Appendix D Growth Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report, Steering Committee of Elected Officials, May 3, 1996. Available at: Spokane County Division of Planning 1026 W Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 (509) 477-7200 221 Attachment B Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan 1 1059 Board of County Commissioners John Roskelley Phillip D. Harris M. Kate McCaslin Planning Commission J. M. Britton Bill Evans Clyde Haase Tom Hargreaves Pat Humphries Bev Keating Sandy McCauley Past Planning Commission Members Involved in Plan Development: Brenda Bodenstein Curt Messex Don Moore Mike Schrader Department of Public Works Gary Oberg, Director of Public Works Division of Planning Michael Needham, Director of Planning Consultant Henderson, Young and Company Randall R. Young, President Contact Planning by: Mail: Spokane County Public Works Department Division of Planning 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Phone: (509) 477-7200 Fax: (509) 477-7663 Web Site: www.spokanecounty.org/planning Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Introduction 7 Domestic Water 11 Fire Protection ...45 Law Enforcement 51 Parks and Recreation 57 Public Buildings 73 Public Libraries 77 Public Schools 81 Sanitary Sewers 101 Solid Waste 127 Stormwater 137 Transportation .145 ii Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan LIST OF MAPS FOLLOWS PAGE Coordinated Water System Plan Service Areas Map 14 Fire Protection Map 46 Parks and Recreation Areas Map 64 Subarea Map 66 School District Map .100 North Sewer Priority Areas Map 102 Valley Sewer Priority Areas Map 102 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Capital Facilities are characterized by their long, useful life and require significant expenditures to construct. They include facilities such as roads, water and sewer systems, parks and public buildings. Capital Facilities are provided by both public and private entities. The focus of the Capital Facilities Plan is to determine the quantity and quality of facilities and services that are required to support the growth envisioned in the land use elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan represents the seven-year period of 2000-2006, which includes the base year 2000 and the 6-year forecast (2001-2006) need for public facilities. The CFP also identifies specific capital project expenditures and identifies revenue sources that will pay for the projects. CONTENTS The CFP Element of the Comprehensive Plan is presented in two sections. 1. Introduction/Purpose of the CFP a. Statutory requirements • b. Methodology 2. Capital Improvements a. List of proposed capital projects b. Financing plan for capital projects c. Reconciliation of projects to Level of Service standards GROWTH ASSUMPTION This CFP is based on the following population data. Year -Countywide Unincorporated County County UGA 1999 414,500 202,041 133,089 2006 459,929 222,475 _ 149,100 2020 565,931 270,155 186,459 The Countywide and Unincorporated County figures are derived from adjusted Office of Financial Management estimates (refer to Chapter 3, Population and Land Capacity, Draft Plan 2000). The County Urban Growth Area population figures are derived from 1990 Census information, 1990 to 1999 building permit data and 20-year population projections. The projections for the year 2006 assume that the population will increase by an equal amount every year. 1 Capital Facilities Plan Executive Summary • CAPITAL COSTS OF SPOKANE COUNTY FACILITIES The total cost of County-owned and managed capital improvements for 2000 through 2006 total nearly $470 million, shown in Table ES-1. Table ES-1. Cost of County Capital Improvements .Type of Facility 2000-2006 Cost (x 1000) Sanitary Sewer 159,779.0 Transportation 220, 160.0 _ Stormwater 1,860.0 County Jail Construction -- 15,000.0_ Public Buildings -- 22,910.0_ ____________ Parks and Recreation 38,566.0 Conservation Land 11,097.0 Total 469,372.0 FINANCING FOR SPOKANE COUNTY CAPITAL FACILITIES This Capital Facilities Plan is a balanced plan, in that projected capital expenditures do not exceed projected revenues. The plan will be financed within the County's financial capacity. If the projected funding proves inadequate to finance capital projects based on adopted level of service standards and forecasted growth, adjustments will be made,to the level of service, the land use element, sources of revenue, or any appropriate combination, to achieve a balance between available revenue and needed capital facilities. Table ES-2, below, shows the financing plan for the County's capital improvements, which include a variety of revenue sources. The table shows the type of revenue source, amount of revenue projected to be available to pay for projects, and the type of facilities to be financed. Table ES-3 is a summary of the project costs and revenues by facility for each year. 2 Capital Facilities Plan Executive Summary Table ES-2. Projected Revenues-2000 to 2006 Revenue Source Amount Facility Existing Revenues —_ ____ — —______ ___ _ ___ General Fund _ 2,822.0 Public Buildings — General Fund 3,257.0 Parks and Recreation Donations 18,741.0 Parks and Recreation Car Rental Tax 100.0 Parks and Recreation Conservation Futures Tax 10,797.0 Conservation Land _IAC Grants 300.0 Conservation Land_ IAC Grants _ 1,037.0 Parks and Recreation Real Estate Excise TaxREST _6,43_1.0_ Parks and Recreation Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) — — _ 10,551.0 _Public_B_uildings _ Juvenile Jail Sales Tax 3,353.0_ Public Buildings Pet License Fees 184.0 Public Buildings County Road Tax/Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 6,000.0 Public Buildings County Road Tax/Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 64,824.0 Transportation Bridge Replacement (Fed Grant) 22,223.0 Transportation CMAQ (Fed Air Quality Grant) 3,137.0 Transportation STP(E) __—_______ 450A_ —___ Transportation—_—_ - ---------- -- - STP® 24,547.0 Transportation — — STP (� 1,641.0 Transportation _ STP (U) _ _ 23,433.0 _ Transportation Other Federal Funds 6,10_2.0 Transportation RID Bonds 12,357.0 I Transportation AIPI _ 18,300.0 Transportation _ CAPP 6,540.0_ Transportation Other State835.0 Transportation PSMP 874.0 Transportation _ RAP 10,246.0 Transportation — ---------------------------____--- -------_________ --------____--- TPP —__— ________24,651.0 ___ Transportation __-___ Aquifer Protection _—_ 6,900.0— Sewer Sales Taxes 21,880.0 Sewer _ State Grants 26,250.0 Sewer General Facilities Charges _ 3,773.0 Sewer Pre-Payments 6,707.0 Sewer Revenue Bonds 94,269.0 Sewer Stormwater Service Fees 1,860.0 Stormwater Sub-Total - — 44 ,372.0 --_[_ New Revenues — __ ___ -___ -G.O. Bond I 15,000.0 Jail Construction Voted G.O. Bond -I 6,000.0 Parks and Recreation - G.O. Bond tttt 2,000.0 Parks and Recreation Park Impact Fees I _ 1,000.0 I Parks and Recreation Sub-Total I 24,000.0 Total I 469,372.0 I •3 Capital Facilities Plan Executive Summary TABLE ES-a . COUNTYWIDE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SUMMARY . • 2000-2006 (All amounts'are times$1',000) (1) (2) - (3) j-- (4) _ (5) (6) I -- (7) --- (8) (9) Costs/Revenues I 2000 2001 I 2002 Y 2003_1_2004_1_ 2005_ ___2006 _-__Total — canitary-Sewe_r_-___ 13,871.0 _15,456.0__ 16,695.0__: 16,963._0 25,93-476'_36716.47-6-1_ _ 34,071.0 159,779.0 Transportation_— , 33,628.0 44,177.0 30,267.0 25,444.0 29,322.0 29,271.0 28,051.0 220,160.0 Stormwater 80.0 1,080.01 7.0_0.0I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,860.0 County Jail Addition j 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0 i 8,000.0 6,000.0 I 0.0 15,000.0 Public Buildings 2,566.0 5,413.0 4,781.0 2,850.0 2,600.0 3,350.0 I 1,350.0 22,910.0 Conservation Land 4,067.0 1,846.0 214.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1 1,970.0 11,097.0 Parks and Recreation 1 2,036.0 ( 3,347.0 } 4,542.0 ! 1,531.0 2,240.0 ' 6,220.0 18,650.0 38,566.0 Total Costs 56,248_0 L 71,319.0 57,199.0 148,788.0 x.69,116. 82,610.0 18_4,092_.0 469,372.0 Total Revenues _56,248.0 71,319.0_' _5.7_,199.0 48,788,0__69,110.8182,610.070 .0_ 84, 2 _469,372.0 Balancer 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 (1--- LEVEL LEVEL OF SERVICE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CFP This section describes the consequences of the proposed Level of Service (LOS) standards for facilities and services included in the CFP. Transportation Two Level of Service standards are proposed for transportation facilities, including delay at arterial intersections and regional transportation corridor travel time. The Spokane Regional Transportation Council has not yet adopted the regional transportation corridor travel time LOS. The arterial intersection standards are adopted as a part of Spokane County's road standards. Once the regional corridor standards are adopted by Spokane Regional Transportation Council, the CFP will be updated to address any deficiencies in the transportation system. Sanitary Sewer The LOS for Spokane County's sewer system reflects the standards required by the State of Washington for conveyance, treatment and disposal. The LOS standard requiring sewer to be available at the time of development (within the UGA) will render many areas of the County unavailable for development until sewer is extended to those areas. Domestic Water The Interim Regional LOS standards for domestic water are the standards adopted by the State of Washington for public water systems. Water purveyors are required to develop Water System Plans and design their water systems to the standards required by the State. The East Spokane Water District currently exceeds their water rights and the Department of Ecology is not issuing new water rights in the foreseeable future. The District does not have the capacity to provide water service to new, growth related development. Options to resolve this issue are as follows: 4 Capital Facilities Plan Executive Summary I. Remove all East Spokane Water District land from the Urban Growth Area. 2. Recognize that the Urban Growth Area is a 20-year boundary and that services may be phased over that time frame. The District must resolve their water rights issue within a reasonable time frame for the area to remain in the UGA. 3. The District may merge with an adjacent water district with sufficient water rights to accommodate the projected growth. 4. The District may possibly purchase water from an adjacent district with sufficient water.rights. Parks and Recreation The proposed LOS for parks is 1.4 acres of Community Parks for every 1000 people in the Urban Growth Area. Fire Protection All land within Spokane County's Urban Growth Area meets the minimum Level of Service Standard. Law Enforcement The proposed Level of Service for law enforcement is to maintain the existing number of commissioned officers for every 1000 people that the Sheriff's Department serves, which is 1.01 officers/1000 people. The LOS at the Juvenile Detention facility is proposed to drop from .176 beds/1000 to .129 beds/1000 people. Public Schools The County is not proposing to adopt LOS standards for school districts. Rather, individual school districts will adopt LOS standards as they develop Capital Facilities Plans consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan includes a process for school districts to follow if they choose to develop a Capital Facilities Plan. Public Libraries The proposed LOS will drop from .43 square feet of library space per 1000 people to .41 square feet per 1000. Stormwater The Interim Regional Minimum Level of Service Standards accepted by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials include standards for designing stormwater facilities (see page 144). The standards state that "New Development shall not increase runoff volume off-site above that which would occur if the developed property was in its natural state". This standard presents problems if the County designs and constructs regional stormwater systems. Regional systems will increase the volume of runoff from new development sites. However, the regional systems would be designed in a way that would accept the increased volumes without detriment or risk to the surrounding property. Strictly interpreted, the Interim Regional LOS standards would prevent the County from constructing regional stormwater systems. 5 Capital Facilities Plan Executive Summary Source Documents The source documents primarily used in preparing this Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) are the 6-year capital improvement plans prepared and updated annually for the County's transportation and sewer programs. The County's Annual Budget and the Annual Financial Report were used to develop revenue projections. Generally, the proposed Capital Facilities Plan reflects the general planning goals and policies and land use infrastructure requirements identified in long-range planning documents. These documents include the County's Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, Coordinated Water System Plan, Watershed Plans, Individual Water System Plans and the Library District Strategic Plan. The CFP planning process identified above, combined with the Level of Service(LOS) methodology used to identify the requirements for capital facilities, enables the County to I) make informed decisions about its investment of public dollars, and 2) make timely decisions about maintaining Levels of Service in accordance with the goals,policies and implementation of this CFP. 6 Capital Facilities Plan Executive Summary INTRODUCTION The Capital Facilities Plan represents the seven-year period of 2000-2006, which includes the base year 2000, and the 2001-2006 forecast need for public facilities, along with specific capital projects expenditures and revenues that support Spokane County's current and future population and economy. The capital improvements are fully funded (i.e., not a "wish list"). One of the principal criteria for identifying needed capital improvements is a standard for levels of service (LOS). The CFP contains LOS standards for each public facility and requires that new development be served by adequate facilities (i.e., the "concurrency requirement"). The CFP also contains broad goals and specific policies that guide and implement the provision of adequate public facilities. The purpose of the CFP is to use sound fiscal policies to provide adequate public facilities consistent with the land use element and concurrent with, or prior to, the impacts of development in order to achieve and maintain adopted standards for levels of service and to exceed the adopted standards, when possible. Why Plan for Capital Facilities? There are at least three reasons to plan for capital facilities: (1) growth management, (2) good management and (3) eligibility for grants and loans. Growth Management The Capital Facilities Plan is one of six elements required by the Growth Management Act that jurisdictions must include in their Comprehensive Plans. The 6 required elements include: • Land Use • Housing • Transportation • Utilities • Rural (counties only) • Capital Facilities Plan Capital facilities plans are required in the Comprehensive Plan in order to accomplish the following. 1. Provide capital facilities for land development that is envisioned or authorized by the land use element of the comprehensive plan. 2. Maintain the quality of life for existing and future development by establishing and maintaining standards for the level of service of capital facilities. t. 7 Capital Facilities Plan Introduction 3. Coordinate and provide consistency among the many plans for capital improvements, including: • other elements of the comprehensive plan (i.e., transportation and utilities elements), • master plans and other studies of the local government, • plans for capital facilities of state and/or regional significance, • plans of other adjacent local governments, and • plans of special districts. 4. Insure the timely provision of adequate facilities as required in the GMA. 5. Document all capital projects and their financing (including projects to be financed by impact fees and/or real estate excise taxes that are authorized by the GMA). The CFP is the element that makes the rest of the comprehensive plan "real". By establishing levels of service as the basis for providing capital facilities and for achieving concurrency, the CFP determines the quality of life in the community. The requirement to fully finance the CFP (or revise the land use plan) provides a reality check on the vision set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The capacity of capital facilities that are provided in the CFP affects the size and configuration of the Urban Growth Area. Good Management Planning for major capital facilities and their costs enables Spokane County to: I. demonstrate the need for facilities and the need for revenues to pay for them; 2. estimate future operation/maintenance costs of new facilities that will impact the annual budget; 3. take advantage of sources of revenue (i.e., grants, impact fees, real estate excise taxes) that require a CFP in order to qualify for the revenue; and 4. get better ratings on bond issues when the County borrows money for capital facilities (thus reducing interest rates and the cost of borrowing money). Eligibility for Grants and Loans The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development's (DCTED) Public Works Trust Fund requires that local governments have some type of CFP in order to be eligible for loans. Some other grants and loans have similar requirements or give preference to governments that have a CFP. 8 Capital Facilities Plan Introduction Statutory Requirements The GMA requires the CFP to identify public facilities that will be required during the six years following adoption of the new plan (2001 to 2006). The CFP must include the location and cost of the facilities and the sources of revenue that will be used to fund the facilities. RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d) requires the capital facilities plan to include "a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes." RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e) requires that all capital facilities have "probable funding" to pay for capital facility needs, or else the County must "reassess the land use element." Since "reassessing" to increase development would only make the imbalance of funding and needs worse, the law infers that the County must plan for less development so as to match "probable funding" with needed capital improvements. The law does not preclude the County from taking other steps before "reassessing" the land use element, including reduction of level of service standards, reducing the quality of facilities that meet the quantitative standards or reducing demand by reducing consumption. In the event that "reassessment" is required for facilities provided by entities other than the County (eg., fire districts, water districts, sewer districts, school districts, etc.), the County and the special district that provides the facility will collaborate in order to develop an appropriate strategy to enable the County to serve at least the minimum population forecast provided by the State of Washington Office of Financial Management. Other requirements of the GMA mandate forecasts of future needs for capital facilities, and the use of standards for levels of service of facility capacity as the basis for public facilities contained in the CFP (see RCW 36.70A.020(12). Therefore, public facilities in the CFP must be based on quantifiable, objective measures of capacity, such as traffic delay at arterial intersections and acres of park per capita. Concurrency One of the goals of the GMA is to have capital facilities in place concurrent with development. This concept is known as concurrency. In Spokane County, concurrency requires: (1) facilities serving the development must be in place at the time of development (or for some types of facilities, that a financial commitment is made to provide the facilities within a specified period of time); and (2) such facilities have sufficient capacity to serve development without decreasing levels of service below minimum standards adopted in the CFP. The GMA requires concurrency for transportation facilities. GMA also requires all other public facilities to be "adequate" (see RCW 19.27.097, 36.70A.020, 36.70A.030, and 58.17.110). Concurrency management procedures will be developed to ensure that sufficient public facility capacity is available for each proposed development. 9 Capital Facilities Plan Introduction After the CFP is completed and adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, the County must adopt development regulations to implement the plan. Development regulations will provide detailed regulations and procedures for implementing the requirements of the Plan. Annual Update The Growth Management Act allows the County to update the CFP twice each year. At a minimum, the CFP should be updated annually prior to budget adoption. This will allow the County to incorporate the capital improvements from the updated CFP into the County's annual budget. • 10 Capital Facilities Plan Introduction DOMESTIC WATER Background The purpose of this section of the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is to provide an analysis of the adequacy of water facilities within unincorporated Spokane County. The CFP identifies existing inventories, forecasts future water supply facility needs and includes financial plans with revenue sources that will be used to fund capital improvements for individual water purveyors. The inventories, projected demand and corresponding capacity and facility needs meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a) and (b). Spokane County Water Systems Spokane County does not own or operate public water systems. Water is provided by other entities, such as cities, special purpose districts, associations and private corporations. Over 500 purveyors serve domestic water throughout Spokane County. The County's role is to coordinate with water purveyors to ensure that their actions are consistent with Spokane County land use plans, service areas and health regulations. The County coordinates water purveyors in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Health (DOH), Drinking Water Section. Part of that responsibility includes preparation of a Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) under the Public Water System Coordination Act (Chapter 70.116, RCW and Chapter 246-293 WAC) and participation in the Water System Plan review process (Chapter 246-290-100 WAC). The County's first CWSP was adopted in 1982, with updates in 1989 and 1999. This Capital Facilities Plan does not include an analysis of water facilities in the incorporated areas of the County. Detailed inventory and level of service information, future needs and financial plans for capital improvements can be found in the Capital Facilities Plans for each incorporated town or city. Planning for Water The Coordinated Water System Plan is updated as needed at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, the Department of Health or both. The CWSP oversees water supply systems, identifies service boundaries, establishes urban and rural minimum design standards, promotes the consolidation of regional water resource management and projects future needs. The CWSP discourages the proliferation of new systems and encourages new development to be served by existing purveyors. The CWSP is also reviewed for consistency with the County Comprehensive Plan and is adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan by reference. The Coordinated Water System Plan applies to purveyors in the Critical Water Supply Service Area (CWSSA), which covers the northern two-thirds of the County (see Service Area Map following page 14). Water purveyors located within the CWSSA are also members of the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC). The Coordinated Water System Plan also serves as the County's Water General Plan as provided for in the 11 Capital Facilities Domestic Water County Services Act, Chapter 36.94 RCW. The Water General Plan is submitted to the County Planning Commission for review and incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. Individual Water System Plans The Department of Health recommends that all water purveyors prepare a water system plan to determine future needs for water facilities within their service areas. Water system plans also address managerial and technical information, as well as identify and provide for the protection of aquifers against contaminates. Once a water system plan is adopted, it must be updated every six years. Water purveyors meeting the following criteria are required to have water systems plans approved by DOH. 1. Systems having 1000 or more services. 2. Systems required to develop water system plans under the Public Water System Coordination Act of 1977 (chapter 70.116 RCW). 3. Any system experiencing problems related to planning, operation and/or management as determined by the Department of Health. 4. All new systems. 5. Any expanding system. 6. Any system proposing to use the document submittal exception process in WAC 246- 290-125 (documents such as project reports and construction drawings). The approval authority for individual water system plans lies with the Department of Health. DOH forwards a copy of the water plan to the County for review and comment. The County's major role in the water system plan process is to ensure that the plans are consistent with the Coordinated Water System Plan and with County land use policies, land use designations and service areas. Watershed Planning In 1998, Washington State passed the Watershed Management Act to develop a "thorough and cooperative method of determining what the current water resource situation is in each Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) of the state and to provide local citizens with the maximum possible input concerning their goals and objectives for water resource management and development" (RCW-90.82.005). In late 1998, a Planning Unit was formed for WRIAs 55 and 57, or the Middle Spokane-Little Spokane River watersheds, with Spokane County designated as the lead agency. The Watershed Management Act requires the Planning Unit to address water quantity issues and allows water quality, habitat and instream flows to be considered in the process. The watershed planning effort is expected to produce information on how water is used in the Water Resource Inventory Areas and recommendations for how it should be used in the future. The Planning Unit may also formulate a recommendation on instream flows for the Spokane and Little Spokane Rivers. The Department of Ecology may establish minimum water flows or levels for streams, lakes or other public waters for the purpose of protecting fish, game, birds or other wildlife resources, or recreational or aesthetic values of said public waters whenever it appears to be in the public interest to establish the same. 12 Capital Facilities Domestic Water The data, information and recommendations generated by the Planning Unit will potentially be used by the Department of Ecology in assessing its ability to issue new water rights for the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. The Washington State Department of Fish and Game will also consider the Planning Unit's instream flow recommendation for the Spokane and Little Spokane Rivers. Planning Units have also been formed for WIRA#56, Latah Creek, and WIRA #34, Crab Creek, with the Spokane Conservation District and Lincoln County, respectively, serving as lead agencies. Water Source Groundwater aquifers supply nearly all water used for domestic purposes in Spokane County. The western portion of the County contains basalt aquifers that are recharged solely by precipitation. Other aquifer systems in the County are recharged from interaction with adjacent streams. The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, one of the most productive aquifers in the world, supplies water to most of the urbanized portions of Spokane County. The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer originates in North Idaho, with much of its water coming from Lake Pend Oreille and Coeur d'Alene Lake. In early 1995, Water Quality and Water Quantity technical committees were formed to address the capacity of groundwater and surface water resources within Spokane County. The committees were formed because of directives contained within the Countywide Planning Policies, adopted in December of 1994. The work program for the committees was developed around the task of gathering information to determine whether Spokane County can meet its future water supply needs, with respect to both quantity and quality, for long-term growth. The committee's report, Spokane County Water Quality-Water Quantity, was published in July 1996. The Water Quality-Water Quantity report provides an analysis of groundwater availability in Spokane County. Table DW-I from the report provides a detailed analysis of groundwater use versus groundwater supply. The analysis indicates that "water supplies in most areas are adequate for current needs." The report provides the following summary of water supply as it relates to the Growth Management planning horizon. "Although there are areas where water supply and water quality problems have been identified, all public water supply systems from which data is available are able to support the current needs of customers. Further, within the time interval of the Growth Management Act (GMA) planning (20 years), the added needs of new growth can probably be met if per capita water demand does not increase. In some of the more water quantity stressed areas, water conservation measures may be needed to help achieve the water supply needs within the GMA planning interval. In some cases, additional water can be moved from the Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer into water-short areas without changing the current water service boundaries of purveyors as defined in the Spokane County Coordinated Water System Plan. However, the Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer is not an unlimited supply and should not be 13 Capital Facilities Domestic Water considered such in regional planning. Current use is nearly half of the most conservative estimate of groundwater availability in that system; installed pumping capacity exceeds the supply based on this estimate of safe yield. Beyond this period all groundwater resources, even the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, may be stressed if water conservation measures are not employed..." (Page v, Water Quality/Water Quantity Technical Committee Report, July 1996). Several considerations complicate the above description of water supply for the Urban Growth Area during the GMA planning period. They include the uncertainty of water rights and their distribution, the mix of industrial versus residential users and the fact that the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer and the Spokane River are physically connected. The Spokane River depends upon aquifer recharge for a significant amount of its instream flow, which may affect the amount of water that may be withdrawn from the aquifer once Spokane River minimum instream flows are established. While it is not the only source, water purveyors in the Urban Growth Area depend on the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer as their source for water. Table DW-1 expresses available quantity in the term safe yield. This term is described in the report as .. the amount of water that can be withdrawn without exceeding the inflow from recharge areas, precipitation and infiltration." The table shows that the current pumping capacity of all aquifers of the County is in the middle of the safe yield range. Water rights are shown exceeding the lower of the safe yield range of the aquifers. However, many of the water rights that have been issued are not being exercised. Water Rights Washington State water law requires all prospective water users to obtain a water right permit from the Department of Ecology (DOE)before constructing a well or withdrawing any groundwater from a well. However, the law does allow a water right permit exemption, referred to as the domestic exemption, which states that no water right permit is required for the withdrawal of up to 5,000 gallons of water per day from a well when the water is being used for the following. 1. Livestock watering. 2. Single or group domestic water supply. 3. Industrial purposes. 4. Irrigation of no more than 1/2 acre of lawn or noncommercial garden (RCW 90.44.050). • • • 14 Capital Facilities Domestic Water Toon Ranchos War Ira. a B it[Water —-- — _ _—_- — — - -- "�' Spokane CountyCoordinated Water \ i! P + , -- System Plan Service Areas £� .--___, LEOEND '- S.C..I.#3 :i Green Blufl' 11 Whitworth V.11#2 -. p UGA Boundary I —I i A/ Incorporated Boundaries Water Service Area data maintained ii .---1-1_ 1 by Spokane County Division of ' °=� Utilities. •tti r, a Deadman C eek y ltvate1r S app"` . . i, r,ittic•\ r I - -- S�c1mc l'ilitt20 ® ��-i:whites .i ge V Virili!D.#1 - . rs TiB - i . s.c. ` . c _ ; Mt.st lvllcha•is )rrdian Y a Estates S.. . ..#3 -i - - -- :Ls f s.. iiii - I r----Pleasant Pmifiie Addr-- 7 Pattdeaa,�ark I.D. 3.D. • �-- %� 1CUtWWd .4n...„ Whit�lull41 • IL� Hu n Stt ne i _ -,. -t: •• ,. 1\4.11.P. 11 ' J 000( Cresol idated 1.D.419 Spokane River ` , • Avenue C SPok4 West Pram Village , �� o i______-- Deep e V-- City of Spokappilliiiiri . - .. -__., ilI_ Bali ,s L11.11: �T. I•erty Lake .40 t- i #//00111111i rn Electric VL'at Co. Liberty Lake wer8c W.D. L . an ,_'✓ �, ,J telae Al3'ylv ier - t i ��.. _ 1. L171 in,u - ' :y-Heig is l ' . ,aAaklik :- ..-L LL Fairy', tk gl'tis '.C. - LD Vera LD.#15 Egil;ls hild A.F B. 1 •---t ----- �' Starlightkiide a W•"M H.P. `�!N. r I --— - .. i - Shady s T.P. r :i ' L lip. r--- r^/ i eD .•-Add. ' - -, � "' •� •edi t, I . , -- Canso sled , rt Se • Pict' s T.P. Mullroiltill T -e M.H.P. Rr�Lakil e r / Marshall amity - .. . . , _ _ _ - 0 F .;Bib' .• . - `w� .D.#l4 j l� m. —i _ __' r llidder - motes-Vq14 y rr€1 V.D._i' - --- ).'' -- -- ------------- - ---- ----- This map wan published by tho Spokane County Division of Planning as n general Produced:October03,2.001planning tool.Due to the dilfedng quality of source documents,the Division cannot iplanalcljrlcmp-sub.aml Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan accept responsibility for cows oromissions,and therefore,there are nowarranties —— --- which aecoipeay_tlus material,___-----_ ---_-- Table DW-1 Groundwater Use vs Groundwater Supply in Spokane County - ' ,.-c: ,- :‘ `. Pump Pump '._'Pump - Total. :, y Safe Yield"' ' Capacity Capacity Capacity, Number "GROUNDWATER AREA Group A& Domestic Pump Water - - Low; High B Systems , Exemptions Irrigation Capacity. Group A .Rights ` as Reported - & B mgd mgd . mgd - mgd y,: mgd ' _ mgd Systems WRIA 57-Spokane Valley 442.8 823.0 618.3 1.3 5.0 624.6 192 Aquifer(SVA) 442.8 823.0 _ 618.3 1.3 5.0 624.6 192 718.1 WRIA 55-Excluding SVA 44.7 24.8 17.1 5.8 47.6 III Little Spokane River 27.6 70.6 19.1 7.5 0.7 27.3 73 2.2 Deer Park Basin 22.5 56.5 4.3 7.5 3.1 14.9 21 9.2 Peone Prairie 4.6 203 0.6 1.3 1.9 3 N/R Green Bluff 0.7 1.7 0.2 .05 2.0 2.7 5 N/R Orchard/Pleasant Prairie I.3 2.9 0.6 0.3 0.03 .9 9 N/R N/R WRIA 54-Excluding SVA 20.9 2.5 8.2 31.6 201 West Plains,upper aquifer 6.8 28.6 20.9 2.5 8.2 31.6 201 10.0 West Plains,deep aquifer 0.7 2.9 Inc. above WRIA 54,43,34 11.8 2.5 5.0 19.4 91 East Columbia Plateau, 14.4 60.9 11.8 2.5 5.0 19.4 91 15.4 upper aquifer East Columbia Plateau 1.4 6.1 deep aquifer Inc.above Column Totals 522.8 1073.5 675.8 23.4 24.0 723.2 595 754.9 Notes • WRIA=Water Resource Inventory Area • Data for pumping capacity for Group A and B public water supplies are from Department of Health records. • Data for pumping capacity under domestic exemptions calculated from estimated users and 5000 gal/day. • Data for irrigation calculated from irrigated acres assuming the number of acres irrigated estimated by Natural Resources Conservation Service and 3 feet of applied water per year. • Safe Yield for WRIA 57 includes only that portion that lies within the immediate recharge area of the SVA. • Safe Yield in not estimated for WRIAs that include parts of more than one groundwater system. • N/R-No report for this category(data for water rights incomplete for all categories. Only the data reported by purveyors on file with the Department of Health is included here. 15 Capital Facilities Domestic Water The Department of Ecology now reviews all water system plans submitted to the Department of Health to determine whether the water purveyor has sufficient rights to provide water to their current and future users. Ecology examines the purveyor's water right certificates to determine the quantity of water authorized by the certificates. In 1994, the Departments of Health and Ecology entered into an agreement which allows Ecology, in cases where current water usage is beyond the system's water rights and a viable plan to secure adequate water rights is not in place, to request that the Department of Health not approve the water system plan. Alternatively, Ecology may request the Department of Health to condition approval by allowing growth-related projects in those cases where adequate water resources can be identified. The Department of Ecology has determined that two water purveyors within Spokane County, East Spokane Water District No. 1 and the Town of Waverly, are exceeding their water rights. In each case, Ecology recommended to the Department of Health that they condition their approval of the water plans. Further, all new projects must identify available water resources and must show that the project will not increase water usage. Water Conservancy Boards In 1997, the Washington State Legislature passed a bill authorizing Water Conservancy Boards. In November 1999, the Department of Ecology adopted final rules for establishing and operating county Water Conservancy Boards. These boards are county- level special-purpose governments which can be established by county legislative authorities to process applications to change existing water rights. Conservancy Boards can process only applications requesting a change in water right status and cannot process new water right applications. A conservancy board consisting of three commissioners makes conditional decisions on water right change applications. Ecology then considers the decision made by the conservancy board and either approves, modifies or reverses the decision. Spokane County established a conservancy board in 2001. 16 Capital Facilities Domestic Water • Inventory of Water Systems In Washington State, public water systems include all systems serving two or more single-family residences. Water systems serving 25 or more persons for 60 or more days per year or having 15 or more connections are classified as Group A (public) systems. All other water systems are Group B systems. Group A purveyors are further divided into Community and Noncommunity systems. Table DW-2 lists all Group A Community Water Systems in Spokane County and provides current population, current connections, and Department of Health approved connections. Table DW-3 list all Group B water systems in Spokane County. Table DW-2 Group "A" Community Water Systems , r Current DOH" Current Water.System Name Residential Approved Population Connections. • Connections' Aloha Pines Estates Water System 60 29 70 B &J Water CO 81 22 25 Blue Sky Country Farms 41 16 30 Carnhope Irrigation Dist#7 1,200 480 500 Chattaroy Spings Wes WD 11 85 32 37 Chattaroy Springs Water Assn 40 16 16 Chattaroy Valley Mobile Estates 150 56 52 City of Airway Heights 2,390 591 750 City of Cheney8,220 1,622 * City of Deer Park 2,965 1,164 * City of Medical Lake 2,907 963 950 City of Spokane 192,021 57,957 * Clear Lake Water Users Assn 169 69 99 Consolidated Irrigation Dist 19 System I 9,490 2,970 * Consolidated Irrigation Dist 19 System 2 8,305 2,599 * Consolidated Support Services 1,315 470 * Deep Creek Hutterite 50 12 12 Deep Creek Ranchcttes 125 48 49 East Side Liberty Lake IMP Camp 537 205 244 East Spokane Water Dist I 4,063 1,018 * Eastern Washington Bible Camp 125 68 75 Eastern Washington University 2,800 1,114 * Eloika Pines Estate MHP 115 55 45 Fairchild Air Force Base 11,227 2,043 * Fairchild Mobile Home Park 84 48 54 Fairview Heights Trailer Court 60 41 41 Four Lakes Water District 10 490 151 160 Green Bluff Water Association 115 76 115 Green Ridge Estates 102 28 53 Hangman Hills Water Dist 15 490 196 250 17 Capital Facilities Domestic Water Table DW-2 (cont'd) Group "A" Community Water Systems Haven Homes 40 5 3 Hideaway Trailer Park 200 71 71 Hilltop Mobile Home Park 56 33 46 Hutchinson Irrigation Dist 16 1,950 780 1,000 Hutton Settlement 53 18 18 Indian Prarie Mobile Home Park 163 86 141 Indian Villages Estates Water Assn 68 27 40 Irvin Water District 6 2,531 729 * Lewis Brothers, Inc. 76 37 37 Liberty Lake Sewer and Water Dist 4,125 1,412 Marshall Community Water Assn 74 30 40 Moab Irrigation Dist#20 1,700 569 Model Irrigation Dist#18 5,708 2,129 * Modern Electirc Water Co 16,677 5,187 * MT Spokane Mobile Home Park 100 32 109 Mullen Hill Terrace MHP 207 118 119 Nine Mile Manor Addition 40 15 20 North Glen Water Association 104 32 42 North Mountain View Water Co Inc 64 29 40 North Spokane Irrigation District 8 2,000 800 Old Trails Country Estates 25 15 19 Orchard Avenue Irrigation District 6 3,178 1,271 * Pasadena Park Irrigation District 17 4,168 1,667 * Patterson Addition 45 18 18 Picnic Pines Trailer Court 130 60 80 Pine Acres Mobil Home Park 100 40 40 Pinecroft Mobile Home Park 248 143 143 Pioneer Water Company 210 72 76 Pleasant Prairie Water Users 90 31 37 Reflection Water Association 98 31 82 Ridge Water Association 50 21 33 Riverside Village MI-IP 600 138 138 Rivervale Water Association 48 16 34 Shady Pines Trailer Court 70 38 38 Sleepy Hollow Apartments 35 16 16 Snowblaze 60 25 175 Spokane County Water District No.3 22,140 8,856 * Starlight Motel and MHP 75 37 38 Stevenes Co. PUD—West Shore 413 138 218 Stevens Co PUD—Halfmoon Ranchos 200 73 153 Stevens Co PUD—Panorama Acres 72 25 58 Stevens Co PUD— Riverside 151 52 72 Stevens Co PUD—Spokane lake Park 198 66 99 Strathview Water District 16 184 87 125 Syringa Heights Mobile Home Park 48 24 24 18 Capital Facilities Domestic Water Table DW-2 (cont'd) Group "A" Community Water Systems Timberline Mobile Home Park 240 107 108 Town of Fairfield 605 240 350 Town Of Latah 212 95 100 Town of Millwood 1,720 700 * Town of Rockford 490 192 335 Town of Spangle 250 123 160 Town of Waverly 130 55 65 Trentwood Irrigation District 3 4,048 1,453 * Upper Columbia Academy 340 27 99 Val View Water District 13 60 22 23 • Valley of the Horses Water Dist 12 44 19 21 Vera Power and Water 19,801 5,641 • * Whitworth College 800 304 650 Whitworth Water District 2 System 2 9,760 3,964 * Whitworth Water District 2 System 8 7,130 2,852 * Wildrose Village 30 14 14 Woodland Park Trailer Court 60 30 30 *The Washington State Department of Health approves large water systems,over 1000 connections, for an unspecified number of connections Source: Washington State Department of Health Table DW-3 Group B Water Systems System Name Approved Resident Residential Total Services Population , Services Services ACME MATERIALS&CONSTRUCTION 0 3 I 2 AG ENTERPRISES I 0 0 I AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA CORP 0 0 0 2 ALOHA RANCH WATER SYSTEM - 4 5 2 4 ALSAKER,DONALD 2 5 2 2 AMBER LAKE RESORT 21 2 I 2 ANDERSON FLATS WATER SYSTEM 0 3 1 2 ANDERSON TRAILER COURT 0 23 9 9 ANDRUS ESTATES WATER SYSTEM 8 20 8 8 APPLEWOOD FARMS I 0 0 I AVISTA CORP-NINE MILE HED I 0 0 I 13 AND L WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 BABBLING BROOK TRAILER COURT 0 4 2 2 BACKWOODS STORE 3 5 2 3 BAKER WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 BAKERIKRIETZMAN WELL 4 5 2 2 BALMER GARDENS 14 20 9 9 BARR WATER SYSTEM 9 23 9 9 BARRENTINE WATER SYSTEM 2 4 2 2 BARTCH.RICHARD WATER SYSTEM 2 4 2 2 BAUER,PATTI WATER SYSTEM 2 3 2 2 BELL MOTET- 0 20 8 14 BENAVIDEZ WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 BENCE-VIGIL WELL 3 10 2 2 BENSON MOTEL 0 I I 9 BERTHOLIC FAMILY FARM WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 BETZ WATER SYSTEM 2 3 2 2 BLACK WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 BLANTON WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 19 Capital Facilities Domestic Water Table DW-3 (cont'd) Group B Water S stems BMW WATER 3 15 3 3 BONENKO WATER SYS.#2 0 10 4 4 BONGERS WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 BROWN'S ESTATE WATER SYSTEM 5 10 4 4 BROWN'S WELL 2 5 2 2 BUNKERS RESORT 2 0 2 I 14 BUNKERS RESORT SYSTEM#3 0 5 2 2 C&T TRUCK PARTS _ 1 0 0 1 AKE COTTAGE 2 3 I 2 CAMPCOMIA 7 12 3 4 CARMEL ESTATES WATER ASSN _ 0 16 7 7 CARRELL,LARRY WATER SYSTE 2 10 2 2 CARTER-CHELF WATER SYSTEM 0 4 2 2 CASE MANOR _ 2 2 I 2 CASEY WATER SYSTEM _ 2 4 2 2 CEDAR KNOLLS WATER ASSN 10 22 9 9 CENTRAL GRANGE 0 _ 0 0 I CENTRAL PRE-MIX-FT WRIGHT PLANT 0 0 0 I CIIAPMAN LAKE RESORT#3 0 0 0 I CIIAPMAN LAKE RESORT SYSTEM#2 0 0 0 8 CHAPPLE WATER SYSTEM 0 11 3 3 CHARLES A.RUBY COMPANY 0 0 0 1 CHASTEK'S WELL 3 8 3 3 CHATTAROY SPRINGS NORTH 18 24 10 10 CHENEY RODEO CORPORATION 0 _ 8 3 4 CHRIS1OFFERSEN WATER SYSTEM 3 8 4 4 CLARK WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 CLUTE VAN MATRE WATER SYSTEM 2 • 5 2 2 COLES WATER SYSTEM 2 _ 5 2 2 COMMELLINI WATER SYSTEM#3 11 19 II II CORY-DAVIE WATER SYSTEM 3 6 2 2 COUNTRY CUSTOM MEATS 2 3 1 2 COUNTRYSIDE SCHOOL 4 3 I 3 CRAM SALVAGE 4 0 0 6 CRAWFORD WATER SYSTEM 2 4 2 2 CROSSOVER BAPTIST CHURCH 0 _ 0 0 1 CROWLEY WATER SYSTEM 4 5 2 2 CUSTOM BUILDING SUPPLY INC 0 0 0 I CUSTOM CAMPER 0 3 1 3 DARTFORD NORTH 3 8 3 3 DEER PARK ANIMAL MEDICAL CENTER 1 _ 0 0 I DEER PARK AUCTION BARN 0 3 1 I DEER PARK CHURCH OF CHRIST 2 3 I 3 DENEMRAC 3 5 2 2 DENISON ESTATES-A _ 9 20 9 9 DENISON ESTATES-B 9 20 9 9 DENISON ESTATES-C _ 9 20 9 9 DENTON WATER SYSTEM 5 13 5 5 DICUS/TURNER WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 D'LAURALEE KENNELS 0 _ 2 I 2 DOWNS LAKE RESORT 0 0 0 5 DRAPER TRACTOR 0 0 0 2 DUNCALF WATER SYSTEM 0 18 5 5 DUPREE WATER SYSTEM 3 5 3 3 EASTERN WASH.UNIV.-TURNBULL STA. 0 0 0 1 EDGREN,LENTZ,DEMARS WATER SYSTEM 5 18 6 6 EICKMEYER WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 ELDRED-ORE 4 7 2 2 ELK COMMUNITY CHURCH 0 0 0 2 ELK COMMUNITY WATER ASSN 8 15 6 8 EMPIRE COLD STORAGE&FROSTY ICE - I 0 0 I EVAN'S WATER 1 2 6 2 2 20 Capital Facilities Domestic Water Table DW-3 (cont'd) Group B Water Systems FIVE MILE COMMUNITY CHURCH 0 0 0 I FOLAND WATER SYSTEM 0 5 2 2 FOOTHILLS MISSION CHURCH 0 5 I 2 FREEMAN STORE 0 3 I 2 FREIGHTLINER 0 0 • 0 2 FUHRMAN WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 FULLERS RESORT 0 4 I 3 G&G WATER SYSTEM 2 7 2 2 G ANDA WATER DEVELOPMENT 2 5 2 2 GARDEN SPRINGS CHURCH OF GOD 0 5 2 3 GARDEN SPRINGS GREENHOUSE 0 5 2 2 GARFIELD B&C WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 GARST WELL 2 5 2 2 GARY'S WELL WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 GAUMER WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 GELIIAUS,DON WATER SYSTEM 2 4 2 2 GESINGER,GAR.ALD A. 0 10 4 4 GILLSON WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 GLENROSE WATER ASSOCIATION 0 20 8 8 GLS WATER SYSTEM 5 5 2 2 GORMAN,DALY,KIRSTEN 3 8 3 3 GRAHAM ROAD RECYCLING&DISPOSAL 2 2 I 2 GRANITE LAKE WATER ASSN 13 10 5 5 GRANT'S WELL 2 6 2 2 GREEN BLUFF UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 0 0 0 3 GREENBLUFF BENCH WATER SYSTEM 9 18 6 6 GRIFFITH WATER SYSTEM 2 4 2 2 GRINNELL FIRE PROTECTION INC 0 0 0 I GROGAN WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 GRUBER WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 HAHN MACHINERY I 3 I 2 HALLADAY WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 HARSHBERGER WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 HAYFORD COMMUNITY CHURCH 0 I 1 2 HENDERSON WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 HIDDEN HILLS ESTATES 15 24 14 14 HIDDEN HOLLOW MUTUAL WATER SYSTEM 14 18 8 8 HOLIDAY TRAILERCOURT 0 21 12 12 HOLLEN'S NEWMAN LAKE WATER 3 2 2 2 HOODS PARK SUNSET BEACH WATER USERS 0 22 I I 14 HUNT-MAYFIELD 2 5 2 2 INDIAN PRAIRIE WATER ASSN 9 23 9 9 INLANI)FARMERS PEONE PLANT I 0 0 I INLAND POWER-GREENBLUFF 0 0 0 1 INLAND POWER-SPRING HILL 0 0 0 I • INLANI)POWER AND LIGHT WAFER SYSTEM I 0 0 1 1&1 WELL WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 JACOBSON GREENHOUSES INC 4 IO 4 4 JANZEN&JANZEN I 0 0 I JEAN'S CAKES&CA'T'ERING 2 3 I 2 JOHNSON WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 JOHNSTON,R WATER SYSTEM 0 5 2 2 KAISER ALUM-MEAD WORKS,SOUTII PLANT 0 0 0 14 KEITH WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 KING WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 KING WELL 0 0 0 1 KINGS COMMUNITY CHURCH 0 0 0 I KOESEL SPRING 5 12 5 5 KUBAS WATER SYSTEM 4 10 4 4 KUEST WATER SYSTEM 3 10 3 3 KUMMERS WATER 0 5 3 3 21 Capital Facilities Domestic Water Table DW-3 (cont'd) Group B Water Systems KXLY TOWER 0 0 0 I L&S WATER SYSTEM 2 3 I I LA SHAW WAFER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 LACEY,M.COLEEN 2 7 2 2 LAKE SHORE WATER ASSOCIATION 9 I I 7 9 LAKE VIEW WATER SYSTEM 2 4 2 3 LANCASTER WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 LANDT FARMS 2 4 2 2 LAZY R WATER SYSTEM 2 3 2 2 LEESON WATER WORKS#1 2 6 2 - 2 LEFEVRE'S TRACTS 3&4 2 6 2 2 LEHNERITZ,EUGENE 0 8 3 3 LEONETTI WATER SYSTEM 4 12 4 4 LEVERNIER CONSTRUCTION WATER SYSTEM 3 0 0 I LITTLE DEEP CREEK WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 LIVING WATER SPRAY SERVICE I 0 0 I LONG LAKE WATER SYSTEM 2 4 2 2 MACKENZIE BAY 4 6 3 7 MADISON WATER ASSOCIATION 2 I I 2 2 MAGNUM ENTERPRISES INC 4 16 4 4 ARABELLO WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 MATIIER WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 MATTHEW'S WATER WORKS 2 3 2 2 MAIJRER WATER SYSTEM 3 5 2 2 MC CALL,NEIL E.WATER SYSTEM 2 62 2 MCDONALD BUILDING SALES 0 3 I 2 _MCELFISH WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 MCGREGOR CO INC 0 0 0 I MCGREW WAFER SYSTEM 2 5 3 3 MCLELLAN WATER SYSTEM 2 6 3 3 MCLELLAN,ROGER 2 5 2 2 MEADOW WATER SYSTEM 14 8 3 3 MERCER TRUCKING CO INC I 0 0 I MEWBOURN/TUPPER WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 MIDDCOTOOL&EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 1 MILCO WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 • 2 MILLER,C.B.WATER SYSTEM 4 10 4 4 _MILLER/BRITTON WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 MOORE PERM-A-MULCH 0 0 0 2 MORNING GLORY SUBDIVISION 2 6 2 2 MORNING STAR ADMIN BLDG I 0 0 I MOSS WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 MUNROE/DAVIS WATER SYSTEM 2 8 2 2 NAGRA WATER • 0 0 0 2 NANSONS GREENHOUSE&NURSERY 0 5 2 2 NINE MILE FALLS SD 325 ADMIN 1 0 0 I NOAA/NWS SPOKANE 1 0 0 I NORAQUA WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 NORCAN PARTS&EQUIPMENT CO 3 0 0 1 NORTH MEADOWS WATER COMPANY 12 22 I I I I NORTH PARK WATER ASSOCIATION 3 9 3 3 NORTH STAR BROKERS WATER SYSTEM I 0 0 1 NORTHWEST BEDDING CO 0 0 0 1 NORTHWEST MICROFILM CO.,INC. 2 3 I 2 NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP 0 0 0 I NORTI-IWEST ROLLING MILLS INC. 0 3 I I NORTHWOOD FARMS INC 2 0 0 2 OASIS WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 OLD LLAMA WATERING HOLE 2 5 2 2 OLIA MEADOWS TRAILER PARK 0 15 6 6 O'NEILL WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 OWENS WATER SYSTEM 0 5 2 2 22 Capital Facilities Domestic Water Table DW-3 (cont'd) Group B Water S stems , PACIFIC GAS TRANSMISSION STATION 6 0 0 0 1 PAFFILE TRUCK LINES 0 3 I 1 PATCIIEN WA'T'ER WORKS 2 5 2 2 PATRICK WATER SYSTEM 0 6 2 2 PAULE'TTO WATER SYSTEM 2 8 2 2 PAYNE,JASON WTR.SYS. 2 4 2 2 PERRY WATER SYSTEM - 2 5 2 2 PETUNIA P.WATER WORKS 3 8 3 3 PIERSON,JOHN F.WATER SYSTEM 0 5 2 2 PINE ACRES PITCH&PUTT 0 0 0 1 PINE BLUFF WATER SYSTEM 3 4 2 2 PINE CONE WAFER FACILITY 2 10 2 2 PINE GROVE APTS. 0 15 6 6 PINE ROCK RANCIIErrEs ADDITION 12 . 20 9 9 PLACE USDA.'FIFE 0 5 2 3 PLATZ WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 PLAZA GRANGE SUPPLY 0 5 2 2 PLEASANT HILLS ESTATES HOMEOWNERS 9 6 2 2 PLEASANT HILLS SYS'T'EM 9 21 5 5 POMRANKY WATER SYSTEM 2 7 2 2 POWELL WATER SYSTEM 5 13 5 5 PRAIRIE PINES WATER SYSTEM 10 21 9 9 PURCELL'S WELL WATER SYSTEM 3 9 3 3 PURDY WATER SYSTEM 3 2 I 3 QUAD WATER SYSTEM 0 3 I I QUADRA-K MEATS—USDA 0 2 I 2 QUAIL RIDGE WATER DISTRICT 4 12 4 4 R WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 RAINE WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 RAI'I(WELL WATER SYSTEM 2 4 2 2 REED FAMILY WELL 2 4 2 2 REES'TRUCK&TRAILER REPAIR 0 5 2 2 REMTECII WATER SYSTEM 2 I I 2 RENDALL WATER SYSTEM 2 4 2 2 REYNOLDS WELL WA'T'ER SYSTEM 3 8 3 3 RIDGEVIEW PARK ESTATES 18 2 2 2 RIE II WATER SYS'T'EM 2 5 2 2 RIGHT ANGLE WAFER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 RIVER PARK ESTATES 14 20 14 14 ROBBINS,JON 2 5 2 2 ROBERTSON WATER SYS'T'EM 2 7 2 2 ROBERTSON,MONI E L.WTR.SYS. 2 4 2 2 ROGERS MOTEL 0 3 I I ROLLING HILLS RANCH 2 5 2 2 ROWAND MACHINERY CO 0 3 I I RUNYAN/LELAND WAFER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 RUSHWATER WA'T'ER SYSTEM 2 10 2 2 RUSSELL'S WELL WATER SYSTEM 3 8 2 2 S&K ESTATES 2 6 2 2 SAFFORD WATER SYSTEM 4 10 6 6 SAMEK'S WATER SYSTEM 6 8 3 3 SANDERS UTILITIES 2 6 2 2 SCHLEPP WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 SCIJNEIDER'S WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 SCIJREIBER.WM WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 SEI'ULVEDA WATER SYSTEM 2 7 2 2 SHAMROCK WELL 1 0 0 1 SHILL WATER SYSTEM 2 7 2 2 SHRUM,IIID WAFER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 SKYLINE ESTATES 3 14 3 3 SMART GARDENS WATER 3 1 I 3 smrm,BARBARA J.WTR.SYS. 2 5 2 2 23 Capital Facilities Domestic Water Table DW-3 (cont'd) Group B Water Systems SOUND TIRE 2 0 0 2 SOUTH PINES ESTATES WATER SYSTEM 14 22 8 8 SOWARDS,BROOKS 0 10 4 4 SPIRAL&RAILING HOUSE INC 0 0 0 1 SPO CO-SPANGLE CREEK DIST 2 I 0 0 1 SPO CO OLD MYER'S RESORT 0 8 3 4 SPOKANE BIBLE CHURCH I 0 0 SPOKANE CO FIRE DISI' 10 STA 2 I 0 0 SPOKANE CO FIRE DIST 10 STA 3 I 0 0 SPOKANE CO FIRE DIST 10 STA 4 1 0 0 SPOKANE CO FIRE DIST 10 STA 5 1 0 0 SPOKANE CO FIRE DIST 4 STA 42 1 0 0 SPOKANE CO FIRE DIST 4 STA 45 I 0 0 SPOKANE CO FIRE DIST 5 1 0 0 _ SPOKANE CO FIRE DIST 8 STATION 2 0 0 0 SPOKANE CO FIRE DIST 8 STATION 85 1 0 0 SPOKANE CO FIRE DIST 9 STA 4 I 0 0 SPOKANE HOME CENTER 0 0 0 SPOKANE RENDERING CO 0 3 I SPOKANE ROCK PRODUCES 1 0 0 SPRING HILL ESTATES 5 20 5 5 STALEY RESIDENTIAL WATER SYSTEM 4 3 2 2 STARKES WELL 2 5 2 2 STARR CENTER 3 0 0 3 STERLING MEADOWS WATER 5 8 4 4 STIX TAVERN 5 13 5 6 STOLL'S WELL 2 5 2 2 STORM'S WELL WATER SYSTEM 0 5 2 2 SULLIVAN WATER SYSTEM 0 5 2 2 SUNDOWN WATER SYSTEM 3 10 4 8 SUNSET APARTMENTS 0 13 5 5 SUNSET FLORIST&GREENHOUSE 0 5 2 2 SUNSET INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 2 SUNSET PARK&JET SYSTEM 111 2 3 1 2 SUNSET PARK&JET,SYSTEM#2 I 0 0 1 SUTTON BAY RESORT 0 10 2 3 SUTTON BAY RESORT SYSTEM 2 10 0 0 6 SWAIN'S WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 SWEET PEA WATER SYSTEM • 3 8 2 2 SWEETWATER 2 4 2 2 SYSTEMS TRANSPORT INC 0 0 0 I TCI WATER SYSTEM 9 9 5 10 TEEN CHALLENGE 0 15 6 6 TERRY'S WELL WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 THECREST#3 4 10 4 4 THOMPSON WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 TTT RENTALS 0 13 9 9 TURNBULL NWR HELM BUNKHOUSE I 0 0 1 TYLER STORE AND CAMPGROUND 0 2 2 14 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD-TRENTWOOD 1 0 0 1 UPPER COLUMBIA MISSION SOCIETY 2 5 2 2 VALLEYFORD PARK 0 0 0 I VALLEYFORD STORE 2 5 2 3 VALPEY'S WATERWORKS 2 4 2 2 VAN VEEN WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 VIEW ACRES WATER SYSTEM 3 5 2 2 VISTA FARM#1 0 0 0 1 VISTA FARM#4 0 3 I 2 VISTA FARMS II 0 10 4 5 WAGENMAN,PETE 2 3 I 2 WAITERS WATER SYSTEM 2 9 2 2 WALTERS WATER SYSTEM 3 8 3 3 24 Capital Facilities Domestic Watcr Table DW-3 (cont'd) Group B Water S_stems WANNA JAVA AND DELI 3 0 0 3 WATERS EDGE 0 5 2 2 WEBSTER WATER SYSTEM 2 2 2 2 WELLER WATER WORKS 4 10 4 4 WENDT WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 • WEST VALLEY WATER SYSTEM 4 10 4 4 WESTCO'S APPAREL SERVICE 1 5 2 3 • WESTERN SKY FAMILY RANCH I 0 0 1 WESTERN STRUCTURES INC. 0 0 0 2 WESTWAY CONSTRUCTION INC I 2 I 2 WESTWOOD ACRES 1/3 3 10 3 3 WESTWOOD ACRES WATER SYSTEM 4 8 3 3 WEST WOOD ACRES WELL 4 3 12 3 3 WEYRAUCH'S WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 WILKE WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 • WILLOW SPRINGS WATER USERS ASSN 16 22 8 14 WILSCOF FORM 2 5 2 2 WILSON-MILLER WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 • WINDSOR BAPTIST CHURCH 2 3 I 2 WINDSOR GRANGE 0 5 3 4 WINDY WATERS SYSFEM 2 7 2 2 WINGS WATER SYSTEM 1 0 0 1 WITIIERSPOON WATER SYSFEM 2 5 2 2 WFTTKOPF TRUCKING 3 5 2 3 WOOD TRUSS STEEL BUILDINGS 0 3 I I WOOD WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 WSDG-GAME FARM 0 23 9 9 WSDH-PINES ROAD MAINTENANCE 0 0 0 I WSDNR-DRAGOON CREEK PARK 0 0 0 I WSDP-MT SPOKANE STATE PARK SYS I 0 3 I 2 WSDP-NINE MILE COTTAGES 0 8 6 7 WSP-SPOKANE PORT OF ENTRY 64 1 0 0 I WYND WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 - YORK-WILEY SHARE WATER SYSTEM 2 6 2 2 ZAPRIR WATER SYSTEM 2 5 2 2 ZEIIM WAFER SYSTEM 2 _ 5 2 2 ZOLLMAN'S WELL 2 4 2 2 Source: Washington State Department of Health - Level of Service The State Department of Health (DOH) reviews water system plans to ensure that water district plans maintain the minimum Level of Service standards for water supply. The minimum standard for domestic water in Washington State is 800 gallons per connection per day. This standard is also the adopted regional minimum LOS for Spokane County. DOH uses this Level of Service to determine the number of approved connections for each system to serve the present population and future growth of individual water districts. The number of connections approved by the Department of Health is determined by the water purveyors available water source (well pumping capacity), storage facilities (reservoirs) and their plans for capital improvements. The Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials established the following minimum levels of service for domestic water. 25 Capital Facilities Domestic Water Domestic Water Supply 1. The existing level of service for Spokane County water purveyors is to store one- quarter maximum day demand, or 800 gallons per residential equivalent per day, which is the Department of Health minimum supply requirement for 100 connections or more. This is in addition to the requisite fire flow rate and duration requirements. This level of service is adequate for future planning purposes for minimums if minimal pressures and standards are maintained during peak demand and fire flow. 2. Emergency or reserve storage volumes should be determined by Department of Health standards. These standards state that: (a) if the supply to the area is singular(a single source), a standby storage volume of 800 gallons per housing unit is required; (b) if there are multiple supplies to the area, 800 gallons per housing unit are required, less the volume that could be provided through the other supply facilities over a period of one day with the largest supply facility out of service. (c) the minimum requirement is 200 gallons per housing unit. System Design 1. All water purveyors depend on developer extensions for the expansion of their systems. For new construction, water systems are designed to ensure that minimum flow requirements can be met principally through the adequate sizing of pipes and the systematic development of a grid. Pipe sizes shall be established to provide adequate service and fire flows during peak demands. The Department of Health requires a pipe size of no less than 6 inches unless it can be shown by hydraulic analysis that a smaller line is adequate. 2. Distribution pipelines must be designed to deliver sufficient water to meet peak customer demands (peak hourly demand). This period occurs over a range of a few minutes to several hours. The flow rate must be provided at no less than 30 psi (pounds per square inch) at all points in the distribution system (measured at any customer's water meter, or at the property line if no meter exists) except for fire flow conditions. Fire Flow 1. During Fire Flow conditions, the system shall be sized to provide 20 psi minimum pressure and positive pressure throughout the distribution system at peak hourly demand in combination with fire flow when it is required per WAC 246-290-230(5). Fire flow rate and duration requirements are specified by the local fire authority or Public Water System Coordination Act, whichever is more stringent. Water systems located in Spokane County are governed under the Public Water System Coordination Act. As a result, these minimum fire flow rates and duration shall apply for residential, commercial and industrial developments. Greater fire suppression requirements may be specified by the local fire authority, County Fire Marshall and/or locally adopted Coordinated Water System Plan. 26 Capital Facilities Domestic Water The magnitude of fire suppression storage is the product of fire flow rate and duration established by the local fire authority in both incorporated and unincorporated areas. The purpose of storage is to maintain a satisfactory level of service as demand varies with the time of day, to ensure continued service during time periods when the normal water supply is unavailable and to assure that adequate fire flow capacity is available. 2. Fire hydrants shall conform to the American Water Works association standard for Dry Barrel Fire Hydrants, AWWA C502, with hydrant spacing determined by the local fire authority. Generally speaking, in Spokane County the maximum distance between hydrants in residential areas and planned unit developments (PUDs) is 600 feet; however, this may be reduced to a spacing of 300 feet if the fire flow requirement exceeds the capability of the practical limits of the hydrant design delivery rate and fire apparatus pumping capability. In commercial, industrial, public facility, apartments, certain PUDs and high life-hazard district areas, the maximum distance between hydrants is 300 feet. Water System Population and Demand Forecasts Table DW-4 shows population forecasts for Group A Community Water Systems serving the Urban Growth Area (UGA). These systems are expected to receive nearly 80% of the unincorporated County's population growth over the next 20 years. Small systems within the UGA that do not have a significant amount of available vacant land for future growth are not included in this analysis. The forecast population for each district is estimated by applying the County's land capacity analysis to the Service Area of each water district. The land capacity analysis uses the County's Geographic Information System (GIS) to apply the Comprehensive Plan's residential densities to vacant and partially used land. Preliminary and final plat lots are then added to determine the number of potential new dwelling units for each district (see Chapter 3, Population and Land Capacity, Draft Plan 2000). The number of dwelling units is then multiplied by 2.5 to determine future population. Each new dwelling unit is assumed to represent one new water service connection. The 2000 population figure for each district was derived from various sources, including information in water system plans, the Department of Health and direct consultation with water purveyors. A figure of 2.5 persons per household is used as a countywide average to determine residential water service connections. Residential water connections are used as the measurement of existing and projected water system capacity requirements. The adequacy of the systems considered in this plan is judged primarily on the number of current connections for each system, the number of projected connections authorized for the system by the Department of Health, and the number of connections that will be required based on the 6- and 20-year projections for potential new dwelling units. The Department of Health approves water systems for an unspecified number of connections. Therefore, the number of projected connections in water system plans are considered to 27 Capital Facilities Domestic Water be the "approved" number of connections. Table DW-5 shows a deficit number of connections needed to support growth for many of the water systems. There are a few apparent reasons why some of the systems show large deficits. First, the number of connections projected in approved water system plans do not represent the current projections for population growth. This is because water system plans that have been approved by the Department of Health to date were developed with growth assumptions based on existing land use patterns, current zoning and current Comprehensive Plan land use designations and densities. The GMA Comprehensive Plan includes higher densities and will focus growth in the urban area of the County, resulting in higher projected overall population growth in the urban areas. In the future, water system plans will be updated consistent with the policies and land use designations,of the Comprehensive Plan. Another point is that the number of new dwelling units in Table DW-4 is not divided into single-family and multifamily units. This is important because multifamily units are often served by a single, water service connection. In other words, one single-family residential connection serves one single-family dwelling unit while a single multifamily service connection will serve many dwelling units. Therefore, the required number of connections will be overestimated for water districts with a significant amount of land designated for medium and high density residential uses. 28 Capital Facilities Domestic Water Table DW-4 Potential New Dwelling Units '. 2. Potential New Dwelling Units(DU)- ' ' , .Water District Inside` Outside . Population'' Total D.U: _ . -. , ; ;, ,-,:, . , ;� , UGA - UGA ... '. • (Dtl x 2.5) ' Carnhope Irrigation District#7 196 0 196 490 Consolidated Irrigation District#19 3,460 819 4,279 10,698 East Spokane Water District# 1 66 181 247 618 Hutchinson Irrigation District#1 45 0 45 113 Irvin Water District#6 813 0 813 2,033 Liberty Lake Sewer District 2,011 272 2,283 5,708 Model Irrigation District# 18 258 0 258 645 Modem Electric Water Company 1,728 0 1,728 4,320 Orchard Avenue Irrigation District#6 45 4 49 123 Pasadena Park Irrigation District#17 1,058 43 1,101 2,753 Spokane County Water District#3 System#1 475 9 484 1,210 System#2 588 368 956 2,390 System#3A 80 0 80 200 System#3B 959 90 1049 2,623 Trentwood Irrigation District No. 3 504 80 584 1,460 Vera Irrigation District#15 2,376 958 3,334 8,335 Whitworth Water District#2 1,934 1,489 3,423 8,558 Total 16,854 4,477 21,331 53,328 29 Capital Facilities Domestic Water !' ' \O vl c0 ten o M wer vl V V O 'n .. r 1eVPO 0 acO - h r' M kn O 7 Q; N N — o 0 T U C ,- O 0 E m y � £ u p E o T in -.::r O �• O o0 00 - C o d' M - Q\ oo R u CO Oma.'d Co co C 0 N M )O - Z M 0 00 r vel — C " a C In O0 N .--. .--. M N r 0 - M CO - W 0 C C v) R O.O N c a U o v c o d'=2'`... c V N h PO M — O) — O 00 n M 7 Cr C 4VN r M r N N M 7 C 0 N N CO 141r 7e N o 0 00 00 00 00 01 14) M O M r 7 N N - '^ ti�CN 0 .- MN 00 N — N -- 00 v U'' o `u ao E • . CCL 010 -- M 7 M M r M -- -- M 00 c, 00 .U Z N 0 a, 00 00 i0 )C M n O) O O N lO O M S C N PO O )0 O vl CO M C• h M ON ten v) - N vi C • — r V N V U VC 0 N M '0 00 vl 00 in 'O .j O N N N N N Lo C N = C t > O 7 _ O, 2 0 \ l0 N — O O) — O+ n o O CN MNO� O '- aQ � NN - o c O 7 O N rl sn v y. - D o c C . O E q '- C T `I E 13 9 N �.0 ti a) o i... O O O. u 0 0 0 N O o o 00 OMC . O r o0 moo 0 0 00 0 - 0' O O 0 y 0 C o o vl N c Z M — to 1 V in w o C u Cve4 v5 0 ._ Nr- _ 'CN A 5c .EmaC N AC. Vun u Cw q U � E v a Q sO a c cl '" 0 Mt C .a C v C . 0 — 1:F. o O` O) 0\ 7 00 V) — O) O )O 00 r V — M 6 C 0 7 o M M ON 01 vl M 0 CC PO 00 Cl N Cl N 00 E C C. ✓1 cr d p v) N 0 r N r1 M - 00 N T �0 r 01 r rr: w O co• al C.N r — .- N N r -- -- O1 — W r 3 u y •• • 00 I. co T O 0 li Z 3 v v 'O r r co V - r N M - v) V' r ,O N r =, >O n C t° Cl. t Cr, V00 V M CO r kr) O) 'O CO 0 inN CO p O M ‘c) N O) — 00 O) C) — N Ov O O M V .0 = cn U EN a — 0) — M Vl vi r N M 4 N 4 N 0' 0`-O C E t c O O O ca C TS o CC M 0 — v) CC r o cc 00 0 oc — 0 3 t o C O'a O co ' kr- M N o r o r \: V V' o 0, v -- p (NS a v) .-- r — i l0 O — — O 0c 00 u 1a p C _ 'C V — N 7 v) l0 N M V N V GC b _ T C N .a N '0 - ' o O -0 0can c rV t C .0 m ,_ 0 PC x 0 - 7 ' Cl # r U ,n ii o 1.0 .. O 00 a 'F - G- U M _ d v ,d, af. - ` n .0 N ` # o t C 0 �' ",.. ut # o v N co ":.Eti, U c o c O c) u t 6 c a cu E, , g W y .2 v Q 3 .to"E to 3 .0 , 5 3 t v �- N U in b E .' cGUE EC o - a E c >. 00- 3 'E � s .. 0 . , c cc cyto � '` co• .E 'a = CI U ro U m U ro c t o 3 o a r,k. A s -o - < U/p ,. LL ia) roE o v) sr 7 ai .a c -. v uZ ia al •. E c- J u c o -oo •o i s c x cc -.0U r o m ° uZaivcZ � 722Ovt [- > 3z . . . Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Tables DW-6 through DW-18 show the capital facilities financing plans for some of the water systems highlighted earlier in this section of the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The table lists the proposed capital projects for each water system by year as well as the costs and revenue sources. Water user fees are the primary sources of revenue for the water districts' operations. They are used for capital projects through debt service and can be used for capital outlays. The districts have the authority and the ability to execute Utility Local Improvement District (ULID's) and pursue bonding of projects. Other sources of funding are water service connection fees, property assessments, revenue bonds, developer improvements, mitigation fees, impact fees, grants and loans. Capital Projectsand Financing Plan (All Amounts'Are'Times $1 000) CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT#19 (I) (2) i (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Construct Storage/Booster Station Cost: 100.0 Source of Funds: District Grand Total: }I I I I 100.0 31 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water b x TABLE DW 7 ,. Capital Projects and'`Financing'Plan 7, 'CA II Amounts Are Times $1,000) ' CARNHOPEIRRIGATION (1).. j (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) - - (8). ._ (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL 1. Water main in Dearborn Street from Sprague to l"Ave. Cost: 20.0 20.0 Source of Funds: District 20.0 20.0 2. Water main in Carnahan Street from 8'h Ave. to 96 Ave. Cost: 25.0 25.0 Source of Funds: Grants 25.0 25.0 3. Water main in 8'h Ave. from Carnahan Street to west Cost: F 51.01 I r_ _ I 51.0 Source of Funds: Grants 1 _ j 51.) -_I -1-----T----1- i 51.0 ------------- -------------- - 4 Water main in Chronicle St. from Sprague to Is'Ave. Cost: ! j 30.01 J l 30.0 --- ----- ------- ---- - -- Source of Funds District i 1 _ 30.0 _ _ I _ j___ j ___30.0 5. Rebuild 50 hp pump in well #1 Cost: ..- - - 1 j IOOA ( _ _j I _100.0 Source of Funds: District, Grants __ I _ ___- - 100.0 +`_ 1 100.0 - 6. Water main in Custer Street from 711 Ave.to 8'h Ave __-_ _____- ----- - --- -- CostT I _i 1 26.0 F j__ _ 26.0 _Source of Funds District. Grants 1_ I j j 26.0 I - 1 1_- 26.0 7. Replace 4"main in Chronicle from I s'to 2"d, and First Ave from Chronicle to east 300 ft. __ Cost I - f 26.0 1 1 26.0 Source of Funds: District 1 i j 1 __ 26.0 1 26.0 - --- --- ---1 -- I I I I -_ j 8. Replace 4"main in Granite Drive Cost: _ I I I 1 j 1- - j 35.0 _ 35.0 Source of Funds: District j _ 1 j 35.0 35.0 -_ - 1 I ( i Grand Total: I j 96.0 j 30.0 j 100.0 I 26.0 I 26.0 I 35.0 I 313.0 32 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water TABLE DW-8 Capital Projects and Financing Plan (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) • ' `_ EAST SPOKANE WATER DISTRICT: , - , • (I) I (2) (3) I (4) I (5) (6) ( (7) I TOTAL f (9) COST/REVENUE I 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 I. 12"Main for South Valley Arterial Cost: j 390.8 Source of Funds: District I 2. Middle Reservoir No.l/Pump Station/Transmission Main Cost: I 554.2 Source of Funds: District 3. Beverly Hills Improvements Cost: I 1 570.8 Source of Funds: District 1 i Grand Total: I I I I I I I I 1,515.8 TABLE DW-9 . Capital Projects and Financing Plan (All Amounts Are Times$1,000) . Hutchinson Irrigation District#16. .." ' (I) i (2) (3) (4) (5) I (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 1 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I 1. Upsize existing 6" main in Argonne Rd from Main Ave. to Mission Ave. Cost: -1 200.0 200.0 Source of Funds: District 1 200.0 200.0 I 2. Replace existing 6"main in Ella Road south of Harrington Ave. Cost: 8.0 8.0 Source of Funds: Districts 8.0 8.0 3. Upsize water mains in areas of proposed sewer projects. Cost: 100.0 100.0 Source of Funds: District 100.0 , 100.0 4. Replace Electrical Panels in Pumphouse Cost:: _ j 50.01 I 50.0 Source of Funds: District I 50.0 I 50.0 5. Replacing Service Meters _ Cost: __ __ - - 4.0 -_ 4.0 7 4.0 1 4.0 4.0 20.0 Source of Funds: District -I- 4.0 4.0 i 4: f_ 4.0 4.0 20.0_ 6. Overall Fire Hydrant Cost _ _ T I _ _6.0 6.07 6.0 6.0 6.0 26.0 F Source of Funds District C 6.0 6.0 j 6.0 I 6.0 6.0 26.0 - -r I -- -- Grand Total: I 1 200.0 1 18.0 I 110.0 I 60.0 i 10.0 1 10.0 I 408.0 33 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water , . :TABLE DW 10, x Capital.Projects.and Financing Plan ` } (All Amounts Are Tfrrtes $1;000) IRVIN WATER DISTRICT,#6 . , (1) .., (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) i (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 j 2005 2006 TOTAL 1. Well No. 5 Rehabilitation Phase 2 Cost: l 378.0 Source of Funds: District 1 2. Portable Emergency Set and Automatic Transfer Switch for Well No. 5 Cost: i 60.0 Source of Funds: District 3. Legal and Land acquisition for New Reservoir Cost: 78.0 Source of Funds: District 4. Reservoir Site Preparation Cost: 1,254.0 Source of Funds: District 5. Upgrade Pipe Connections, Extend Reservoir Drainage Pipe Cost: — — — 197.4 Source of Funds: District ! ----- --1--- -- 6. Text Existing Flow Meters and Install New Flow Meters Cost: j 19.4 Source of Funds: District ` 7. Improvements for Well No. 3 Cost: { ! 47.4 Source of Funds: District �jl{ 8. Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Reservoir No. I Cost: I 135.0 Source of Funds: District � I 9. Upgrade Pipes Cost: j j 45.0 Source of Funds: District 10. Leak Detection Survey and Subsequent Repairs Cost: i 52.0 Source of Funds: District I I. Improvements for Well No.4 Cost: ' 12.8 Source of Funds: District � I Grand Total: I I I ! 2,279.0 34 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water TABLE DW 11 • Capital Projects and Financing Plan. (All Amounts'Are Tithes$1,000)- . ' ''LIBERTY LAKE SEWER ANDWATER DISTIRCT , (I) (2) I (3) l (4) I (5) (6) I (7) I (8) I (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Eduewood/Tum Tum Line Replacements Cost: 105.0 105.0 Source of Funds: District 105.0 105.0 2. 2 Million Gallon Reservoir Recoating Cost: 190.0 I 190.0 Source of Funds: PWTF, District 190.0 190.0 3. Inlet/Molter Loop Cost: 65.5 65.5 Source of Funds: District 65.5 65.5 4. Wright Court Line Replacements-Phase I Cost: 131.5 ( 131.5 Source of Funds: District 131.5 131.5 5. Wright Court Line Replacements- Phase II Cost: 78.0_ I^ 78.0 Source of Funds: District 78.0 78.0 I - 6. Fire Hydrants/LL Height Cost: 26.0 I 26.0 Source of Funds: District 26.0 26.0 7. Sprague/Molter Main Connection Cost: 16.5 16.5 Source of Funds: District 16.5 16.5 8. Liberty Drive Main Replacement Cost: 264.0 I 264.0 Source of Funds: PWTF 264.0 264.0 9. Rehabilitate Valley Way We!! Cost: 120.0 120.0 Source of Funds: District 120.0 120.0 10. East Shore Service Development Cost: 1,042.0 j 1,042.0 Source of Funds: Developer/County 1,042.0 1,042.0 Grand Total: I 295.0 1 197.0 I 120.5 I 264.0 I 120.0 1 1,042.0 1 i 2,038.5 35 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water -IC., ' TABL 'DW 12 ): 'r '� r :'; 'Capital Pro ects and Ftnancin Plan•-•t ` a; P J 9 _, .(All Amounts Are`Times$1;,000) �, N Ci MODEL IRRIGATION DISTRICT#18 ' a ' ?- ' .. . (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) I (7) I (8) I (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 j 2005 I 2006 TOTAL 1. Pump upgrades in Well No.4,No. 5 and No. 6 Cost: 170.0 ( 170.0 Source of Funds: District 170.0 170.0 2. 10"Main upgrade Bowdish Road: 26th Ave. 32nd Ave. Cost: 75.0 25.0 40.0 60.0 1 200.0 Source of Funds: District 75.0 25.0 40.0 60.0 200.0 3. Pump Control Valve for Pump No. 4 Cost: 10.4 I 10.4 Source of Funds: District 10.4 i 10.4 f 4. Drainline for Reservoir No. 2 Cost: 30.0 I 30.0 Source of Funds: District 30.0 30.0 l _80 _5. Remodel and upgrade District at S. 1506 Pierce Rd. Cost: 80.0 I I 1� .0 Source of Funds: District 80.0 ' 80.0 _ 6. Painting 250,000 gallon Reservoir No. I Cost: ___ -_ 82.0 -� _82.0 Sourceof Funds: District 82.0 82.0 7. Standby Generator Cost: 46.0 I 46.0 Source of Funds: District 46.0 46.0 8. Overall Fire Hydrant Upgrading Cost: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 j 20.0 Source of Funds: District 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 9. Replacing Service meters ' Cost: 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 72.5 Source of Funds: District 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 72.5 10. New Reservoir Cost: 500.0 i500.0 Source of Funds: District I 500.0 1 500.0 Grand Total: I 245.0 I 163.9 I 146.5 I 58.5 I 78.5 I 518.5 I 1 1,210.9 36 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water Capital Projects and Financing Plan • (All Amounts Are Times"$1,000) Modern Electric Water Company (I) ( (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) • (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Replacement of 4"and 6"water mains Cost: 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 20.0 Source of Funds: District 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 20.0 Grand Total: 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 1500.0 TABLE DW-14 Capital Projects and Financing Plan '-`. - Y (All Amounts Are Times$1_;000) > • ORCHARD AVENUE IRRIGATION DISTRICt#6 (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL 1. Leak Detection Survey and Subsequent Repairs Cost: j 20.8 Source of Funds: District 2. 10" Main on Marietta from Vista to Bessie for interie with Millwood Cost: _ 49.2 Source of Funds: District 3. Water System Plan Update Cost: 42.3 Source of Funds: District � Grand Total: t I I I ( I 112.3 37 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water ' "' 'TABLE OW-15...r, ;r z .. Capital Projects and Financing Plan ,, a <(All`Amounts Are Times'$1;00)) ;;.. ', ',,,,ti. _,., ' PASA.DENA PARK IRRIGATION;DISTRICT#17 ,..e 3". ., ° 1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ( (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 I 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Booster Station 2-3 Kart_er Cost: 40.0 1 40.0 Source of Funds: District 40.0 1 40.0 i 2. Booster Station 2-3 New Cost: 20.0 I 20.0 Source of Funds: District 20.0 20.0 3. Booster Station 3-4 Cost: 10.0 -'s10.0 Source of Funds: District 10.0 10.0 I 4. Reservoir No. 5 Cost: 100.0 __I I -, 100.0_ Source of Funds: District 100.0 j 1 I I 100.0 5. Well No. 7 _ Cost: 250.0 I _250.0_ Source of Funds: District 250.0 _ 1 f 250.0 6. Well No. 7 Transmission Cost: 80.0 80.0 Source of Funds: District 80.0 180.0 I 7. Reservoir#2B Cost: 117.0 117.0 Source of Funds: District 117.0 i 117.0 8. Main at Garland, Herald to Raymond Cost: 26.0 j 26.0 Source of Funds: District 26.0 � 26.0 9. Rehabilitate Well No.4 Cost: 35.0 j 35.0 Source of Funds: District 35.0 i 35.0 10. Rehabilitate Well No. 3 Cost: 30.0 i 30.0 Source of Funds: District 30.0 i 30.0 Grand Total: I 170.0 I 538.0 1 i I I i I 708.0 38 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water ._ TABLE DW-16 Capital Projects and Financing Plan • ' (All Amounts.Are Times $1,000) `- •-SPOKANE'COUNTY�WATER DISTRICT NO.3' (1) n� (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) .. COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Reservoir Property(Relocate storage reservoir) Cost: 50.0 50.0 Source of Funds: District 50.0 50.0 2. 20" Main on Thorpe Cost: 12.0 12.0 Source of Funds: District 12.0 12.0 3. 24" Main Reservoir-Madison Cost: 60.0 60.0 Source of Funds: District 60.0 60.0 4. 16" Main Park Rd. Couplet Cost: 65.0 65.0 Cost of Funds: District 65.0 I 65.0 I � 5. 6"Main-Fancher Cost: 37.5 37.5 Source of Funds: District 37.5 ` 37.5 6. 16"Main-Dollar Rd. Cost: 10.0 10.0 Source of Funds: District 10.0 10.0 7. South Ponderosa Water Mains Cost: 27.5 27.5 Source of Funds: District 27.5 27.5 8. 12"Main-Johnson Rd. Cost: 9.0 9.0 Source of Funds: District 9.0 9.0 9. Freeway Crossings Cost: 25.0 25.0 Source of Funds: District 25.0 25.0 10. 12" Main-Lily(Broadway to Freeway) Cost: 15.0 15.0 Source of Funds: District 15.0 15.0 11. 16" Main-32nd to 40th Avenue Cost: 170.0 170.0 Source of Funds: District 170.0 170.0 12. Reservoir-Madison(Add Storage Capacity) _ Cost: 400.0 50.0 L 450.0_ Source of Funds: District 400.0 , 50.0 1 450.0 39 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water II 18" Main- Madison Cost: 90.0 90.0 Source of Funds: District 90.0 90.0 I 14. 12" Main-Mohawk Cost: 46.0 46.0 Source of Funds: District i 46.0 46.0 15. 6" Main-Mission Cost: 43.0 43.0 Source of Funds: District _ 43.0 43.0 _16. Skyview Water Mains Cost: �� ? 215.0 I 215.0 Source of Funds: District j 215.0 I 215.0 l 17. Chronicle Water Mains Cost: I 74.5 ``i 74.5 Source of Funds: 74.5 f 74.5 1 1 18. Well Site(#2) Wellhead Contingency Cost: 50.0 50.0 ' Source of Funds: District 50.0 j 50.0 19. Reservoir-Mead _ _ __ Cost: I 450.0 I 450.0 Source of Funds: District 1 I 450.0 I 1 450.0 20. Carnahan Water Mains _ Cost: 152.5 1i 152.5 Source of Funds: District 152.5 ___3, _______ 1 - - 21. Inland Water Mains Cost: W -, 64.5 __i 64.5 Source of Funds: District 64.5 I 64.5 1 22. Sherwood Forest Water Mains Cost: 99.5 99.5 Source of Funds: 99.5 99.5 1 1 23. Park Road Water Mains Cost: 182.5 I 182.5 Source of Funds: District 182.5 j 182.5 f I l 24. Reservoir-Park Cost: _ 250.0 250.0 500.0 Source of Funds: District 250.0 250.0 500.0 I I Grand Total: I 881.0 I 444.0 I 124.5 I 450.0 I 316.5 I 432.5 I 250.0 I 2,898.5 40 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water .TABLE DW=17,, :Capital Projects and•Financing Plan --.'\'''' '' " -"'. t,' :'' w (All Amounts Are Times.$1',000) ' ' ;" , _.TRENTWOOD IRRIGATION;DISTRICT#3;. ,, -, , i*: (1) I (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE ; 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. 8 inch main/Best Road Cost: 151.4 151.4 Source of Funds: District 151.4 151.4 2. Interior Reservoir Painting Cost: 70.8 70.8 Source of Funds: District 70.8 70.8 3. Update Water System Plan . Cost: 10.0 10.0 Source of Funds: District 10.0 10.0 Grand Total: I I 151.4 I 70.8 I I I I 10.0 I 231.9 ' Capital Projects and Financing Plan (All Amounts Are-Times $1,000) •- - WHITWORTH WATER DISTRICT#20 . (I) 1 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. 12-Inch Main-Elk/Chattaroy/Jim Hill Road Cost: 158.0 158.0 Source of Funds: Rev. Bonds 158.0 158.0 2. Rivilla Test Hole Cost: 1 20.0 20.0 Source of Funds: Rev. Bonds 20.0 20.0 3. Little Spokane Drive North, Phase I Cost: I 115.0 115.0 Source of Funds: Water Revenue 115.0 115.0 4. Little Spokane Drive North, Phase II Cost: 173.0 173.0 Source of Funds: Water Revenue 1 173.0 173.0 1 5. Upgrade SCADA System Cost: 1 110.0 110.0 Source of Funds: Water Revenue I 110.0 110.0 1 6. Replace Well 8 Cost: 40.0I 40.0 Source of Funds: Water Revenue I 40.01 I I 40.0 41 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water 7. Camelot Booster Upgrade Cost: 25.0 25.0 Source of Funds: Water Revenue 25.0 1 25.0 8. Replace Well I Cost: 310.0 I 310.0 Source of Funds: Water Revenue 310.0 I 310.0 I 9. Well Chlorination Cost: 65.0 65.0 Source of Funds: PWTF 65.0 65.0 10. 3.0 MG Reservoir-Hatch/Midway Cost: 2,200.0 1 2,200.0 Source of Funds: Rev. Bonds 2,200.0 2,200.0 11. Mayfair Well and Pump Station _ Cost: 375.0 375.0 Source of Funds: Water Revenue 375.0 375.0 C 12. Main Extension to Panorama Acres --.- Cost: 1,300.0 1 1,300.0 Source of Funds: PWTF,Tap Fees 1,300.0 1 1,300.0 I ! 13. Main Extension, Buckeye Estates Cost: 300.0 300.0 Source of Funds: Tap Fees 300.0 300.0 14. Loop 8-Inch Main, Thor and Market Cost: 45.045.0 Source of Funds: Tap Fees 45.0 I 45.0 15. Replace Main on Waikiki I Cost: 120.0 - _ 120.0 Source of Funds: Tap Fees 120.0 - 120.0 16. 12-Inch Main, SR-2 Elm to Hawthorne Cost: 60.0 60.0 Source of Funds: Rev. Bonds 60.0 60.0 17. System 8-9 Test Hole Cost: 20.0 1 20.0 Source of Funds: Rev. Bonds 20.0 20.0 1 18. Well 8C and Pump Station _ Cost: 1 _ 401.0 i 401.0 Source of Funds: PWTF ( 1 401.0 1 401.0 42 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water 19. 24-Inch Main/New Wells RC and RD to SA Cost: 1,000.0 1,000.0 Source of Funds: Rev. Bonds 1,000.0 1,000.0 20. 20-Inch Main-Highway 395-Phase I Cost: _ I 1,290.0 1,290.0 Source of Funds: Rev. Bonds 1,290.0 1,290.0 21. 20-Inch Main-Highway 395-Phase II Cost: 1,325.0 1,325.0 Source of Funds: Rev. Bonds 1,325.0 1,325.0 22. 1.5 MG Reservoir-Newport Hwy. Cost: I 2,235.0 2,235.0 Source of Funds: Rev. Bonds I 2,235.0 2,235.0 Grand Total: I 616.0 14,740.0 ( 80.0 I 0.0 I 1,401.0 12,615.0 I 2,235.0 I 4,493.5 43 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water 44 Capital Facilities Plan Domestic Water FIRE PROTECTION Background Spokane County has seven municipal fire departments and eleven fire districts that provide service to approximately 95% of the County. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) provides fire protection for grass and timber only in the remaining 5% of the County. The City of Spokane and Spokane Valley Fire District No. I are staffed entirely with full-time employees. Eight of the eleven districts use a combination of paid and volunteer staff Fire district boundaries and the location of their stations are shown on the Fire Protection Map following page 46. Fire District Inventory City fire departments and fire protection districts are assigned a numerical fire protection rating by the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau. Insurance companies fund the Bureau to perform on-site inspections of fire districts to determine the rating. The Bureau analyzes five main areas: average response time, water supply, communication network, schedule of fire inspections and fire station evaluations, which focus on age of vehicles, amount of personnel training and staffing of facilities. Insurance companies use the fire protection rating to help determine insurance rates on all fire insurance policies. The rating is on a scale of I to 10, with I representing the best score. Quality of fire service can have a significant impact on fire insurance rates. Table FP-1 shows Insurance Ratings, staffing, number of stations and number of Class A pumper trucks for each fire district serving Spokane County. Information on municipal fire departments can be found in the individual city or town's Comprehensive Plan. Table FP-1. Fire District Inventory • Paid Insurance Class A ' . District Service Area Volunteers, .Stations • Staff Rating Pumper Trucks I Valley 134 0 4 7 9 2 Fairfield I 64 9 3 1 3 SW County 5 105 8,9 10 4 4 North County 15 180 8 8 . 10 5 NW County 2 17 9 1 2 8 South Valley 30 40 5 4 4 9 North Spokane 41 125 4 8 10 10 West Plains 5 50 6 5 5 11 Rockford 0 35 9 I 2 12 Latah/Waverly 0 25 8 2 3 13 Hauser Lake 5 36 8 2 2 Source: Telephone survey and Washington Surveying and Rating Bureau March I, 1999. • 45 Capital Facilities Plan Fire Protection All fire departments and districts within Spokane County provide emergency medical service (EMS), as well as fire suppression. Most of them also provide some degree of fire investigation, inspections and public education. All fire and emergency medical services are dispatched from a central location through the 911 exchange. The central dispatch tracks over 60 fire stations and 200 hundred pieces of fire equipment and allocates resources from one station to another to ensure that maximum fire and EMS service is available at all times. Table FP-2 details the number of fire, emergency • medical service and other calls for 1993 through 1998 for Spokane County fire districts. Information on municipal fire departments can be found in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Table FP-2 Fire, Emergency Medical Service and Other Calls Per Year District" Service Area ,- 1998,' 1997 1996 1995 1994 `; 1993 Valley 7000 calls per year on average 2 Fairfield 85 calls per year on average 3 SW County 1003 752 671 671 625 458 4 North County 838 980 875 5 NW County Not Available 8 South Valley 708 709 716 679 677 489 9 North Spokane 1851 1768 1773 1994 1798 1676 10 West Plains 692 798 395 281* 226* 98* II Rockford 85 72 79 72 65 65 12 Latah/Waverly Not Available 13 Hauser Lake 28 12 25 20 15 2 *Docs not include any EMS Calls-no EMS services. Source: Spokane County Staff Inventory,November 1998 All the fire departments and fire districts have signed agreements with each other and the DNR to receive additional help on large or multiple incidents. They also jointly develop County fire codes, disaster planning and training programs. Level of Service The Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials adopted the following minimum level of service standards for fire protection, fire code enforcement and emergency medical services. Fire Protection 1. Urban areas, for those jurisdictions in excess of 5,000 population, shall be served by a fire department/fire district with a (Washington Survey and Rating Bureau or Insurance Services Office) Fire Protection Class Rate of 6 or better. The Fire Protection Class rate of 6 or better, for purposes of the Spokane County Growth Management Minimum Levels of Service, shall be based on the ISO Grading Schedule for municipal fire protection, 1974 edition, by using the fire department, fire service communication, and fire safety control portions of the grading schedule. The total deficiency points identified in these portions of the ISO or Washington Survey and Rating Bureau schedule shall not exceed 1830 points. 46 Capital Facilities Plan Fire Protection I \ r�J - - I - - i i I I I ATI(NV ': --- Fire Protection ..,e District#4 ST• ION#49 LEGEND --, 1 u ^lI I- 111 -.UGA Boundary • Fire Station ''� j Y ^� Class-A ET ; m1Illitilirlik1111lh• (�' '�lL1i ale 4 .ire f- �� r. N 2.5 road miles Fire District and Station (I Itis'• y� ;' /✓ from station. data maintained by Spokane _' ; .1► • t' County Boundary Review , v ' Board. _ n-. • STAT, -�---:°,,,.;;S,00.'1,41.11 1 ► �n IF� 3411114...1.111.11r—ralL7Fraill1111 Mill Fuc D1 :: t i 4, 11.14111millObL, , Y 1_I 1 _ r. \ alepr "EE �i� `lair - - ...., �, wr 7� Q.� , ( L STA u r k;14.t1=/1r✓- I Ili Me - —� :_zij\',,- iv- A r• 1 7 aE� 11 ..4.,.VAMM _ `, lwlao*en . r l��i1 f,� S i I _� i�i_�t,._ /, L /ilk r�� IEJILyLAI , : mi:idIii • /{111- YAM I X4.1. � n. ,ta . t— • _ • Ih1►_ .•�:��`a1 a i11��1. STATION#94 1 �n STATION#3 ,, ' I��1ll�l��, _ tea ` .—.7�- '11 _ Irr•alai".' an ��u 1 r-- i 1 . il 1-1---7 MIJ/ 1 t _••�,�I .. ii{ununii�i`.. .Gill ' 11 �' - t '��it 1131 0" 1, - d ,- �� _ _ li' 1 _ n1 tai.11"F� 1 \ STATION#13 1 h1 :'lk TIP" MR- - tU III `_ 1 ��-cr1 ,IIS pli: I STATION#4 1.1111111 ' � _ �� . f •�rtnnun: = nil I•NrIrfii.p �'�� o 7ini.,...Algir - .....MMIgiril: Illa i111. kil JOIPTi - - 411"... 41-igg i_r ,,�,yS 111!•n t■ j 1iJlt r!`�, e s ct _ _ :N i� �iy. r=r:�1��t .uragri ice. r � w:�= iir'ss.:'�il � i _ flyiiii a ns Y, baa: ,• _I ! .�w j��!lfi�. �_.� ■ r' g"`-ili:.i16!'�1177:41_11111171114 I■1�—�� . 1::::”. ole �Gi�!sem _.rr11••- rc,= .a■.roc- Irt n ]I I'�f � "''moi:: r "yti.�..r�1t��(•�i.c..ih.r.e�ii� �t�■ey�� !. �3r �t!j ,...- �• �. _,,. Illlx. I,' .iu ■: i+ �/i� j L• '11�yy« ,;A.UYt•T �f �l= -!7 - Yr : ILO j.. - ux - -1 rur i ice�1-� - -,.--- -I.�.�.— _- - i. •-- ---'•'' r:a, not , _a....T ,' _= -a �r.r.:� ... 4�- `3_ 1L'aY121,1=1F '_�l _ ,� p r : ;L ' u -- 5TATION#4 Il� 'N. . A ATfOI ill ,_. . ij _ I = �__ � • yrs_ Ila,k^�'yl�-•IEN' i�l� �]_;,F:�,',lid A.F B. SPOKANE INTI :1'p' e �t .•� r I • y_ _�♦�a1� STATIQNA7L ;,„'_ ram ,• ill '�7 ` ISfA A85..IrIlk TATION#1 _1 _I.�r ,11 [ u� y i- ��rY7 ��Arw_- ,pwr lON#2 r ��11 \'I'-� •fir Vic, I - ••ie j v: t Ja_A_____ - i'„ f _' 1 .. . i Fi �r�I I 1 _ . ___ illill _ 1 - —. :1 el All . : . ,__ .....ir ___..___ . Ill mi \ , c - !15 - ' i,411.r:."_., ..., lig' ----V • II STA eN#'4 i II r "'AL.' n1. V Fi : Distr ct #$ ...—'1.... FirSDis ict#11 Thi,map was published by the Spokane County h inion of Planning as a general Production:October02,2001 planning tool,Due to the differing quality of source documents.the Division cannot /plan4lcfp/fireprowrb.aml Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan accept responsibility forcnon or omissions,and therefore,there are no warranties which accompany this material. 2. All jurisdictions, regardless of size, shall ensure that urban areas have adequate fire flow and hydrant distribution in accordance with the edition of the Uniform Fire Code adopted by the jurisdiction. 3. Urban areas shall be within 5 road miles from an operating fire station that provides service with a "class A" rated pumper. Fire Code Enforcement 1. Jurisdictions with urban areas shall, at a minimum, provide for the enforcement of the Uniform Fire Code and conduct inspections. Emergency Medical Services 1. Urban areas shall be served by a state certified basic life support (BLS) agency. 2. Urban areas should be served by: (a) an operating basic life (BLS) unit within 5 road miles; and (b) an operating advanced life saving (ALS) unit within 6 miles or 10 minutes response time for those jurisdictions with urban areas in excess of 5,000 population; and (c) BLS and ALS transport service. Level of Service Analysis All areas within Spokane County's Urban Growth Area meet the minimum Level of Service Standards for Fire Protection. • • • • 47 Capital Facilities Plan Fire Protection Capital Projects and Financing The following tables show the capital projects and financing plan for the fire districts serving the Urban Growth Area. Fire Districts No. 9 and 10 have not provided the County with a Capital Improvement Program. District 10, which serves the a portion of the West Plains, informed the County that they do not want to invest in any capital improvements until the City of Spokane's annexation plans are further developed. • ;TABLE FP.,1,. `> Capital Projects and Financing Plan t.'..;:,::::.;:_k `. (All Amounts Are.Times $1,000) FIRE DISTRICT NO ,1°.,;, :' '• (1) I _(22...?.I ()) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) . - (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 I 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Greenacres Fire Station Cost: 300.0 1,000.0 1,300.0 Rev: Reg. Levy i 300.0 1,000.0 1,300.0 Total I I 300.0 I 1,000.0 I I I I I 1,300.0 TABLE FP-4 Capital Projects and Financing Plan , (All Amountts'Are Times'$1,000), - FIRE DISTRICT NO. 3 (I) I (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Fire Station No. 39(Cheney Plaza and Nealy Rd.) Cost: I 100.0 100.0 Rev: Fire Tax Levy 100.0 100.0 2. Fire Station No. 34(Marshall) Cost: I 100.0 I 100.0 Rev: Fire Tax Levy 100.0 I 100.0 1 . 3. Fire Station No. 35 (Four Lakes) Cost: j I 100.0 Rev: Fire Tax Levy 100.0 100.0 4. Fire Station 310(Williams Lake) Cost: 1 I 100.0 Rev: Fire Tax Levy I I 100.0 100.0 Total . I ( 100.0 I I 200.0 I I I 100.0 I 400.0 48 Capital Facilities Plan Fire Protection `TABLE FP-5. Capital Projects and Financing Plan , (All Amounts Are Times$1,000);., FIRE DISTRICT NO: 4 , (I) (2) 1 (3) � (4) I (5) (6) � (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Fire Station No.46(Deer Park/Milan Road) Cost: 2,000.0 2,000.0 Rev: G.O. Bond 2,000.0 2,000.0 2. Fire Station No.49(Monroe Rd. and Hwy. 395) Cost: 2,000.0 2,000.0 Rev: G.O. Bond 2,000.0 2,000.0 Total I I 4,000.0 I I I I 4,000.0 .: :.TABLE{FP 6 v Capital Projects and Financing`Plan (All Amounts Are:Times$1,000), ` +•` ^ . FIRE DISTRICT NO. 8, , ,. ., ;: ... (1) (2),, (3) I (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) I (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 i 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Fire Station No. 81 (Glenrose) Cost: 200.0 1,625.0 1,825.0 Rev: G.O. Bond 200.0 1,625.0 I 1,825.0 2. Fire Station No. 86(Palouse Highway) Cost: 90.0 220.0 310.0 Rev: G.O. Bond 90.0 220.0 310.0 3. Fire Station No. 83 (Mica) Cost: 40.0 220.0 260.0 Rev: G.O. Bond 40.0 220.0 260.0 4. Training Burn Building Cost: 62.5 62.5 125.0 Rev: G.O. Bond 62.5 62.5 125.0 Total I 200.01 1,715.01 260.0 I 282.51 62.51 I 2,520.0 Note: The projects are contingent on voters approving a$4,000,000 General Obligation Bond that is on the ballot in September 2000. 49 Capital Facilities Plan Fire Protection 50 Capital Facilities Plan Fire Protection LAW ENFORCEMENT Background Law enforcement services are provided to Spokane County by the Washington State Patrol, Spokane County Sheriff and municipal police departments. Cities that have municipal police departments include Spokane, Airway Heights, Medical Lake and Cheney. Pursuant to contractual relationships, the Spokane County Sheriff's Department provides law enforcement services to all unincorporated areas of the County and to Deer Park (full-time), Millwood (214 hrs/mo.), Fairfield (34 hrs/mo.), Rockford (34 hrs/mo.), Spangle (20 hrs/mo.), and Latah (15 hrs/mo.). Spokane County correction facilities serve the population of the entire County, including cities and towns. The Sheriff is responsible for the County Jail, located on the County campus. The jail is attached to the Public Safety Building, which houses both the County Sheriff's Department and the City of Spokane's Police Department. Geiger Correction Center, which reports to the Board of County Commissioners, is a low/minimum security detention facility located in the Spokane Airport Business Park. The Spokane County Juvenile Detention Facility is located adjacent to the County Courthouse and reports to the Spokane County Superior Court. Current Facilities Inventory The current inventory of law enforcement facilities includes Sheriff administration and operations offices (Public Safety Building), County Jail, Courts, Police Property Warehouse, Juvenile Detention Building, the Sheriff's Garage, and Geiger Corrections Facility. Table LE-1 lists the facilities, along with their current capacity and location. Table LE-1. Current Facilities Inventory—Law Enforcement Facility i Location Size Administrative/Warehouse Public Safety Building W. 1 100 Mallon 204,149 sq ft Sheriff's Garage W. 1107 Gardner 7,000 sq ft Juvenile Court Services W. 1208 Mallon 70,300 sq ft Police Property Warehouse W. 1307 Gardner 22,830 sq ft Dept. of Emergency Services W. 1 121 W. Gardner 21,000 sq ft Valley Sheriff Substation E. 12710 Sprague 22,000 sq ft Corrections County Jail W. 1100 Mallon 520 beds Geiger Corrections Facilities I Airport Business Park 580 beds Juvenile Detention Facility W. 1208 Mallon 73 beds Courts District Court Public Safety Building 8 courtrooms District Court Courthouse Annex j 3 courtrooms District Court Broadway Center Building 2 courtrooms Superior Courts Public Safety Building 11 courtrooms Juvenile Courts Juvenile Court Services Building 3 courtrooms 5I Capital Facilities Plan Law Enforcement S.C.O.P.E.Stations West Valley 9411 E.Trent j N/A University 10621 E. 15ib N/A Fairwood 302 W. Hastings(Mead High School) N/A Edgecliff 522 S.Thierman Road N/A Trentwood 2400 N. Wilber Apt. 84 N/A Liberty Lake 23213 East Inlet Dr. j N/A Mead P.O. Box 40 N/A Newman Lake 240511 East Trent N/A Rockford 298 North Cliff N/A Spring Hill Grange 6716 N. Brooks Road, Reardan N/A Espanola 23607 Manila Road, Medical Lake N/A Eastern Washington University 526 51h Street, MS 156,Cheney N/A Fairfield 101 W. Hamilton, Fairfield N/A Central Valley 115 North Evergreen N/A Deer Park j 316 E. Crawford, Deer Park N/A East 2601 N. Barker Road, Otis Orchards j N/A I i Level of Service Community resources, needs and values determine the level and variety of law enforcement services and facilities available from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Generally, the higher the density and intensity of land use, the greater the demand for law enforcement services that are more complex. Much of the recent population growth has occurred in unincorporated parts of Spokane County. Consequently, the County Sheriffs Department has experienced a significant increase in demand for services. The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) for Spokane County include a requirement that "regional minimum level of service standards for urban governmental services within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) be specified." The list of urban governmental services includes police protection. However, because of the diversity of current law enforcement services, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials recommended that the CWPP be amended to delete police protection from the regional minimum level of service standards. The Countywide Planning Policies were amended to state "each jurisdiction shall specify in its Comprehensive Plan a level of police protection that addresses the safety of its citizens." Commissioned Officers The traditional measure of levels of law enforcement services is the ratio of officers to population served, which is a personnel and noncapital item. Using the number of sworn officers as a measure of staffing is also becoming somewhat outdated, as civilians are being increasingly used to deliver services such as community policing efforts (SCOPE) and other community related activities. The Sheriffs Department employs 207 commissioned Deputy Sheriffs and 240 support staff to serve 1758 square miles of the County. The Level of Service for police is the number of commissioned officers per 1000 County residents. The population of the unincorporated County plus the population of the cities and towns served by the Sheriff total 208,365 people, per the 52 Capital Facilities Plan Law Enforcement Washington State Office of Financial Management. This equates to a Level of Service of 1.01 officers per 1000 people. Table LE-2 shows the existing Level of Service for County police protection and projects that 264 officers will be required to maintain the existing Level of Service by 2015 and 284 officers by 2020. (The population projections for2006, 2015 and 2020 are based upon allocations assigned by the Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials and include the projected populations of the six cities served by the Sheriffs Department.) The cost to fully train and equip one officer is approximately$100,000, according to the Sheriffs Department. If the County is to maintain the current Level of Service, 25 new officers must be added by the year 2006, costing $2.5 million. In 20 years, 77 new officers must be added to the department at a cost of$7.7 million, not counting inflation. Table LE-2 Spokane County Sheriff Level of Service Populations Additional Total `„ Cost, 'Year • LOS** Officers Required:` Commisstone‘ ($100,000 per,. Served , to Meet LOS' .: Officers " ` , ,` ' Offices) °. 2000 208,365 1.01 0 207 - 2006 230,152 1.01 25 232 $2,500,000 2015 261,816 1.01 57 264 $5,700,000 2020 281,236 1.01 77 284 $7,700,000 * Includes unincorporated Spokane County and contract cities' populations. ** LOS= number of commissioned officers per 1000 population County Jail and Geiger Corrections Center The Jail and Geiger partner to manage the County's confined offender population. The Jail primarily houses inmates having higher security classifications. Geiger houses inmates with lower classifications. The number of confined offenders is expected to increase over the term of this plan and these facilities will coordinate measures for the efficient management of inmates. The current level of service for the Spokane County Jail is 1.65 beds per 1000 people (Table LE- 3). The level of service is derived by dividing the existing number of Jail beds (683) into the current countywide population (415,500). The current level of service for the Geiger Corrections Center is 1.399 beds per 1000 population (Table LE-4). Geiger has 580 existing beds. The combined level of service for these facilities is 3.04 beds per 1000 people. To maintain this LOS would require an additional 137 beds to be added to the inventory through the year 2006 (Table LE-5). Projections through the year 2010 suggest the need for 225 additional beds by the end of this decade. A proposed new construction project for a 250 bed, medium security facility will allow the County to maintain current LOS through 2006 and beyond. Developing other alternatives to incarceration will allow the County to meet confined offender needs to the end of the decade. 53 Capital Facilities Plan Law Enforcement - TABLE LE-3 ' Current Level of Service Analysis LAW ENFORCEMENT:SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL - Current LOS= 1.65 Beds per 1,000 Population (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Countywide Beds Required @ Current Net Time Period Population per Capita Beds Reserve/ Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 414,500 683 683 0 2001-2006: Growth 45,429 75 0 -75 Total as of 2006 459,929 758 683 -75 TABLE LE'4 - Current Level of Service Analysis LAW ENFORCEMENT: GEIGER CORRECTIONS FACILITY Current LOS= 1.399 Beds per 1,000 Population (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) Beds Required @ Current Net Time Period Countywide .001399 Beds Reserve/ Population per Capita Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 414,500 580 580 0 2001-2006: Growth 45,429 64 0 -64 Total as of 2006 459,929 644 580 -64. Table LE-5 . Current Level of Service Analysis LAW ENFORCEMENT: GEIGER-CORRECTIONS:FACILITY and SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL , Current LOS=3.04 beds per 1,000 Population (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) Beds Required @ Current Net Time Period Countywide 0.00304 Beds Reserve/ Population per Capita Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 414,500 1,263 1,263 0 2001-2006: Growth 45,429 138 0 -138 Total as of 2006 459,929 1,401 1,263 -138 Capacity Projects I i 1 I. Jail Expansion—(2004-2006) Ii 250 112J 54 Capital Facilities Plan Law Enforcement Juvenile Detention Table LE-6 shows that the current Level of Service for the County's Juvenile Detention Facility is .176 beds per 1000 population. Maintaining this Level of service requires 27 additional beds to be added to the inventory through 2006. The proposed LOS (.16 beds per 1000 people) presented in Table LE-7 requires no additional beds to be built in the next 6 years. TABLE LE-6 Current Level of Service Analysis LAW ENFORCEMENT: JUVENILE DETENTION Current LOS=.176 Beds per 1,000 Population (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) Countywide Beds Required a Current Net Time Period Population 0.000176 Beds Reserve/ per Capita Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 414,500 73 73 0 2001-2006: Growth 45,429 8 0 -8 Total as of 2006 459,929 . 81 73 -8 TABLE LE-7 Proposed Level of Service Analysis • LAW ENFORCEMENT: JUVENILE DETENTION' Proposed LOS=.1587 Beds per 1,000 Population (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Countywide Beds Required C Current Net Time Period Population 0.0001587 Beds Reserve/ per Capita Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 414,500 66 73 7 2001-2006: Growth 45,429 7 0 -7 Total as of 2006 459,929 73 73 0 Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Table LE-8 shows the only capital project current planned for the years 2000-2006 for law enforcement facilities. The project is an addition to the County Jail, estimated to cost $21.5 million dollars, adding 540 new beds to the facility. A voter-approved General Obligation Bond will pay for the project. If the vote fails, the project will be removed when the Capital Facilities Plan is updated. Table LE-9 is a summary of the Law Enforcement Capital Cost and Financing Plan. 55 Capital Facilities Plan Law Enforcement TABLE LE-8: Capital Projects and Financing Plan (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) ' LAW ENFORCEMENT: COUNTY JAIL/GEIGER CORRECTIONS FACILITY '' (I) (2) 1 (3) 1 (4) I (5) (6) 1 (7) l (8 ) I (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 ; 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1 TOTAL 1. Jail Facility _ Cost I 1,000.0 8,000.0 6,000.015,000.0 Rev—G.O. Bond1,000.0 8,000.0 6,000.0 15,000.0 Total Costs I I I 11,000.0 18,000.0 16,000.0 I 1 15,000.0 s ,TABLE.LE-gr: ' Capital Project and Financing Plan . ' (NI Amounts Are times$1,000) . - SUMMARY OF COSTS/REVENUES—COUNTY JAIL 0) (2) ] (3) , (4) (5)---(6)-- (Z) (8) t (9)-- COST/REVENUE 2000 ( 2001 2002 2003 { 2004 2005 2006 j TOTAL Total Costs I 1,000.0 8,000.0 6,000.0 j 15,000.0 REVENUES: Voted G.O. Bond I i 1,000.0 8,000.0 6,000.0 15,000.0 Total Revenues 1 c I 1,000.0 8,000.0 1 6,000.0 I 15,000.0 Balance I 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 • 56 Capital Facilities Plan Law Enforcement PARKS AND RECREATION Background Spokane County has a wide range of recreational opportunities available to outdoor enthusiasts. Spokane County, towns and cities, school districts, Washington State and the Federal government are all providers of park and recreation areas and facilities. Residents and visitors to Spokane County enjoy activities such as golf, softball, soccer, fishing, swimming, hiking, biking, skating, snow machining, skiing and traditional playgrounds. County owned and operated park and recreation are separated into 4 categories: Community Parks, Regional Parks, Conservation Lands and Special Use Facilities. Descriptions for each category are described as follows. Community Parks General Description A community park's focus is on meeting the recreational needs of several neighborhoods or large sections of the community, as well as often preserving unique landscapes and open spaces. Community parks in Spokane County can be areas of diverse environmental quality and/or they may include areas suited for intense recreation facilities such as athletic sports fields, sport courts, formal children's play equipment, and swimming pools. These may also be an area of natural quality for outdoor recreation, such as walking, viewing, sitting, and picnicking. In ideal situations, community parks should be developed with both active and passive recreation activities. Location Criteria The service area of a community park should serve two or more neighborhoods. Although its service area should be one to three miles in radius, the type and quality of the natural resource feature(s) of the park should play a significant role in site selection. Community parks should be served by an arterial or collector street and be easily accessible. While community parks should be strategically sited throughout the county, other types of parks can impact their locations. Examples of this are school parks, conservation areas, and regional parks. These may provide some of the same recreational services provided by community parks. Size Criteria Industry standards suggest that community parks optimal size is between 20 to 50 acres depending on the amount of vacant land available and the amount of land needed to accommodate the desired uses. Community parks within Spokane County, however, because of their original rural setting and the large service area that implies, incorporate the size criteria recommended for neighborhood parks. 57 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation Site Selection Guidelines Site selection guidelines for future community parks include the site's natural character with emphasis on sites that preserve unique landscapes and natural resources, and/or provide recreational services not otherwise available in the area. Other physical factors to consider are ease of access, geographically centered, relationship to other parks and recreational demand within the area. Existing and future demographic profiles and population density data should also be considered. Regional Parks General Description A Regional Park is a recreational area that serves the entire county population, and therefore, may not be evenly dispersed throughout the county. Regional parks are areas with natural and/or man-made qualities for outdoor recreation, such as picnicking, boating or fishing access, swimming, camping, environmental education and trail uses. Play areas may also be included. It will typically serve several communities within 1 hour driving time, although nearness to population centers is desired. If possible, regional parks should be contiguous to or encompass natural resource areas. These parks are typically located in areas with outstanding natural features, which may define the boundaries of the regional park. In areas where a regional park is located within an urban growth area, the park can serve a dual purpose as both a regional and a community park. Location Criteria For Spokane County, regional parks have generally been located where unique environmental features exist and the land for acquisition has been available. These parks are intended to meet a wide range of activities and interests with emphasis on the features that make it unique. Regional parks tend to attract large volumes of people and traffic and therefore should access via an arterial street or highway. If possible, buffer areas; natural open space and/or habitat areas should be used to separate active use areas from the surrounding housing. This may not always be feasible as often the natural resource itself determines park location. Size Criteria There are no specific Industry Standards for optimal size of a regional park. Although, the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA), does suggest that a park system include 15 to 20 acres of regionally significant "adjunct" park facilities. The size of a regional park is most often determined by the environmental sensitivity of the natural feature or the planned development of the park. Site Selection Guidelines Site selection guidelines for future regional parks include the site's natural character with emphasis on sites that preserve unique landscapes and natural resources, environmental factors, the availability of adequate land area and the site's ability to accommodate the planned uses. Other physical factors to consider are ease of access, geographic location to other regional parks, and those sites that provide recreational opportunities not otherwise available in the community. 58 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation Conservation Lands General Description There are several names commonly used around the state for the lands placed within this type of conservation category. These lands have been referred to as "urban wildlife habitat", "natural resource areas", and "recreational open space" to name a few. Spokane County utilizes the Conservation Futures Lands" term to identify undeveloped land primarily left in its natural condition and used for passive recreational purposes, to create separate and secluded areas, or as buffers between urban uses. These are lands set aside for preservation of significant natural resources, remnant landscapes, open space, and visual aesthetics or buffering. Typical conservation lands includes wetlands, steep slopes/hillsides, river corridors, view points or corridors. Location/Size Criteria and Site Selection Guidelines Public access and use of conservation lands should be encouraged but the level will depend upon the resource values and the site's ability to withstand public use. Improvements are generally kept to a minimum with emphasis placed on the natural environment of the site. These areas are designed and managed to maintain a sense of solitude and separation from the nearby activities. Criteria for conservation land assessment includes those features important to the protection of wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, or endangered, threatened or rare species or plant communities. These have been identified in the Habitat Conservation Element of this Plan. The criteria can also be used to screen-out lands that have excessive management problems which would complicate acquisition, or safety and liability concerns. Site consideration should include: • Topographic and ecological diversity • Ability to connect to other protected areas • Potential for solitude and scenic views • Large enough to provide recreation and conservation value • Consist of relatively natural (or restorable) condition • Unique natural features • Reasonably accessible • Currently or potentially threatened • Wildlife or riparian corridors Special Use Facilities This park category includes a broad range of special use recreational opportunities oriented toward single-purpose use. Special use areas can be miscellaneous public areas or large expanses of land occupied by a specialized facility such as a golf course. Other uses that fall into this park category include shoreline access points, single-purpose sites used for field sports, ORV parks, or sites occupied by recreation buildings such as a senior / youth center or a community center or a western dance facility. Policies and criteria for the location, size and site selection guidelines for special use facilities are variable-dependent on the type of special use anticipated. Before the addition of any special 59 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation use area is considered, the county should prepare a detailed cost / benefit analysis and maintenance impact study for each site being considered. Current Inventory In gathering data for the County's inventory, a variety of sources were used to determine the acreage assigned to each park and open space. These sources varied in reliability and availability. Generally, all sources available for each park or open space were compared to help develop confidence in the information. In order to evaluate each property with some consistency the following criteria in its order of priority was used to determine acreage: 1. Title Deed with exact acreage provided in the legal description. 2. Appraisal reports when available with survey information 3. Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis 4. Comparison of previous park plan inventories with Title Deeds with estimated acreage and assessor's records. Federal, State and Cities & Towns parks and open space data is based on information provided by the corresponding agencies that manage those lands. Tables PR-1 through PR-6 detail the inventory of Spokane County's Community Parks, Regional Parks, Conservation Land and Special Use Facilities. See the Parks map following page 64 for locations of all County Parks and Recreation facilities. 60 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation Table PR-1 Community Parks in the UGA Park Name Location' Undeveloped Developed Total Acres Balfour Balfour and Main 0.00 2.80 2.80 Brentwood/Northwood Regina and Florence 1.50 3.50 5.00 Browns Pines and 32nd 0.00 8.20 8.20 Camelot Guinevere and Percival 1.80 7.90 9.70 Castle University and 33rd 0.00 2.70 2.70 Edgecliff Park and 6th 0.00 4.80 4.80 Gleneden Little Spokane River Drive 0.00 5.00 5.00 Holmberg Holland and Wall 0.00 7A0 7.40 Linwood Warn Way and Country Holmes Blvd 0.00 5.90 5.90 Mirabeau' 17.30 0.00 17.30 Morgan Acres Regal and Wilding 0.00 2.30 2.30 Orchard Ave Park and Bridgeport 0.00 3.80 3.80 Park Road Park 906 N. Park Road 0.00 2.00 2.00 Pavilion Country Vista and Molter 0.00 13.10 13.10 Pine River Little Spokane River Dr. and Greenleaf 10.50 4.00 14.50 Shields Upriver Drive at City Dam 12.00 1.00 13.00 Sullivan Sullivan Drive at Spokane River 5.30 5.00 10.30 Terrace View 24th and Blake 0.00 9.10 9.10 Valley Mission E. 11407 Mission 0.00 20.00 20.00 Valley Mission South E. 11407 Mission 7.20 0.00 7.20 Totals 55.6 108.50 164.10 'Mirabeau Park serves dually as a Community Park and a Regional Park within the Urban Growth Area. Table PR-2 Community Parks in Rural Park Name Location Undeveloped Developed Total Acres Camp Caro South of Sprague at Sargent 0.00 5.70 7.20 Valleyford Palouse Highway 20.00 2.00 22.00 Sontag Charles and Nine Mile Road 56.30 7.00 63.30 Totals 76.30 14.70 92.50 Table PR-3 Regional Parks Park Name Undeveloped Developed Water Total Acres Bear Lake 124.50 6.50 35.00 166.00 Fishlake 6.00 6.00 45.30 57.30 Liberty Lake 2747.6 10.00 0.00 2757.6 Mirabeau' 14.30 3.00 0.00 17.30 Plantes Ferry 2.70 88.00 0.00 90.70 Totals 2895.1 113.5 80.3 3088.9 'Mirabeau Park serves dually as a Community Park and a Regional Park within the Urban Growth Area. 61 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation Table PR-4 Conservation Land Table PR-5 Special Use Facilities Park Name 'e f .r5? a. Acres. ' Facility , > > , `Acres <aa Dishman Hills Natural Area 226.50* Airway Heights ORV 183.0 Edburge-Bass Conservation 640.00 Hangman Valley Golf 172.53 Feryn Ranch Conservation 82.15 Liberty Lake Golf* 123.66 Half/Power Property 64.90 Liberty Lake ORV 327.3 Higgin Conservation 10.00 Meadowood Golf* 146.80 Holmberg Conservation* 48.40 Opportunity Township* 0.18 Iller Creek Conservation 796.00 Valley Senior Center* 2.00 Liberty Lake Cedar Grove Cons 87.00 Total 955.47 Liberty Lake Conservation 455.00 *Located within the Urban Growth Arca Little Spokane Natural 811.00 McLellan Conservation 410.00 Morrow 40.00 Myrtle Point* 31.00 Newman Lake future development 48.87 Rim Rock 8.00 Slavin Ranch Conservation 628.00 Totals 4386.82 *Located within the Urban Growth Arca 62 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation Table PR-6 provides a complete inventory of all park, recreation, open space opportunities available to the public in Spokane County. Spokane County's residents and visitors have over 66,000 acres of public land available for recreation. Table PR-6 Total Park, Recreation and Open Space Opportunities Federal Acres Other Acres Bureau of Land Management 1,528 Dishman Hills 220 Turnbull 2,200 Iller Creek (DHNAA) 170 Subtotal 3,728 Subtotal 390.0 State Acres Cities and Towns Acres Dept. of Natural Resources 24,477 Spokane 3,970 Mt Spokane 13,854 Airway Heights 12.2 Riverside 9,062 Cheney 36.14 Fisk Property 663 Deer Park 686 Columbia Plateau Trail . 572 Fairfield' 8.1 Spokane Plains Heritage 1 Latah 1.8 Subtotal 48,629 Medical Lake 58 Millwood 6 County Acres Rockford 13 Community UGA' 164.1 Spangle 0.2 Community Rural 92.5 Waverly 0.65 Regional' 3,088.9 Subtotal 4,792.1 Conservation UGA 79.4 Grand Total 66,280.1 Conservation Rural 4,307.4 Special Use UGA 272.64 Trails Centennial Trail 37 linear Special Use Rural 682.83 miles2 Subtotal 8,670.47 Columbia Plateau Trail Fish Lake to Lincoln County Includes 17.3 acres Mirabeau park serving dually as a Community Park within the UGA. 2 Spokane County maintains 13 miles of the Centennial Trail. 63 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation Level of Service The Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County requires all jurisdictions to adopt a Level of Service (LOS) standard for parks. The County has the flexibility and freedom to establish an LOS standard for parks that reflects the expressed need and desire of the community. The County also has the obligation to ensure that the operation and maintenance needs of existing parks are met. The proposed Level of Service that the County will use to measure the adequacy of parks is 1.4 acres of Community Parks per 1000 population in the Urban Growth Area. Acreage that is currently owned, regardless of its state of development, is counted as "capacity" for the purpose of calculating the Level of Service for Community parks. Level of Service by Subarea Tables PR-7 and PR-8 provide an analysis of park needs by sub-area (see Subarea map following page 66. Table PR-7 shows current and future population for all subareas and includes park acreages for all categories of park and recreation areas. Table PR-8 uses the population forecasts to determine Community Park needs by subarea. The analysis shows that the Southwest Valley Urban subarea will need 36.5 additional Community Park acres to meet the proposed Level of Service of 1.4 acres per 1000 population by the year 2006. The Southeast Valley Urban subarea will need 27.3 aces to meet the proposed Level of Service. 64 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation Pend Oreille County Ocala Lake Park and Recreation Facilities F,4 Z �6 LEGEND "� y4 *4 11111111 Community Park .'"• UGA Boundary s•S v MI Regional Park /\/ Centennial Trail p�°,, 'L4 �rRaaBacaa, r IIC I 1 Conservation Area /"/ Proposed Centennial Trail IMI ORV Park "/ Columbia Plateau Trail -Deer Fa& 11: MSSI or *- 2 a Golf Course /V/ Fish Lake Trail ii 111/11 state Park "/ Highway 1i 1 72. d I Federal Reserve State or Federal data -, I ._ . maintained by the State or Bear ,.� 1 I Incorporated Area Federal agency responsible. ' County parks data maintained by Spokane County Parks Dept, g 0 U tJ g‘m Diagram III iaa�yppi - MSSP 4 M ]01 Might lake Emw l= m 1 Hal , Bm„Fin C, ,,,m L sse-Bass Cam `Graudrn Pork - �-.� rPif kilo 1.44 ,• • CD lilt Hasulrx Woods _ Natal r! . 4? rape x,-. ---- 00Ye.camenatam Lake y 1 Lake RSP �. I. . 'G� ,i,. Ira Park 1�� N J ir H 1lit ., t Ncwnya Laketelae 11 ✓t L a ..,Pad[ A,lo, Asea Pa,k - • 1 `I. -- 1 I— l J -_ • Plane's Ferry -31 - . li•� II-- I - ..- �'��^ re. I , .m.-.- Ritity 0 :` ,,i :,I- .-.11/141.011...-- . : '''',4"iliwg,,,,,,. .-- _ 40:- . . 1 liw Weidr. ,. teak -t:i , _ Balfour Wnd Nal Im,aq Tote , r • cows, 6a1 °gloomily - Lake O O• I Cavy,Cyril Town iP}{� I _ 1!l'avfc O) -` :I I - et' P. ,eliT Dalmaa,Hilts Re. •-'-1J elk: F.l «I'dA.'.l i 1• _.• ■ri irilub _I • i ' l J Pn,k e r•--- I. : LT'm9I DakuClmy r /_I 1 .. 1 I. Rkrcan?vamm a® 0Morrow Pak • U I J -n•I -- --- j 1 O ,,•,..:0 -O West lsdelical Lake - a J MM..tate Bodin Lake _ jry . .I Lahr I like ` `Valley Pad Pah 9a. fRkil lake Pads t^ .#4.4„.. ,, . I 11 F Rnq•Cacek , 27' 'WR ,'12R - <5.4,, Rock c_ i ockford a� L _ J LLLJJJ— ,' :— virl S I:I gle m PSI /) Amid We'd R Rribee 01 ' 1 i • P Timbal '«L / , F ' eld J �oml Lake ►K2n ��9/ 1 / n Manc �,•,1I Jlake rrzI\ /• _w ly . e ell 1 dx A2 J \---C-)c;,.. .. tall oe,nvo very` - F�i \LI2 rine rte," Whitman County Whitman County This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general planning tool.Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and therefore,there are no warranties which accompany this material. Production:October 03,2001 /p %fp .aml Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan Table PR-7 Summary Table of Population and Park Acreage by Subarea and Type ..1999 .2006 . Community Regional Conservation =;Special Subarea Population Population ,Park Acres Park• 'Acres Land Acres• Use Acres Total ` North Metro Urban 1 15,051 16,507 18.3 0.0 _ 48.4 0.0 66.7 North Metro Urban 2 5,355 5,873 24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.2 North Metro Urban 3 3,374 3,700 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Mead 3,102 3,402 2.3 0.0 _ 0.0 0.0 2.3 North Subtotal 26,882 29,482 49.8 0.0 48.4 0.0 98.2 SE Valley Urban 28,194 31,864 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.3 NE Valley Urban 8,981 10,150 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 Liberty Lake 2,865 3,238 13.1 0.0 0.0 260.3 273.4 NW Valley Urban + Upriver/Yardley JPA 14,663 " 14,663 16.8 17.3 31.0 0.0 65.1 SW Valley Urban + Alcott/Moran JPA 48,891 54,269 39.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 41.7 Valley Subtotal 103,594 117,038 97.0 17.3 31.0 262.5 407.8 West Plain/Indian JPA 2,613 4,109 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Subtotal 2,613 4,359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grand Totals 133,089 `'150,629., ,. 146.8? _17.3 , 79.4 'y.':262.5,;;, 506.0 - Table PR-8 Summary of Future Community Park Needs by Sub-Area-2000 to 2006 Acres`required to . "' Acres required to meet 2_ Current 'I. Surplus/ , Surplus/I) Sub-area maintain current LOS p"roposed.LOS • Acreage Deficit ,eficit =.(1.23 acres/1000)- (1.4 acres/1009) North Metro Urban 1 18.3 20.4 -2.1 23.1 -4.8 North Metro Urban 2 24.2 7.2 17.0 8.2 16.0 North Metro Urban 3 5.0 4.6 0.4 5.2 -0.2 Mead 2.3 4.2 -1.9 4.8 -2.5 North Subtotal 49.8 36.4 13.4 41.3 8.5 SE Valley Urban 17.3 39.3 -22.0 44.6 -27.3 NE Valley Urban 10.3 12.5 -2.2 14.2 -3.9 Liberty Lake 13.1 4.0 9.1 4.5 8.6 NW Valley Urban' + Upriver/Yardley JPA 34.1 18.1 16.0 20.5 13.6 SW Valley Urban + AlcotUMoran JPA 39.5 66.9 -27.4 76.0 -36.5 Valley Subtotal 114.3 144.3 -30.0 163.9 -66.9 West Plain/Indian JPA 0.0 5.1 -5.1 5.8 -5.8 Other Subtotal 0.0 5.4 -5.4 6.1 -6.1 ' Grand Totals '164.12:., F''> 185.7 . _ -21.6 ",,:.1:-.44:- -210.9 - 46.8 'Includes 17.3-acre Mirabeau Park serving dually as a Community and Regional Park within the UGA 65 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation Countywide Level of Service Table PR-9 shows that there are 164 acres of Community Parks within the Urban Growth Area, translating to a Level of Service of 1.23 acres per 1000 people. Table PR-10 shows that if the County is to maintain the current Level of Service, 21.6 acres of community parkland must be acquired by the year 2006. Table PR-9-Spokane Count Parks Urban Level of Service for Community Parks Current UGA Population " „i; '.Total;ParkAcres. •'• -. r':Level`.ofService': 133,089 164.1 1.23 acres/1000 Table PR=10 '.Current Level of Service Analysis COMMUNITY PARKS-UGA Current LOS= 1.23 Acres per 1,000 Population (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Acres Required @ Current Net Time Period UGA .00123226 Acres Reserve/ Population per Capita _ Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 133,089 164.1 164.1 0 2001-2006: Growth 17,540 21.6 0 21.6 Total as of 2006 150,629 185.7 164.1 21.6 Proposed Level of Service The proposed Level of Service standard for Parks and Recreation is 1.4 acres of community parkland for every 1000 people within the Urban Growth Area. Table PR-11 shows that the County must add 46.8 acres of Community parkland to the inventory to achieve the proposed Level of Service by the year 2006. Capacity projects presented at the bottom of the table show that the County will have 76.2 surplus Community Park Acres by the year 2006. These projects are detailed in Table PR-13. ,Table.PR-11 - .Proposed Level of Service:Analysis _ t ..COMMUNITY.PARK$, Proposed LOS= 1.4 Acres per 1,000 Population (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Acres Required @ Current Net Time Period UGA 0.0014 Acres • Reserve/ Population per Capita Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 133,089 186.3 164.1 -22.2 2001-2006: Growth 17,540 24.6 0 -24.5 Total as of 2006 150,629 210.9 164.1 -46.8 Capacity Projects I. Mirabeau Property-(2001-2006) i 48 1.2 2. North Side Pool (2001-2003) 60 61.2 3. Future Parks Acquisitions and Development(2004-2005) 15 1 76.2 • 66 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation Pend Oreille County Subareas 13 LEGEND I West Valley Urban L I Northeast Rural I East Valley Urban I I West Rural ® NW Valley Urban I I Southwest Rural •. J NE Valley Urban I I Southeast Rural tort,. I North Metro Urban I I I Incorporated Area II I North Metro Urban 2 I North Metro Urban 3 I Mead Urban I Joint Planning Area I Northwest Rural �' Northwest Rural a o c )153 iu V) Northeast Runt[ �► 206 5395 0 I N Metro U . 3 f I zo6 , r . �' N Ipro U . , E Shaw yon JPA Seton M PA7r ad Urba • .1_ ITh East-Hi "` .JPA Ts0 West Rural Ri ..;,. rA Fat Frilly .JPA ]NIlillWCx , U. _ ;A Vizlley Urban NE Valley U v City of.pokane iii t. _ - Lake 7.3 _ > Lake Urban Ai Heig h�� t °A�A,�P 1111 SE Valley Urban ) 0 - - W S• Val Urban lir C/] : rchild A.F B. I 1 r�J . ___r--..j iit Thorpe Rd/West Plains JPA C. R. tR . 116 red cal 0 r o , c ;.l L A -9 0 /, e In 4 C -neys' so ( • 11 IIPA ockford CD Southeast Rural Southwest Rural S., gle ,_ 02) 111 di Fairfield I J .�/ \ 1r ". i wavterty de tre: all 4 I'''''. ,ii.r Whitman County Whitman County A This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general planning tool Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot accept responsibility for ermrs or omissions,and therefore,there are no warranties S1tz�rpootrtR which accompany this material. Washington Produced:October 04,2001 /plant/cfp/subareaaml Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan i • Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The following tables provide a detailed capital projects and financing plan for Parks and Recreation through the year 2006. Table PR-12 is the financing plan for the County's Conservation Futures program and shows 10 acquisitions totaling approximately$11 million through 2006. Table PR-13 is the financing plan for the County's Parks and Recreation facilities. The plan includes 24 parks and recreation projects costing over 38 million through 2006. This includes nearly$20 million in land and park equipment that will be donated to the County. The total cost also includes $1 million in new park acquisitions and development in the years 2004 and 2005 and will be financed through park impact fees. Table PR-14 provides a summary of project costs and revenues for the Conservation Futures acquisitions and the Parks and Recreation program. The Conservation Futures property tax expires in 2003, but can be re-authorized by the Board of County Commissioners without a public vote. • 67 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation ( TABLE PR-,12 Ca ttal Pro ects and Fipancin Plan , , t L ' Y �a: S r P 1 <. 9,. - ,. ." -(All Amounts_Are Times $1,000)' ' . <, ,', . •, ' "CONSERVATION.FUTURES` : -.<, ,-' (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) I (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Iller Natural Drainage Area(466 acres) Cost 650.0 650.0 Rev-Conservation Futures Tax 350.0 350.0 Rev-IAC Grant 300.0 ! 300.0 2. Slavin(628 Acres) Cost 1,200.0 1,200.0 Rev-Conservation Futures Tax 1,200.0 I 1,200.0 3. Liberty Lake Conservation Arca(455 Acres) Cost 530.0 L 530.0 Rev-Conservation Futures Tax 530.0 1 530.0 1 4. Van Horne-Edbere(705 Acres) Cost 1,400.0 I 1,400.0 Rev-Conservation Futures Tax 1,400.0 i1,400.0 i 5. Feryn(80 acres) Cost 287.0 1 I 287.0 Rev-Conservation Futures Tax 287.0 I 1 287.0 6. Black,Cowles, Dahm Cost 646.0 646.0_ Rev-Conservation Futures Tax 646.0 646.0 7. Haynes Cost 1,200.0 1,200.0 Rev-Conservation Futures Tax 1,200.0 1,200.0 - 8.Gusman(101 Acres) Cost -_ 214.0 I I 214.0 Rev-Conservation Futures"Fax 214.0 ' 214.0 _9. Department of Natural Resources(DNR) Property,Glenrose Natural Area(160 acres) __ Cos[ __._____.________- 1,000.0 t _ 1,000.0 Rev-Conservation Futures Tax • 1,000.0 f 1,000.0 --- � - 10. Future Acquisitions __._� Cost - i I _ 1,000.0 ,' 1,000.0 { 1,970.07 3,970.0_ Rev-Conservation Futures Tax 1 ]- 1 I 1,000.0 ( 1,000.0 1 1,970.0 i 3,970.0 Conservation Futures Total: I 4,067.0 I 1,846.0 I 214.0 I 1,000.0 1 1,000.0 1 1,000.0 1 1,970.0 I 11,097.0 68 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation / TABLE PR-13 . : Capital Projects and Financing Plan . (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) .. . . PARKS AND RECREATION (I) • (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL . Capacity Projects I. Mirabeau Property(Acquisition,planning and design-48Acres) Cost 590.0 100.0 100.0 17,800.0 18,590.0 Rev-General Fund 590.0 100.0 100.0 790.0 Rev-Donation 17,800.0 17,800.0 2. North Side Pool(Acquisition,Construction,and Develop Park-60 Acres) Cost 850.0 1,039.0 761.0 2,650.0 Rev-REET 500.0 1,039.0 761.0 2,300.0 Rev-General Fund 350.0 350.0 3. Future Parks(Acquisition and development 15 Acres) Cost 500.0 500.0 1,000.0 Rev-Park Impact Fees 500.0 500.0 1,000.0 Note: County anticipates acquiring and developing Community parkland in LOS deficient subareas. Non-Capacity Projects . 4. Gleneden Park 3ost *85.0 85.0 Rev-REET *85.0 1 85.0 5. Airway Heights Off-Road Vehicle Park(Road Building and Used Backhoe) Cost 251.0 380.0 631.0 Rev-IAC Grant 251.0 380.0 631.0 6. Sontag Park(Sports Fields Improvements,rebuild restrooms,picnic shelter,tennis courts and signs) Cost 189.0 189.0 Rev-IAC Grant 61.0 61.0 Rev-REET *61.0 61.0 Rev-Donation 67.0 67.0 7. Camelot Park(Sports Field Redevelopment) Cost 140.0 140.0 Rev-IAC Grant 70.070.0 1 Rev-REET *70.0 I 70.0 69 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation .. .- ;TABLE PR 13 (cont . x* 4 ' ', .°r u a , s Capital`Projects and Financd)ing Plan ` 4 a• 1 I.Amounts Are Times$1,000) t ' -(AI ,., ,.'` " :-::; PARKS AND RECREATION`: r ., . ;.. . t `. ,Y-41.- �-. -..,.. (1) _. •^ ,. I (2) 1 (3) (4) (5) 1 (6) 1 (7) I (8) y (9) COST/REVENUE -1-2-000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1 2005_1_2006 1 TOTAL 8. Centennial Trail Rebuild from Long Ave. to Flora Ave.(Reconstruction) Cost l 456.0 1 25.0 _- - 481.0 Rev-Car Rental Tax j 75.0 25.0 1 - -- _ 100.0 Rev-Donation ! 251.0 I i 251.0 Rev-General Fund 1 15.0 _ --- 15.0 Rev- REET I _1 15.0 ( 1 1 _I i-- I 115.0 9. Plante's Ferry Park(Phase II-Restrooms, Softball and Soccer Fields, Landscape, Parking and Utilities -- Cost I 325.0 I 722.0 1 240.02. 1,287.0 75.0 I 75.0 Rev-IAC Grant 1 4 275.0 I 1 1 275.0 Rev-General Fund v -------III-5-01--'1357.0 200.0 I ) 807.0 Rev-Donation 1 I 90.0 40.01 t } �_ , 130.0 10. Fish Lake Park(Water System) s-�_ _�_ Cost 200.0 I .�.1 � � 1 200.0 Rev REET - _:;;;;;L:I *120.0 L 1 i 1 1 120.0 Rev-Gen Fund - y_ 80.0 - _I 80.0 1 I. Balfour Park(Park development) Cost__ __ _ 1 I 70.0 1 I 1_ _ 1 1 70.0 -Rev-General Fund- _-___.___-__ -�i 76.01 I I j __ 1 70.0 12. Miscellaneous Park Improvements '{ Cost , �� 300.0 1 - 1 300.0 Rev-General Fund 300.0 I I I 1 300.0 13. Liberty Lake Water System Cost _ I _ ----i--65.0 F -j� I�� ! 65M Rev-REET -�� 65A 1 E 65.0 14. Valley Mission Park(Acquisition and Pool) Cost _1 I 1,000.0 800.0 I - i 1800.0_ Rev-REET _ I 780.0 , 720.0 I j. ' 1,500.0 Rev-GeneralFund -f 220.0 80.01 _ j I_ - 300.0 15. Playground Equipment for County Parks Cost 1 80.0 50.0 -- i_130.0 Rev-Donation i ,I 25.0 1 7 ( 25.0 Rev-General Fund- _ _ 80.0 25.0 11---- , 1 ! 105.0 70 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation / TABLE PR-13 (cont'd) • Capital Projects and Financing Plan (All Amounts Are Times$1,000) PARKS AND RECREATION. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL 16. Indoor Aquatics Center Cost 1,000.0 5,000.0 6,000.0 Rev-Voted G.O. Bond 1,000.0 5,000.0 6,000.0 17. Valley Senior Center(Mirabeau) Cost I,868.0 I,868.0 Rev-REET I,400.0 I,400.0 Rev-Donation 468.0 468.0 18. Plante's Ferry(Maintenance Shop and Reconstruction) Cost 500.0500.0 500.0 500.0 2,000.0 Rev-G.O. Bond 500.0 { 500.0 500.0 500.0 2,000.0 19. Valley Mission Park(Redevelopment) Cost 200.0 200.0 Rev-REET 200.0 200.0 70. CXT Rcstrooms-Harvard, Flora and Mission Road Trailheads Cost 70.0 70.0 70.0 210.0 Rev-General Fund 70.0 70.0 70.0 210.0 21.,Picnic Shelters- Edgecliff Cost 70.0 70.0 Rev-REET 40.0 40.0 Rev-General Fund 30.0 30.0 22. Fish Lake Expansion Parcel (12 acres) Cost 100.0 100.0 Rev-REET 100.0 100.0 71 • Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation v 7 `',-,,,',--‘2r: TABLE PR 13"(cont'd) ar ,� ' ' Capital-Projects-and Financing Plan " ' , a 9 . '� f v z ,_. ) :(All Amounts Are Times$1,000) t 1 := . ,, . PARKS AND RECREATION ', ' ,. <, ,, (I) __ I (2) I (3) 1 (4) 1 (5) I (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE I 2000 20017 2002 2003 I 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL - I 23. Skateboard Park Cost 1 150.01 150.0 Rcv-REET - ��_� ____4_______ 150.01 15o.o 24. Parking Lot-Raving-Sontag Park and Barker Road Trailhead Cost - 1 - 1 - 350.0 350.0 Rev-REET _ _.v�.._T__. i 150.0 150.0 Rev-General Fund I ----- I I 200.0 i 200.0 Parks and Recreation Total: I 2,036.0 1 3,347.0 I 4,542.0 I 1,531.0 ( 2,240.0 I 6,220.0 118,650.0 I 38,566.0 * Carry-over from 1999 ..,t TABLE PR.14r2. ., '' v Capital Projects and Financing,,Planr �'<(All Amounts AreTimes$1,000) x ; } v. u` '- SUMMARY OF,'COSTS/REVENUES-PARKS AND,RECREATION r ' rr_ ,: , ;:x_ ,,. (1) 1 (2) (3) 1 (4) ( (5) 1 _(6) __14_ (7) ( (8) 14 (9) COST/REVENUE 000 2001 j 2002 1 2003 r- 2004 2005 2006 I TOTAL Costs I .� I - j* �, ��._._.� Conservation Futures Program t 4,067.0 1,846.01 214.0 T 1,000.0 I 1,000.0_1 1,000.0 1,970.0 4 11,097.0 Parks and Recreation I 2,036.0 3,347.0 li 4,542.0-1 1,531.0 I 2,240.0 1 6,220.0 18,650.01 38,566.0 Total Costs1;- 6,103.0 5,193.0 ' 4,756.0 1 2,531.0 3,240.0 7,220.0 20,620.0 49,663.0 Real Estate Excise Tax(REET) 41 406.0 I 1,400.0 3,224.0 961.0 140.0 150.0 150.0 1 _6,431.0 IAC Grants -__1 682.0 275.0 380.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i _0.0 I 1,337.0 Donations -� t 318.0 9_0.0 533.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 17,800.0 18,741.0_ Conservation Futures Tax I 3,767.0 1,846.0 214.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 € 1,970.0 10,797.0 Car Rental Tax I 75.0 I 25.0 0.0 0.0 j 0.0 1 0.0 I 0.0 100.0 General Fund -I 75.0 855.0 1,557.0 [ 405.0 1 7110 100.0 70.0 i 200.0 i 3,257.0 Voted G.O. Bond 0.0 0.0 � 0.0 ; 0.0 I_ 1,000.0 5,000.0 1 0.0 I 6,000.0 G.O. Bond 0.0 0.0 0.0 t 500.0 500.0 500.0 1 500.0 1 2,000.0 Park Impact Fecs f ( 500.0 500.0 I 1,000.0 Total Revenues f 6,103.0 5,193.0 I 4,756.0 2,531.0 3,240.0 7,220.0 I 20,620.0 I 49,663.0 Balance j 0 1 0 1 0 , 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 72 Capital Facilities Plan Parks and Recreation PUBLIC BUILDINGS Current Inventory The current inventory of County public buildings includes government administrative offices, County fairground facilities, maintenance facilities and other operational facilities. Table PB-I lists all County public facilities, along with their current capacity and location. Table PB-1. Current Facilities Inventory—County Public Buildings Name Location • Sq. ft. Administration/Operations Adult Detention Building 1100 W.Mallon 171,790 Agriculture Building 222 N. Havana 22,349 Animal Shelter 2521 N. Flora Rd. 10,388 Broadway Center Bldg. 721 N.Jefferson 20,805 Central Steam Plant 1211 W. Gardner 37,266 Courthouse 1116 W. Broadway 107,173 Courthouse Annex 1116 W. Broadway 37,518 Dept. of Emergency Services 1121 W.Gardner 21,000 Gardner Center Bldg 1033 W.Gardner 38,100 Human Resources Bldg. 1229 W. Mallon 9,100 Juvenile Court Services 1208 W. Mallon 70,300 Parks Administrative Building 404 N. Havana Public Health Bldg. 1101 W.College 114,515 Public Safety Bldg. 1100 W. Mallon 204,149 Public Works Bldg. 1026 W. Broadway 65,000 S&T Bldg 1115 W. Broadway 8,616 System Services Bldg 815 N.Jefferson 8,400 Valley Sheriff Substation East 12710 Sprague 22,000 Veteran's Bldg 1102 W. College 2,110 Sheriff's Storage Facilities Police Property Warehouse 1307 W.Gardner 22,830 Sheriff's Garage 1107 W.Gardner 7,000 Utility's Shops Valley Office/Shop 12007 E. Empire Way N/A Colbert Landfill Mica Landfill Greenacres Landfill Road Maintenance Shops Old Corral Shop 12700 N. Mayfair, Spokane N/A Deer Park Shop 811 E."A"Street,Deer Park Rockford Shop 843 S. First St.,Rockford Geiger Shop Spotted Rd. and Park Drive Flora Shop 2521 N. Flora Rd. Central Shop 1404 W. Boone Avenue Central Garage 1328 W.Gardner Sign Shop/Pain Shop 1302 W. Gardner Spangle Shop 211002 S. Spangle Creek Rd. 73 Capital Facilities Plan Public Buildings Table PB-1 (cont'd) Fairground Facilities Complex A Agriculture Building 16,152 Complex B Interconnect Building 7,456 Complex C Poultry/Rabbit Building 15,000 Complex D Swine Building 12,500 Floral Building/Palacc 8,200 Main Exhibit Building Bay 1 36,320 Bay 2 15,000 Bay 3 25,000 Indoor Arena 29,670 Multi Purpose Barn A Lama Barn 12,500 Multi Purpose Barn B Sheep Barn 20,000 Multi Purpose Barn C Goat Barn 10,000 Multi Purpose Cover D 8,400 Outdoor Arena 5,500 seats Avista Stadium 7,200 seats Level of Service (LOS) Spokane County is not adopting a Level of Service Standard for County Public Buildings. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The following table (Table PB-2) presents capital projects and financing plan through 2006. Table PB-3 shows that the County is planning to spend approximately$23 million on public buildings. 74 Capital Facilities Plan Public Buildings TABLE PB-2 Capital Projects and Financing Plan . (All Amounts Are Times$1,000) COUNTY PUBLIC BUILDINGS ' (I) I (2) I (3) I (4) (5) 1 (6) ..(7 ) I (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Courthouse Improvements Cost •2,000.0 _ 1,100.0 1 1,350.0 i 1,350.0 1,350.0 7,150.0 Rev-REET *2,000.0 1,100.0 1,350.0 i 1,350.0 1,350.0 7,150.0 'Carry over from previous year -i ; _ 2. Animal Control Crematorium Cost 234.0 1 j 234.0 Rev-REET 50.0I 50.0 Rev-License Fees 184.0 . i ! 184.0 _3. Window Replacement , _ Cost 130.0 I. ? I 130.0 Rev-REET 130.01 i j 130.0 4. Courthouse/Graybar Remodel ----- - 132.0 --- Cost 1,738.0-r-1,281.0 3,151.0 _Rev-REET 132.0 1,738.0 1,281.0 ' i 1 3,151.0 3. Superior Ct.- 12th Ct Room Equipment _Cost 70.0 I __ I __ �__-�i 70.0 Rev-REET -'-- _ 70.0 _ - ---_� _-_ _1 _ 1 - 70.0 4. County Engineers Road Shops Cost 1,250.01_250.0 _ 2,500.0 Rev-Road Tax 1,250.0 i 1,250.0 I 2,500.0 - - -� 5. Joint City/County Communications Center Cost _.. _._ _...._---1,500.0 --- ___ ____� _ 1_,50 ___ 0.0 Rev-Gen. Fund 1,500.0 -I 1,500.0 - 6. Shop/Remodel(Sheriff) ---- ----j- - ---- --- _ Cost _ 500_0 _--- ___ -- - -1 500.0 Rev-Gen. Fund 500.0 --- I - ----- 500.0 7. Valley Sheriff Substation Cost 1,550.0 { _ 1 I 1,550.0 Rev- Gen. Fund 1 697.0 I, _ 697.0 Rev-Juvenile Justice Tax ! 853.0 I I 853.0 8. Cornelius Building ___ _ Cost-- -- ------ _-- - 125.0 I 1 125.0 _ - Rev-Gen Fund 125.0 I I 125.0 I i 7.Jail Control Center Cost - - -- - _ I 1,500.0 I 1,000.0 ! I_ 2,500.0 Rev-Juvenile Jail Sales Tax I I 1,500.0 I 1,000.0 ! i - 2,500.0 75 Capital Facilities Plan Public Buildings ,s .0-r-,01000: ` e a^r 0a TABLE PB 2 (cont d)� "a,` :, -' , '�., .« g' * � ' 91°get37 iaCapital P�ro�ecttssamend Financing Planrvit `�� k ' t ' ,pi- (All lAmounts*"AAre Times $1 000) Y ` * `:! � �` yxx f+ rs....n.,,«,,.. .tea,., t-k � v ,�,� �t "`^ a � 14;a;4'Nc1 x.43 l ,tCOUNTY3'PUBLICflBUILDINGS ,.:r a ,. ,, 8. Wilbert Vault Remodel Cost 750 0 750.0 ( 2000.0 1 3 500.0 Rev Road Tax 1 750.0 750.0 i 2 000.0 ` � 3 500.0 Total Costs ; 2,566.0 i 5,413.0 I 4,781.0 ( 2,850.0 2,600.0 i 3,350.0 I 1,350.0 ! 22,910.0 r TABLEPB3 z �� ' � ;� r X<Capital Projects and FlnanangiPlan ,`, I ° t , (All Amounts Are Times $1,000)` M ,.... .a.. i- x¢ 6 7 ` . .. SUMMARY�OF-COSTS/REVENUES. ,PUBLIC'BUILDINGS x t (I) i (2) _1 (3) I (4) I (5) (6) 1 (7) 1 (8) I (9) COST/REVENUE —j' 2000 2001 ! 2002 2003 2004 ! 2005 2006 TOTAL Costs �.�.�._--1---- ----- — Public Buildings ( 2,566.0 1 5,413.0 = 4,781.0 I 2,850.0 ; 2,600.0 i 3,350.0 f 1,350.0 I 22,910.0 Total Costs I 2,566.0 1 5,413.04 4,781.0 I 2,850.0 2,600.0 ( 3,350.0 1 1,350.0 1 22,910.0 J,. I_ _� Real Estate Excise Tax(REET) I 2,38.2.0 1,738.0 1,281.0? 1,100.0 1,350.0 1,350.0 ; 1,350.0 110,551.0 General Fund 0.0_1 2,822.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0 2,822.0 Road Tax 0.0 1 0.0 I 2,000.0 i 750.0 i 1,250.0 2,000.0 0.0 6,000.0 Juvenile Jail Sales Tax 0.0 i 853.0 1,500.0 i 1,000.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,353.0 Pet License Fees j 184.0 , 0 1 0 O t 0 I 0 . 0 184.0 Total Revenues 1 2,566.0 I 5,413.0 I 4,781.0 I 2,850.0 I 2,600.0 I 3,350.0 j 1,350.0 1 22,910.0 Balance 1 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 76 Capital Facilities Plan Public Buildings PUBLIC LIBRARIES Background The Spokane County Library District was established in 1942 as a limited purpose municipal corporation to serve the unincorporated portion of Spokane County with library services. The cities and towns of Cheney, Latah, Medical Lake, Millwood, Rockford and Waverly have annexed to the District. Airway Heights, Deer Park and Fairfield contract for library services. In 1999, the District's total circulation included 1,837,267 library materials, an increase of 21 percent since 1989. In addition, the number of active library cards has increased 5 percent in the same period, totaling 106,129 cards in 1999. Current Inventory The current inventory of County public libraries includes three resource libraries and seven branch libraries and support service offices, totaling 96,600 square feet, as shown in Table PL-1. Voter-approved funding, including District bond issues in 1988 and 1996, has resulted in major expansions and renovations or replacement of all eight existing libraries and the addition of a new branch in Otis Orchards. The funding was also used for furniture, equipment, and library materials for the new Moran Prairie branch library located in leased commercial space. Table PL-1. Current Facilities Inventory—County Public Libraries Libraries • Location ". Square Feet? Resource Cheney 610 First,Cheney, WA 99004 6,600 North Spokane 44 E Hawthorne, Spokane, WA 99218 18,000 Valley 12004 E. Main, Spokane, WA 99206 22,100 Community Branches Airway Heights 1213 South Lundstrom, Airway Heights, WA 99001 4,200 Argonne Branch 4322 North Argonne, Spokane, WA 99212 8,000 Deer Park Branch 208 South Forest, Deer Park ,WA 99006 7,600 Fairfield Branch 303 East Main, Fairfield, WA 99012 2,700 Medical Lake Branch 321 East Herb, Medical Lake, WA 99022 4,100 Moran Prairie Branch 3022 East 57th, Suite 19, Spokane, WA 99223 2,800 Otis Orchards Branch 22324 East Wellesley, Otis Orchards 99027 6,000 Subtotal 82,100 Support Services Administration Offices 4322 N.Argonne; Spokane, WA 99212 12,000 Outreach Services 12004 E. Main; Spokane, WA 99206 850 Other District Support • 12004 E. Main; Spokane, WA 99206 1,650 Subtotal 14,500 Total 96,600 77 Capital Facilities Plan Public Libraries Level of Service The current LOS of.43 square feet per capita (Table PL-2) is based on the existing inventory divided by the 2000 population of unincorporated Spokane County and the small towns that the Library District serves. The Library District would have to add 5,423 square feet of library space to maintain the current Level of Service through 2006. The recommended LOS is .41 square feet per capita, .02 square feet lower than the County's current Level of Service. t r : 4' r w 1 x x < ° 'TABLE PL ?to x ', x':- x a , < .) Current Level of Service Analysis r ' e ' k LIBRARIES , e " Current LOS=0.43 Square Feet Per Capita (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) District Square Feet Current Net Time Period Required @ 0.42925 Square Feet Reserve/ Population per Capita Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 225,045 96,600 96,600 0 2001-2006: Growth 24,313 10,436 0 -10,436 Total as of 2006 249,358 107,036 96,600 -10,623 Capacity Projects: ( f _ I I. Moran Prairie Branch(2005) 5,200 h_ -5423 LNote: New library will be 8,000 sq. ft and will replace existing library at 2,800 sq. ft. Table PL-3 presents the proposed Level of Service analysis. The proposed LOS is .41 square feet of library space per capita. This LOS will reflects the additional square feet of the new Moran Prairie branch library. ., ' r> < TABLEPL''' 3 r' x r. q< Proposed Level of Service Analysts "LIBRARIES 7 Proposed LOS=0.41 Square Feet per Capita (1) (2) (3) (4) t (5) Square Feet Current Net Time Period District Required @ 0.40825 Square Feet Reserve/ Population Per Capita Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 225,045 91,875 96,600 4,782 2001-2006: Growth 24,313 9,926 0 -9,926 Total as of 2006 249,358 101,800 96,600 -5,200 Capacity Projects: I I 1. Moran Prairie Branch(2005) � 5,200 j 0 Ji I Note: New library will be 8,000 sq. ft and will replace existing library at 2,800 sq. ft { 78 Capital Facilities Plan Public Libraries With the Library District's increasing use of computer technology, it is not always necessary to visit a library branch to obtain library materials and information. Through its web site, customers at home, school or work can search the catalog and place requests for materials, check the status of their accounts, search databases and print full-text information, ask reference questions and view a variety of reading lists and other information resources. Remote access to this "virtual" library could be considered to mitigate some of the need to increase square footage of space to maintain service levels. • Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The only capital project scheduled for 2000-2006 will be the new Moran Prairie Branch (8000 sq. ft.), which will replace the existing leased branch (2800 sq. ft.), adding 5,200 net square feet of library space. The project is expected to cost $1.768 million, as shown in Table PL-4, with project completion in 2005. The District's 2001-2003 Strategic Plan, adopted August 15, 2000, proposed replacement of the current Valley branch with a larger facility by 2006 but doesn't specify square footage or estimated costs. It also proposes capital facility planning coordination with the new City of Liberty Lake and development of a capital facilities plan for the North County Urban Growth Area by the end of 2002. Therefore, these projects aren't included in Table PL-4. . TABLE PL-4 4. Capital Projects and Financing Plan (All Amounts Are Times $1,000) LIBRARIES , (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Moran Prairie Branch Library Cost 215.0 3.0 90.0 1,460.0 l 1,768.0 Rev— 1996 G.O. Bond 215.0 215.0 Operating Fund 3.0 3.0 LCFA G.O. Bond 90.0 1,460.0 1,550.0 1 Total I 215.0 I I I 3.0 I 90.0 I 1,460.0 I I 1,768.0 79 Capital Facilities Plan Public Libraries �7."�6t ..." ,TABLE PL 5 < t. ar . 7 -'''''4:, ,. +, f ; ,Capital Projects and Financing,Plan� � !� t `7 t a ,° . q ', ,� � �„ �. ��(A11,4mountsAreTimes$1 000) ; ' x z, ', ;r,', u,`,.,` ` `SUMMARY_OF.COSTS/REVENUES,=LIBRARIES ;,r 1 ' ., ,, . (1) (2) 1 (3) 1 (4) 1 (5) I (6) (7) 1 (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 f 2004 2005 7 2006 TOTAL I Total Costs 0.0 0.0 j 0.0 1 3.0 I 90.0 1 1,460.0 I 0.0 1,768.0 Revenues _ ; _ 1 1996 G.O. Bond 215.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 j 0.0 215.0 --------- Operating Fund 0.0__i _ 0.0_ _ _ 0_03.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 3.0 LCFA G.O. Bond T 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 90.0 1 1,460.0 0.0 r 1,550.0 Total Revenues I 215.0 0.0 I 0.0 3.0 I 90.0 1 1,460.0 I 0.0 I • 1,768.0 Balance 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 80 Capital Facilities Plan Public Libraries PUBLIC SCHOOLS This section of the Capital Facilities Plan evaluates the five school districts that serve the Urban Growth Area for Spokane County, including Mead, Central Valley, Cheney, East Valley, West Valley and Spokane School District 81. The School Districts are shown on the map following page 104. The information includes an inventory of existing facilities, an analysis of the requirements for school capacity needed to serve projected enrollment through the 2006-07 school year, and a capital improvements schedule and financing plan to provide school capacity and other needed school capital improvements through the 2006-07 school year. School Districts operate independently from Spokane County government and are not required to develop 6-year capital improvement programs. However, if Spokane County chooses to implement impact fees for schools, each school district must develop a GMA- compliant capital facilities plan(described below). The process requires school districts to adopt Level of Service standards and to work collaboratively with the County to project future growth. Providing adequate school facilities is a goal of the County's Comprehensive Plan and has a direct effect on the quality of life we enjoy. Spokane County will work with school districts to develop Level of Service standards and capital facilities plans within a reasonable time upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. School Capital Facilities Plan Development Process The following is a methodology that can be used by school districts in Spokane County to prepare their Capital Facilities Plans. Enrollment Forecasts I. Review Superintendent of Public Instruction's cohort survival enrollment forecasts. 2. Evaluate population forecasts from government planning departments. 3. Prepare enrollment forecasts. Inventory of Existing Facilities I. Summarize data from the most recent study and survey of conditions assessment (or other source of inventory). 2. Update inventory. Levels of Service I. Calculate current levels of service. 2. Review other level of service information. (a) SPI capital finding standards. (b) School district standards. (c) Bargaining agreement standards. 81 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools (d) Standards from neighboring districts. 3. Develop recommended level of service standards. Analysis of Needs 1. Apply level of service standards to enrollment forecast to determine facility capacity requirements. 2. Compare capacity requirements to existing inventory to identify the need for additional capacity. Analysis should include deficiencies, reserve capacity and new facilities for growth. Such analysis is required for school impact fees per RCW 82.02.070(4)(a)-(c). Capital Improvement Projects 1. Develop capital improvement projects that meet district needs for additional capacity. 2. Develop capital improvement projects for modernization, remodeling, renovation and other noncapacity purposes. Revenues for Capital Improvements 1. Evaluate historical revenue data. 2. Forecast state revenue, debt capacity and mitigation payment revenue (if County adopts impact fees for schools). Capital Facilities Plan 1. Test consistency of capital projects with recommended level of service and financial capacity. 2. Prepare capital facilities plan with level of service standards and financing plan (sources and uses of funds format). 3. Adopt capital facilities plan, including level of service standards, at a public meeting of the school board. The planning process should allow for public involvement in accordance with the Growth Management Act Public Participation Program Guidelines [BOCC Resolution 98-0144, or as amended]. 4. Present school district CFP to Spokane County for review and adoption by the County. Enrollment and Capacity Data The enrollment and school capacity data are measured by full-time-equivalent (FTE) students, rather than "head count" (the total number of students enrolled). Students who attend only half- or part-time in the preschool programs, alternative schools or in kindergarten are counted in relationship to a full school day. FTE numbers are lower than headcounts and better represent the actual impact on facilities. The inventory and analysis of capacity requirements are presented two ways: I) with interim (i.e., portable) facilities; and 2) without interim facilities. The individual districts' capital improvement projects are based on the capacity without portables because they have significant limitations, such areas as heating, ventilation, noise, security, restrooms, storage cupboards and intercom communications. For those reasons, portables are not considered permanent capacity by Washington State or by the districts. 82 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools The capacity of portable rooms is presented in order to show the interim facilities that the districts use 1) to meet short-term enrollment fluctuations, or 2) to serve as temporary facilities until permanent facilities are built. Capacity figures are usually based on teacher-to-student ratios (expressed as students per classroom) that the school district determines to be most appropriate to accomplish its educational program. These ratios are often contained in employment agreements between districts and their teachers. Level of Service Mead School District uses square-feet-per-student as its Level of Service Standard. The other districts use student-per-teacher ratios as agreed upon in employment agreements between the districts and their teachers. Spokane County does not propose a Level of Service for school districts to be adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Individual school districts will determine their own Level of Service standards and may request the County to adopt the standards as a component of its Capital Facilities Plan. For those school districts that determine Level of Service by the student-per-teacher method (Central Valley, East Valley, West Valley and Spokane District 81), the ratio of students per teacher falls between 18 and 25 students throughout the UGA. The Mead School District has set their level of service at 100, 130 and 150 square feet per student at the elementary, middle and senior high levels. They are currently operating at 93, 164, 167 square feet per student at their respective enrollment level. CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT Central Valley School District is located immediately south of the East Valley School District and to the east of the West Valley School District. The District uses the following grade level configurations: K-6, housed in elementary schools; 7-9, housed in junior high schools; and 10-12, housed in senior high schools. Table PS-1 lists Central Valley schools and their enrollment capacity. Table PS-1. Central Valley School District Existing Capacity School Existing capacity Elementary Schools(K-6) Adams 546 Blake 431 Broadway 374 Chester 437 Grcenacres 586 Keystone 301 Liberty Lake 580 McDonald 326 Opportunity 451 Ponderosa 483 Progress 411 South Pines 516 Sunrise 633 University 483 83 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Total Elementary Permanent Facilities 6,558 Total Elementary Interim(Portable)Facilities 25 Total Elementary Permanent and Interim Facilities 6,583 Jr. High Schools(7-8) Bowdish 554 Evergreen 560 Greenacres 586 Horizon 590 North Pines 700 Total Jr. High Permanent Facilities 2,990 Total Jr. High Interim(Portables) Facilities 75 Total Jr. High Permanent and Interim Facilities 3,065 Senior High Schools Central Valley 1,270 University 1,350 Total Senior High School Permanent Facilities 2,620 Total Senior High School Interim(Portables) Facilities 300 Total Senior High Permanent and Interim Facilities 2,920 Source: Central Valley School District Elementary School Capacity Requirements, By the year 2006, the Central Valley School District will need permanent space for 5,389 full-time-equivalent elementary students. The current capacity is 6,583 FTE for this category. No capacity projects are scheduled within the next six years for the elementary school level. Junior High School Capacity Requirements_ By the year 2006, the Central Valley School District will need permanent space for 1,845 FTE junior high school students. The current capacity is approximately 3,065 FTE for this category. No capacity projects are scheduled within the next six years for the junior high school level. Senior High School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the Central Valley School District will need permanent space for 3,287 senior high school students. The current capacity for housing these students is approximately 2,920 students. Construction is underway for two brand-new high school facilities that will modernize and add existing capacity for the senior high school level. 84 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Table PS-2. Central Valley School District Facility Capacity Requirements And Proposed Capacity Projects through 2000-2006 School Year (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) • Net Reserve or Net Reserve or Time Period _ Enrollment Existing Interim Deficiency: Deficiency: all • Capacity Capacity* Permanent facilities - Facilities Elementary Schools(K-6) 2000 Actual 5,733 6,558 25 825 850 2000-2006: Growth I -1. -1 Total as of 2006 5,734 6,558 25 824 849 Capacity Projects Jr. High Schools(7-8) 2000 Actual 1,736 2,990 75 1,254 1,329 2000-2006: Growth 109 0 0 -109 -109 Total as of 2006 1,845 2,990 75 1,145 1,220 Capacity Projects: None _Senior High Schools(9-12) 2000 Actual 3,415 2,620 300 -795 -495 2000—2006: Growth -128 580 -300 708 408 Total as of 2006 3,287 3,200 0 -87 -87 Capacity Projects: 1. New Facility for Central Valley High School (1600) 2. New Facility for University High School (1600) Sources: Enrollment Data from State of Washington,Superintendent of Public Instruction Capacity Date from Table PS-I • District's interim capacity may be reduced when the District's permanent capacity is increased and portables are removed. Capital Projects and Financing Plan Central Valley is building and completing two (Central Valley and University High) new high schools by fall 2002 to replace existing high school capacity. Opportunity Elementary, Adams Elementary and Greenacres Middle School are all slated for major renovations sometime between 2003 and 2006, though limited information is available. CHENEY SCHOOL DISTRICT Cheney School District stretches from the Spokane City limits to the southwest limits of Spokane County, covering approximately 360 square miles. This area includes portions of the Spokane urban growth area, the city of Cheney, and many extensive agriculture areas. The District uses the following grade level configurations: K-5, housed in elementary schools; 6-8, housed in junior high schools; and 9-12, housed in senior high schools. Table PS-3 lists Cheney schools and their enrollment capacity 85 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Table PS-3. Cheney School District Existing Capacity* . School Existing Capacity Elementary Schools(K-6) 460 Betz Salnave 647 Sunset 585 Windsor 534 Total Elementary Permanent Facilities 2,226 Total Elementary Interim (Portable) Facilities 0 Total Elementary Permanent and Interim Facilities 2,226 Jr. High Schools(7-8) 1,041 Cheney Middle School Total Jr. High Permanent Facilities 1,041 Total Jr. High Interim(Portables) Facilities 0 Total Jr. High Permanent and Interim Facilities 1,041 Senior High Schools 1,475 Cheney High School Total Senior High Permanent Facilities 1,475 Total Senior High School Interim (Portables) Facilities 0 Total Senior High School Permanent and Interim Facilities 1,475 School Facility Capacity Requirements Elementary School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the Cheney School District will need permanent space for 1,339 full-time equivalent(FTE) elementary students. The current capacity is approximately 2,226 FTE for this category. The District's CFP includes modernization of Betz, Salnave, Sunset and Windsor Elementary Schools. Junior High School Capacity Requirements.By the year 2006, the Cheney School District will need permanent space for 719 FTE junior high school students. The current capacity is approximately 1,041 FTE for this category. There are no capacity projects scheduled within the next six years for the Junior High School level. Senior High School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the Cheney School District will need permanent space for 1,052 senior high school students. The current capacity is approximately 1,475 students. There are no capacity projects scheduled within the next six years for the High School level. 86 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools • • Table PS-4. Cheney School District Facility Capacity Requirements and Proposed Capacity Projects through 2000-2006 School Year (1) (2) (3) (4) - (5) (s) . Net Reserve or Net Reserve'or Time Period Enrollment Existing Interim Deficiency: Deficiency:, all Capacity Capacity* Permanent facilities - Facilities 2000 Actual 1521 2226 705 2000-2006: Growth -182 0 182 Total as of 2006 1339 2226 887 Capacity Projects: None Jr. High Schools(7-8) 2000 Actual 840 1041 201 2000—2006: Growth -121 0 121 Total as of 2006 719 1,041 322 Capacity Projects: None Senior High Schools(9-12) 2000 Actual 1 126 1475 349 2000-2006: Growth -74 0 74 Capacity Projects: None Total as of 2006 1052 429 Source: Enrollment Data from State of Washington, Superintendent of Public Instruction; Capacity Date from Table PS-3. Capital Projects and Financing Plan Cheney Valley School district does not have any significant capital improvements planned for the next six years. EAST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT East Valley School district boundaries cover the area east at the Idaho state line, north of Interstate 90 and West to Mission Avenue. The district is bordered by West Valley School District to the west, Central Valley to the south and Mead to the north. The District used the following grade level configurations: K-5, housed in elementary schools; 6-8, housed in junior high schools; and 9-12, housed in senior high schools. Table PS-5 lists East Valley schools and their enrollment capacity. 87 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Table PS-5. East Valley School District Existing Capacity School Existing Capacity ' Elementary Schools(K-5) East Farms 500 Otis Orchards 500 Skyview 500 Trent 550 Trcntwood 500 Total Elementary Permanent Facilities 2,550 Total Elementary Interim (Portable) Facilities 100 Total Elementary Permanent and Interim Facilities 2,650 Jr. High Schools(6-81 East Valley 600 _ Mountain View 500 Total Jr. High Permanent Facilities 1,100 Total Jr. High Interim (Portables) Facilities 0 Total Jr. High Permanent and Interim Facilities 1,100 Senior High Schools(9-12) East Valley 1,600 Total Senior High School Permanent Facilities 1,600 Total Senior High School Interim(Portables) Facilities 100 . Total Senior High School Permanent and Interim Facilities 1,700 Source: East Valley School District Elementary School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the East Valley School District will need permanent space for 2,361 full-time-equivalent elementary students. The current capacity is approximately 2,650 FTE for this category. No capacity projects are planned within the next six years for the elementary level. Junior High School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the East Valley School District will need permanent space for 717 FTE junior high school students. The current capacity is approximately 1,100 FTE for this category. No capacity projects are planned within the next six years for the junior high school level. Senior High School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the East Valley School District will need permanent space for 1,617 senior high school students. The current capacity is approximately 1,700 FTE for this category. No capacity projects are planned within the next six years for the senior high school level. 88 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Table PS-6. East Valley School District Facility Capacity Requirements and Proposed Capacity Projects through 2000-2006 School Year (1) - (2) (3) • (4) (5) (6) , Net Reserve Net Reserve or Time Period • Enrollment Existing Interim or Deficiency: Deficiency: all Capacity Capacity* Permanent facilities • Facilities Elementary Schools(K-6) 2000 Actual 2,489 2550 100 61 161 2000-2006: Growth 42 0 0 -42 -42 Total as of 2006 2,531 2550 100 19 119 Capacity Projects : None _Jr. High Schools(7-8) 2000 Actual 750 1,100 0 350 0 2000—2006: Growth -33 33 Total as of 2006 717 1,100 0 383 0 Capacity Projects: None Senior High Schools(9-12) 2000 Actual 1,688 1,600 100 -88 12 2000—2006: Growth -71 71 71 Total as of 2006 1,617 1,600 100 -17 83 Capacity Projects: None Sources: Enrollment Data from State of Washington, Superintendent of Public Instruction Capacity Date from Table PS-5. • District's interim capacity may be reduced when the District's permanent capacity is increased and portables arc removed. Capital Projects and Financing Plan East Valley School district does not have any significant capital improvements planned for the next six years. • 89 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools MEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT Mead School District is located immediately north of the City of Spokane in the north central section of Spokane County and covers an area of approximately 180 square miles. This area includes a small portion of the City of Spokane within the District boundaries. The District uses the following grade level configurations: K-6, housed in elementary schools; 7-8, housed in junior high schools; and 9-12, housed in senior high schools. Table PS-7 lists Mead schools and their enrollment capacity. Table PS-7. Mead School District Existing Capacity* School Existing Capacity' Elementary Schools(K-6) Brentwood 473 Colbert 584 Evergreen 469 Farwell 452 Meadowridge 540 Midway 529 Shiloh 529 Total Elementary Permanent Facilities 3,576 Total Elementary Interim (Portable) Facilities 144 Total Elementary Permanent and Interim Facilities 3,720 Jr. High Schools(7-8) Northwood Jr. High 886 Mead Middle High 817 Total Jr. High Permanent Facilities 1,703 Total Jr. High Interim(Portables) Facilities 83 Total Jr. High Permanent and Interim Facilities 1,786 Senior High Schools Mead Sr. High(New) 1,454 Mt. Spokane 1,535 Total Senior High Permanent Facilities 2,989 Total Senior High School Interim(Portables) Facilities 55 Total Senior High School Permanent and Interim Facilities 3,044 Source: Mead School District • Existing Capacity is determined by square footage of facility divided by level of service determined by Mead School District School Facility Capacity Requirements Table PS-8 compares current and future enrollment to the enrollment capacity of the Mead School District. The Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction using the cohort survival method provided the enrollment data in column 2. Cohort survival projects the "survival" of students from one grade to the next, from Kindergarten to the 12th grade. The existing capacity (column 3) is taken from Table PS-2, and includes 90 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools existing enrollment and capacity. The net reserve or deficiency in permanent facilities (column 5) is calculated by subtracting enrollment from permanent capacity: column 3 minus column 2. The net reserve or deficiency in all facilities (column 6) is calculated by subtracting enrollment from both permanent and interim capacity: add columns 3 and 4, then subtract column 2. If capacity is greater than enrollment, the district has "reserve" that can accommodate future enrollment. If capacity is less than enrollment, the district has a "deficiency" which can be addressed by adding capacity(see Capital Projects and Financing Plan, Table PS-9) or by changing the standard for level of service as part of the annual amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Immediately below the calculation of net reserve or deficiency is a list of each capital improvement project from the District's CFP that provides capacity to offset any deficiency (see Table PS-9 for CFP project list). The new capacity is listed in column 3, and the revised net reserve or deficiency is listed in columns 5 and 6. Elementary School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the Mead School • District will need permanent space for 3,173 full-time equivalent elementary students. The current capacity is approximately 3,720 FTE for this category. The District's CFP includes replacing 6 portable classrooms at Brentwood, Colbert and Evergreen elementary and in addition two new classrooms at Farwell (2) and Evergreen (1). Junior High School Capacity Requirements.By the year 2006, the Mead School District will need permanent space for 1,287 FTE junior high school students. The current capacity is approximately 1,786 FTE for this category. There are no capacity projects scheduled within the next six years for the Junior High School level. Senior High School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the Mead School District will need permanent space for 2,784 senior high school students. The current capacity for housing students after Mead High school renovation is approximately 3,044 students. The renovation of Mead High School will add additional classroom capacity as well as modernize the existing facility. 91 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Table PS-8. Mead School District Facility Capacity Requirements and Proposed Capacity Projects through 2000-2006 School Year (1), (2) (3) (4),r7 (5) `�' : (6) r x x rT. o s a[ K ° Net Reserve or" Net Reserve orr Time Period Enrollment ac , Cat atcit 'Ca tit, Permane t. Deficiency `'all ' '1 P y p ry` facilities � _ rs. . .. . Facilities _. • . . . Elementary Schools(K-6) 2000 Actual 3,857 3,576 144 -281 -137 2000-2006: Growth -494 162 -108 656 548 Total as of 2006 3,363 3,738 36 375 411 Capacity Projects 1. Replace Colbert Portables 36 -36 2. Replace Brentwood Portables 36 -36 3. Replace Evergreen Portables 36 -36 4.Add 1 Classroom to Evergreen 18 5.Add 2 Classrooms to Farwell 36 Jr. High Schools(7-8) 2000 Actual 1,307 1,703 83 396 479 2000-2006: Growth -20 0 0 20 20 Total as of 2006 1,287 1,703 83 416 499 Capacity Projects: None Senior High Schools(9-12) 2000 Actual 2,835 2,989 55 154 209 2000-2006: Growth -51 122 -55 173 118 Total as of 2006 2,784 3,111 0 327 327 Capacity Projects: Mead High School Renovation Source: Enrollment Data from State of Washington, Superintendent of Public Instruction; Capacity Date from Table PS-7. • District's interim capacity may be reduced when the District's permanent capacity is increased and portables are removed. Capital Projects and Financing Plan Table PS-9 presents Mead School's 2000-2006 plan for capital improvements projects, including sources of public money within projects funding capacities that constitute the probable funding of the District's capital improvements projects. The District's schools facilities include 23 capital projects at a cost of$11,910,300. 92 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools ' Capital Projects and Financing Plan:, `( All Amounts Are Times$1,000)' :., ,, .•` MEAD SCHOOLTDI'STRICTF, c (I). , (2) I (3) 1 (4) (5) I , (6).•,-I_ (7) I (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. Colbert Modernization- 1965 Wine Cost 1,910.0 1,910.0 Rev-G.O. Bonds 1,910.0 1,910.0 2. Colbert Modernization-Office Addition Cost 146.0 146.0 Rev-G.O. Bonds 146.0 3. Colbert Modernization-Roofing of 1979 Wing Cost 149.0 149.0 Rev-G.O. Bonds 149.0 149.0 4. Colbert Modernization-Classrooms(3) Cost 571.0 571.0 Rev-G.O. Bonds 571.0 571.0 5. Colbert Modernization-Gym Cost 889.0 - 889.0 Rev-G.O. Bonds 889.0 889.0 6. Midway Carpet Replacement Cost 165.2 165.2 Rev-G.O. Bonds 165.2 i 165.2 7. Shiloh Carpet Replacement Cost 165.2 I I 165.2 Rev-G.O. Bonds 165.2 I 165.2 8. Northwood PE/Band Acoustic Improvements Cost 24.1 24.1 Rev-G.O. Bonds 24.1 24.1 9. Northwood Intercom Replacement Cost I 34.4 1 34.4 Rev-G.O. Bonds I 34.4 I I I I 34.4 93 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Table PS-3 cont'd (I)--- i_ (2) 1 (3) (4) r (5) 1 (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL �_ I 10. Brentwood Classroom additions(2) ---------- Cost I. 1 380.6 380.6 Rev-G.O. Bonds - i_380.6 � 380_6 1 11. Brentwood Gym Cost u.. _ j 889.4 i I - -7-- 889.4 Rev-G.O. Bonds j 889.4 t 889.4 12. Evergreen Additions(replace 3 portable classrooms) _ _ Cost 571.0 T 571.0 Rev-G.O. Bonds j 571.0 41 _ 1 571.0 13. Evergreen Addition(1 permanent classroom) _ Cost 190.0 190.3 Rev-G.O. Bonds 1 190.3_1_ 1 190.0 i_- ` _ i L-, 14. Evergreen Gym Cost i889.41j j _� 889A Rev-G.O. Bonds 889.4 - - 1 �I _ ' 1 889.4 I I i 1--- I 5. I5. Evergreen Playground Flooding Correction Cost i 1 38.5 - i 1 38.5 Rev-G.O. Bonds 38.5 j 38.5 16. Farwell Gym Cost -_- L., 889.4 - - i 889.4 Rev-G.O. Bonds 889.4 i -- _ 1 889.4 17. Farwell Addition(2 permanent classrooms) Cost 380.6 1 _ _ �l L_ 380.6_ Rev-G.O. Bonds 380.6 1 I 380.6 18. Farwell Parking Improvements Cost j __ 64.4 I I 64.4_ Rev-G.O. Bonds --_ 3 64.4 1 -1 -,64.4 1 -. I - - 1 - 1 _._ !_ 19. Electrical/Emergency Lighting Upgrades(Midway. Shiloh Hills, Mead Middle and Northwood) Cost t 1,078.7 I f l_ ( 1,078.7 Rev-G O Bonds - I 11,078.7 I 4 _ 1,078.7 20. Roofing Replacement(Farwell, Midway, Shiloh Hills, Mead Middle) Cost - � � � 1 1,775-11 1,725.7 Rev-G.O. Bonds , I ! 1,725.7 ( 1 7- 1,725.7 94 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Table PS-3 cont'd (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL 21.Traffic Safety& Parking Improvements(Midway, Shiloh, Mead Middle, Northwood) Cost 450.5 450.5 Rev—G.O. Bonds 450.5 450.5 22.Transportation Building Improvements Cost 284.9 284.9 Rev—G.O. Bonds 284.9 284.0 23. Farwell Intercom Replacement—Complete Cost 34.4 34.4 Rev—G.O. Bonds 34.4 Total Cost: 2,775.9 5,406.7 2,495.5 11,910.3 SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT #81 Spokane School District 81 is the largest school district in Spokane County and is located largely within the City of Spokane. The District does have several facilities outside of the city limits and is bordered by Mead School to the north and West Valley Schools to the east. The District uses the following grade level configurations: K-6, housed in elementary schools 7-8, housed in junior high schools, and 9-12, housed in senior high schools. Table PS-10 lists Spokane School District 81 schools and their enrollment capacity. Table PS-10. Spokane School District#81 Existing Capacity School Existing Capacity. Elementary Schools(K-61 Adams 487 Arlington 574 Audubon 624 Balboa 423 Bemiss 674 Browne 537 Cooper 611 Finch 638 Franklin 337 Garfield 598 Grant 611 Hamblen 611 Holmes 574 Hutton 487 Indian Trail 411 Jefferson 636 Lidgerwood 337 95 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Lincoln Heights 412 Linwood 522 Logan 572 Longfellow 624 Madison 424 Moran Prairie 598 Mullan Road 548 Pratt 362 Regal 624 Ridgeview 499 Roosevelt 624 Sheridan 574 Stevens 598 Westview 486 Whitman 661 Willard 624 Wilson 312 Woodridge 611 Total Elementary Permanent Facilities 16,268 Total Elementary Interim (Portable) Facilities 2,575 Total Elementary Permanent and Interim Facilities 18,843 Jr. High Schools(7-8) Chase 974 Garry 736 Glover 1,023 Sacajawea 1,073 Salk 999 Shaw 986 Total Jr. High Permanent Facilities 5,791 Total Jr. High Interim(Portables) Facilities 0 Total Jr. High Permanent and Interim Facilities 5,791 Senior High Schools Ferris • 1,936 Jantsch 574 Lewis and Clark 1,511 North Central 1,498 Rogers 1,898 Shadle Park 1,861 Total Senior High School Permanent Facilities 8,528 Total Senior High School Interim(Portables) Facilities 750 Total Senior High School Permanent and Interim Facilities 9,278 Source: Spokane School District#81 Elementary School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, District 81 will need permanent space for 14,745 full-time-equivalent elementary students. Current capacity is approximately 18,843 FTE for this category. A new elementary school is planned to replace Brown elementary, as well as replacing six classrooms at Wilson Elementary. Junior High School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, District 81 will need permanent space for 4,769 FTE junior high school students. Current capacity is 96 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools approximately 5,791 FTE for this category. No capacity projects scheduled within the next six years for the junior high school level. Senior High School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, District 81 will need permanent space for 10,217 senior high school students. Current capacity for housing these students is approximately 9,278 students. Lewis and Clark and Rogers High School will be renovated, and North Central High School is scheduled to have an addition constructed in 2000. Table PS-11. Spokane School District#81 Facility Capacity Requirements and Proposed Capacity Projects through 2000-2006 School Year (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)'. (6) Net Reserve Net Reserve or. Time Period Enrollment Existing Interim or Deficiency:. Deficiency: ail Capacity Capacity* Permanent . facilities Facilities '. Elementary Schools(K-6) 2000 Actual 17,587 16,268 2,575 -1,319 1,256 2000-2006: Growth -1,822 Total as of 2006 15,765 16,268 2,575 503 3,078 Capacity Projects I. Replace modular unit at Wilson Elementary with 6 new classrooms 2. Replace Brown Elementary with new 50,000 sq. ft. building 3. Relocate portable classroom as needed to handle enrollment changes Jr. High Schools(7-8) 2000 Actual 4,892 5,791 0 899 899 2000-2006: Growth -123 Total as of 2006 4,769 5,791 0 1,022 1,022 Capacity Projects: I. Relocate portable classrooms as needed to handle enrollment changes Senior High Schools(9-12) 2000 Actual 10,360 8528 750 -1,615 -865 2000—2006: Growth -143 Total as of 2006 10,217 8528 750 -1,689 -939 Capacity Projects: None I. Remodel Lewis and Clark High School/Replace field house&annex with new facilities 2. Remodel Selected parts of Rogers High school/Replace gymnasium and locker rooms with new facilities,construct 6 new classrooms. Source: Enrollment Data from State of Washington, Superintendent of Public Instruction Capacity Date from Table PS-10. • District's interim capacity may be reduced when the District's permanent capacity is increased and portables are removed. • The capacity deficiency does not equal or exceed the capacity of an additional school.No new school for this grade level is included in the District's 6-year Capital Facilities Plan,but such a facility is contemplated in the District's longer-range plans. 97 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Capital Projects and Financing Plan In 1998, District 81 passed a $74.5 million bond, with all projects scheduled to be completed by the year 2001. The following is a list of projects funded by this bond. Table PS-12. District#81 1998 Bond Projects Project .'State'Match and° Completion,' ;' t , Bond Amount "" Other,Funds ` . _ � = "bate ; Lewis and Clark High School Renovation $22,278,800 $14,141,542 August 2001 Technology Improvements at all Schools 12,624,693 September 2002 Upgrade Electrical Systems and Retrofit Schools for Technology 12,812,518 July 2000 Rogers High School Addition 5,827,617 June 2000 North Central High School Addition 1,832,305 2,790,036 August 2000 Browne Elementary School Replacement 1,931,306 5,029,522 September 2000 High School Science Room Renovation _ 1,482,900 September 1999 Garry Middle School Physical Education and HVAC Improvements 2,260,920 September 1999 Elementary Library Remodels 702,906 September 1999 Replace Modular Unit—Wilson 1,282,932 July 1999 Elementary School _ Site Expansion/Improvements _ 5,001,935 September 2003 Auditorium Improvements at Ferris and Shadle 505,233 September 1999 Intercom/Phone/Communi-cation 3,049,120 October 1999 Upgrades Instructional Space Expansion 622,352 October 1999 Cooper Parking and Traffic Flow 106,032 October 1999 Improvements State Sales Tax 6,292,882 Total $26,042,411 $74,533,140 98 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools WEST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT West Valley School District is bordered by East Valley School District and Central Valley School District to the east and Spokane School District 81 to the west. The District used the following grade level configurations: K-6, housed in elementary schools 7-8, housed in junior high schools, and 9-12, housed in senior high schools. Table PS-13 lists West Valley schools and their enrollment capacity. Table PS-13. West Valley School District Existing Capacity School Existing Capacity Elementary Schools(K-61 Arthur B Ness 303 City School 206 Millwood 305 Orchard Center 255 Pasadena Park 266 Seth Woodard 244 Total Elementary Permanent Facilities 2,100 Total Elementary Interim(Portable) Facilities 0 Total Elementary Permanent and Interim Facilities 2,100 Jr. High Schools(7-8) Centennial 585 Total Jr. High Permanent Facilities 600 Total Jr. High Interim(Portables) Facilities 0 Total Jr. High Permanent and Interim Facilities 600 Senior High Schools Contract Based 554 Spokane Valley 191 West Valley 760 Total Senior High School Permanent Facilities 1,600 Total Senior High School Interim(Portables) Facilities 0 Total Senior High School Permanent and Interim Facilities 0 Source: West Valley School District Elementary School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the West Valley School District will need permanent space for 1,372 full-time-equivalent elementary students. The current capacity is approximately 2,100 FTE for this category. No capacity projects scheduled within the next six years for the elementary school level. Junior High School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the West Valley School District will need permanent space for 512 FTE junior high school students. The current capacity is approximately 600 FTE for this category. No capacity projects scheduled within the next six years for the junior high school level. Senior High School Capacity Requirements. By the year 2006, the West Valley School District will need permanent space for 1,701 senior high school students. The 99 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools current capacity for housing these students is approximately 1,600 students. No capacity projects scheduled within the next six years for the senior high school level. Table PS-14. West Valley School District Facility Capacity Requirements and Proposed Capacity Projects through 2000-2006 School Year (1) . . (2) • . . (3).. ' (4) . • (5) ., (6) . • Net Reserve 'Net Reserve or Time Period ' EnrollmentExisting Interim or Deficiency: Deficiency: all 'Capaacity Capacity" Permanent facilities • Facilities Elementary Schools(K-61 2000 Actual 1,541 2,100 0 559 559 2000-2006: Growth -67 0 0 67 67 Total as of 2006 1,474 2,100 0 626 626 Capacity Projects: None Jr. High Schools(7-8) 2000 Actual 514 600 0 86 86 2000-2006: Growth -2 0 0 2 2 Total as of 2006 512 600 0 88 88 Capacity Projects: None Senior High Schools(9-121 2000 Actual 1,600 1,600 0 0 0 2000-2006: Growth 101 0 0 -101 -101 Total asof2006 1,701 1,600 0 -101 -101 Capacity Projects: None Source: Enrollment Data from State of Washington, Superintendent of Public Instruction Capacity Date from Table PS-I3. Capital Projects and Financing Plan West Valley school district does not have any significant capital improvement programs scheduled for the next six years. 100 Capital Facilities Plan Public Schools Pend Oreille County Spokane County School Districts A ' LEGEND •int NEWPORT S.D.#56/415 Ati Private Schools •a� UGA Boundary _ 4 Public Elementary N Incorporated Area 1 Ill Public Middle N Highway — { �---- •Mita, w Public High Schools • Landmark ICI. .` E er Park U 1 RIVERSIDE m Public Colleges School location and School = 44 S.D.#416 Private Colleges District data maintained by S. , Spokane County Boundary Review Board. ,, DEER PARK t Spokane S.D.#414 le..5878 Uri / , ,. . i I H 1 r NINE MILE FALLS C.__ *Colbert p MEAD S.D.#325/179 4 1 r--Li I S.D.#354 •awa 0 •Ni int, •1 '�WNead • 7:11.. 1 / EAST VALLEY �.� l+�lik % r t„, t' S.D.#361 ORCHARD - l ` t � L, PRAIRIE Newman Lake S.D.#123 O •Mcwb REARDAN/EDWALL • S.D.#9 - c. .s?.. ,,�w KAIVic i -le. • OM`Orchards GREAT NORTHER 1 1/S. .�I 1 1 li ..�.�•, i` O S.D.#312 +. i . lore % ire .r 11 1 / 1/ 1/ 1 1/ ' rty e O �neep creat4 4 . !...._.—71---i—jii _MINA. ' © __ 1 A :� %.1,44 4 • _ ' v� 1 1cEN1'hAt VALLEY F.:rchildA.• : + 4 ` 4 '+� 1 S.D.#356 'rte --- f ik _ _ rt n•t 4 _ - B . Mountain ' Ile'.31' Mica Peak c 0J l • Elev 5225 ti dica! a --..J Marshall kesMia N MEDICAL LAKE 1 © 1 > a ii S.D.©6 _ teetna, J -- S.D.#358 � F�—L . m 4,,dier 1 �� J cp I _. t d •.. � CD Tyler S le Turnbull _ l CHENEY ,Wildlife Refuge S.D.#360 r F..' ^ LIBERTY S.D.#362 Williams. W ly i--- r 1 Rafna ^ ST.JOHN ROSAL W TEKOA 3-`/.rr- Spriug Valley �'" S.D.#4015 D.#410 SD.#26580 t Whitman County Whitman County g- This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general planning tool.Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and therefore,there are no warranties SraetrfCarn. which accompany this material. Produced:October 03.2001 1plan4/cfp/school.aml Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan • SANITARY SEWERS Background In 1983, Spokane County commenced construction of the County sewer program to bring houses and businesses located in the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA) onto a sewer system utilizing a regional treatment facility. The County's efforts focused on a Priority Sewer Service Area(PSSA), which represented the unincorporated vicinity to be sewered within a 10-year time frame. Since that time, over 18,000 homes and businesses have been connected to the County's sewer system. To accomplish this, the County developed an innovative and comprehensive financing program to provide financial assistance equal to approximately 50 percent of total project costs in an effort to reduce the impact to local ratepayers. Since 1983, the investment in sewer projects totals more than $146,000,000. In spite of its accomplishments, the County was unable to extend sewers throughout the PSSA within the first 10 years. Local and state health departments began expressing concern in the early 1990's that the County's sewer activities were progressing too slowly and in a haphazard manner. Furthermore, the State Board of Health felt that areas experiencing significant problems with on-site sewage systems were not receiving any special emphasis. In 1996, the County adopted an Interim Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP). The intent of the 1996 CWMP Interim Update was to develop strategies to expedite the sanitary sewer program for protection of the Aquifer and to satisfy regulations established by the Washington State Departments of Health (DOH) and Ecology (DOE), the Spokane County Health District and other regulatory requirements. Since the adoption of the CWMP, the progress on the County's sewer program has been very good, and the program is ahead of the adopted schedule by approximately two years. Sewer Planning Activities A number of issues have affected wastewater management planning in recent years, including new Department of Ecology treatment requirements for the Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, the need to develop new financing strategies for the sewer construction program, new state on-site wastewater regulations and compliance with the Growth Management Act. Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Interim Update The Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP) Interim Update, adopted in 1996, was prepared to revise and refine the County's original 1981 CWMP. The original CWMP outlined specific actions and responsibilities to initiate a comprehensive sewer plan and management of on-site wastewater disposal and development activities above an area designated as the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). Those fundamental components are still in place and operating effectively. 101 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers However, growth, regulatory and financial conditions have changed with time and precipitated preparation of the 1996 CWMP Interim Update. The update was driven by a longstanding policy that all programs and activities conducted by the County and its citizens should ensure "nondegradation" of the Spokane-Rathdrum Aquifer (Aquifer). The CWMP Interim Update serves as an update for the County's Sewerage General Plan under the County Services Act, Chapter.36.94 RCW. It also serves as the County's General Sewer Plan, as specified by WAC 173-240. The general objectives of the update were as follows. 1. Review and revise County sewer activities to meet the needs of existing and future County customers in a manner that enhances water quality protection and the environment. 2. Establish a financial and administrative strategy to implement the updated CWMP requirements and recommendations. 3. Address concerns expressed by the State Board of Health and develop a realistic Priority Sewer Service Area with priority sewer projects to be sewered and financed in the next 15 years. Sewer projects were prioritized into 6-, 15- and 20-year programs (see North Sewer Priority and Valley Sewer Priority Maps following page 102). The 6- and 20-year time frames were selected to conform with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The 6-year program areas were determined to have the highest priority for sewering. These areas are generally more urbanized and are currently served by on-site disposal. An effective financing strategy was developed to support the construction of capital improvement projects during the first six priority years and beyond. It is noteworthy that by the end of 2000, 15 of the Board of Health's top 16 priority areas identified in the Interim Update have been provided with sewer service. Each year the Spokane County Utilities Division updates its 6-Year Sewer Construction Capital Improvement Program (CIP), as well as the corresponding Sewer Priority Area maps. This information will be updated yearly in the County's Capital Facilities Plan. CWMP Finalization Preparation of the Final CWMP is now underway. This update is being undertaken to ensure consistency between the CWMP and the adopted Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. It is anticipated that the Final CWMP will be completed 2001, shortly following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. • 102 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers I F North Sewer Project Priority Areas �" 1 R D w—; O xxn,T LEGEND c toRki WOOLARD rt wsal+xu Incorporated Ana UGA Boundary P E 0 Sewed Basin Al Built Interceptor o, i 141O 6 YR Plan ' Proposed Interceptor FENDER D F mag 15 YR Plan City/County Service Boundary 20 YR Plan 1 e'er Aquifer Sensitive ' ® Sewer Extensions Area °F Sewer Project Priority Area Landmark data maintained by Spokane p Q T • \ ODI.tl F.R County Division of Utilities. PO CO :ERT I IMI 1g I i1iJii X' ' '- Rnrxn;H v ' y9?,9 101 BALI ARD Ili I ' BALLARD kb _� 1 I 1IV v: WEI ' I S VER PINI; 7!111 ■ I fhwinlii A11DW�1' C Pgltl 7 `I:IIIUOi►CAt15TIN DAY-MT.S•NM 1 or 1.11 alli. 05, IfliZef4iii........\ . . -7,,,:. .... 641PM Whi. 7 60 �- S. �Q 111J� lb STf' ..' ek,, • j 1 ord .sj RIVHRBLUI7: 41111 nrix �U' ;ro 1 ■ s a•low• • ikle S.nkat!e, •' R.. iiiiji ,� MiitAilrile� rir ' HASTINGS11 ' 1 in , ...ilk10,7 111 IMO l `44N. .�, -ad Rill ,.,..14L- 16.. ii'l 0.1_11 r 1 _ma_ ___ iri vom,...1—=__,L...) V / - oe El I rag I MEI Y 1 -+ ORTHFryE• �,t, ' 1 11. fij' �� T -"Ija** __ • A grim la r-."•"Vky : \VOID i11/ A/L. r ■ .� I ,�N'PC ORCHARD 7 , I . SUP NE 0740,11r401111111„/ r.� MA INESRibt (IP'111.10 ( v if 45. 0 pi, hir7=1.1 WI IP •err/ 0* 1 I 4 ./1 11)I la I Rtitill I I 111 II II7 9 *ttIIIwhgriII[IH011uviiipIuiiI' • �wA IIIIIIIII■�1��i► `r��I■111■1■■1■1■�1�,�� C1 C•�so m .-==�i11Gi,9^ail■�'CC "a1-LL� ■",■■ BIC_ 0�--, gi t��, , —r_1r�i►X11111=--IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■GIIIIIIIIII == ::�M�_= ► `� ��TC=4�LiMidi i =_=1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIME111II =___==_imi NM � t�111111�11��1i��IIIIIIIl��1 1f111111=--_ _,_= =ii , 11111111:= 1_` �— -- - IIIIIlI:,1111= 111111111■�— _�______i===—CI=I 11■.mi_ r �kA+,_ e4 --- �=1111- =1-�. ---- II_. __ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII =IIIIIC=====1 _-_=i� �i=kS4 �_== =IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA!!lIIIIIIIII! - 1111WIIIIAIIII P Eu _= •�.��Vti=-- P 1' 1I I a —M=-=---VIII IIII111111111==: _MI. glll`wR`=y__ __ �� 1' Illl III'II1l►ill �� C =� � ��-� m '— m un■mum immtlmlrrllra.==m.__�______—■' ''==��= _ _=—==—miumom_en=l�d imaili. a.. __1111___ G -- ======111111�_t� ImunuununuuunIm=_ ==1111- 1111' , .=-___•�� Illlunuunnnnuuuuunuununuu�_===_-- _ 11■■■ ----;---M uIuIInlunlnultlunmumllllllml _______-"� ARig This map was published by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general planning tool.Due to the differing quality of source documents,the Division cannot '„ accept responsibility for errors or omissions,and therefore.there are no warranties Sew,*Corn which accompany this material. Produced:October 03,2001 /plan4/cfp/sewemorth.aml Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan �� I t .. V I I glade Valley Sewer Project Priority Areas ____ '� � a LEGEND �� .� so ED tAa i� UGA Boundary v' ' I ` III r` 1 IllIt In t4r � , I'1 v4 -t-1 .J11111MEIMMOasin N Bui tarepIiiiIiIt r��i '�, .A' Proposed Interceptor i i `�gr i - 1 1n N City/County a �� `— IMMik � :,1 WI t>' Aquifer Sensitive 1 - ��3 !1.41111111.11.11.91 m St wa Ext a■ioas Area -_ ' IIIII1�i� '■11111■`I— ■�__■ _� ._ .•,.ice �` O SewerProjectPriorityArea �"'� iifili � t.■■■■ J data maintained by Spokane -�� 111■1��%� `�" ti— , ane County Division of Utilities. ■;-■ �� ■;mumm Miglib�;V• �_�� S �` Vi. — .i... t.1610.1"1111PL0515. ' 1En%, gik I toy . Isinuminnup•-- ....10-41-9;=--. I- 4 pliparrommi•-...+111111111111111r4m . . -- ---- i, - 'gift\ .; • ==!1!!!!!EVIEIP,- ...iiiiro".......-.7.--siii,,,, --4.11ii! emn° :k ail& 1114 IP° E2ESEME.E_ __ ��,♦4,4101.1.1==' % ` 1MdC'Z'-'. ■■■ ,t 111100 -�I `Jam, �4 �■�1t4? � ' :�:_�__ �f.11111111111M=� ► ;111_[.1 `„2M�rC ■7� ��= _ (1 at a.:,=i_'■ 7.::!��ia" a4. e�I==0:�111111■i1C1'� r+ iagr��C■ �-- - -t r fW ��ttttt� �11 � . mil =�� ZLIC - �■ `:.\\ .• `.Pi1111I■■■F�mL��I Cl�rAi J �I ��. C1 �' 1 ■■ ♦ `."� �\� ;� _— III 11 � �.._A.t6 a .diii��.■■■[11■�t11 .��F �..�..�7I . —e lirteinillftwillii..2.1M.-�'�- 1■11111111■11■1 t- ,..tet t� n■ l�ilrrl■■r 1��\ \\N�� ••� " ■i�■■■L� i■ tt++ 1— �■w�.J■��t �i� r�r=r i!�`�w. 1 ■.It.lli lligi .__. ��,..,� �1ICY■CII■1�J�■E.�7C�lS7r tt_�L�=1i■��I w INI ��/ r �lnnnui°O ::■:�■I� & ` lit ifi1l■� h®1■MillEME RY■iOINEffibMWM=■ I— '. !A� li e ■ tc _ t■tar r�==_====-:-----t�ttrttt�tttJ—=��iaiL ��.� fil I T ap 11 t t tee- �= —_— -�� .■■■■_�� ■ ��. t r �► _ ___ �� •i■�I■r.�f=' !liter-ii11�IEIr■r■=il�il�1M111iRES —■. at•mIC -� �1 ! ■ t r� _:■.r..■= —==sr ■1Nr7 ITi===:y� t r ICIERNIIIIa 1 ltttttttt__I — rtf—Wf ■ w I ■ , ;;; i==iETIiiIIIIi111111===■--Sv et:---e .tet: ��f x1111, I1M� •1`■ pmei EltA ,1 - 1.1 t -\ _-- 111 -e■■�� al = tom.■-=. ♦ Awa■■ ■- ,N IralirA„ t riii■■■i- ■ �'�k. 111 _..r .�c• ��'ri ■J•\ t1. mwril d■■■■■■u■7 1 _ >.� = la1uru=.1.,t-/1_ Igi ', t1•■■..■■■■ t . --C 11 IJ �,t,.,I...,�e�IMammio 'J---- ■■■.as ,. .. �l'ai*"&"1' --"F--"Pi rmiliiinirt: s ‘. .� �(�i■- �'�I •1.11 111 11 r d �ll�'° , ■ !i10t:°[:7I�J•1 tiVi rM=Mi�.�OL.., 411.__-�1 Ire ' _ . `I.1--a Bare l_`\ ..rum l■■+e1 ed.8M , t- '.., . AllIEEN ,001111701 —.1ro , miltioNisimi lb ,....i.A.- ====== -advrowity kik or mmr,=mmm. U. 1=11161 _ �..�___�. . ,_.�===<<trM11��l a ENS ,,,, �; 03 --111■11■w. oto• ■.L..r u, nu.nw lailli=� �r=■EMsssl•!``� _; ;,� ` X71 INIVI gIFI . 9E1 � �".11 1111■ a.-■i fil . r7rr1; ll / '��Vo r �w OH/.4. ts. m===.;,sem ts= ,.Ifi. -!:'!J NSItltlll _:�: 11e N l� �■CE113 w W .....-_ ;.t,N I� �■r r NI ... .. ... .41 11111 :. ,_`� ! N immMil r '`:. 1 a 4.` �� , . .' ili ` y Lice�,MAKt i N.S. & �:•,:. i tl wi Mira ' t . istlitt al j , sivi.-aiij? .- -.: .•..`leek;�� ',,I,,,.,,,*„►%IN Lw2 �•.+.`�\ Nary,. R, •,,.� ,..,........,:. ... r \ Bro i;' .' ountain . .IRI) IA„„:G-, E le Y. 3 1 44 ?i L - — -- -- — — This map NUS published by the Spokane Ctunty Division ra Nanning.s a.mail Produced:October(13,21)(11 planning tool. e to the dialing ytctlity of style'documents.the Division l-annm /plu,4/cfp/sewer,al.anil Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan accept i�tytr t,mtn,l..ltn,..°uthe°.tie°.therc.°tno w:��w which;r:ctnntzmy this nn:uni:nl. Wastewater Facilities Plan In the spring of 2000, the Spokane County Utilities Division began the process of developing a Wastewater Facilities Plan to identify wastewater facilities and programs that must be implemented to meet the long-term sewer needs of the County. The Wastewater Facilities Plan (WFP) will provide an in-depth analysis of the various wastewater treatment technologies available, in addition to exploring the wide range of related environmental considerations. Public participation is fully integrated into this extensive planning effort. The Wastewater Facilities Plan process will explore various wastewater treatment alternatives, including the following. • Discharge of treated wastewater • Underground storage of treated and effluent to the Spokane River, reclaimed wastewater for using one or more new treatment subsequent use for irrigation or plants located between Liberty release to streams for flow Lake and the City of Spokane. augmentation during critical low- flow periods. • Discharge of treated wastewater effluent to the Little Spokane • Recharge of the Spokane Aquifer River,providing flow with treated wastewater effluent, augmentation in the Little with the co-mingled water being Spokane River to help meet available for all uses including minimum stream flow needs. potable water supplies. • Use of treated and reclaimed • Discharge of wastewater to the wastewater for irrigation of Liberty Lake treatment plant for agricultural lands, golf courses, treatment and subsequent discharge school grounds and parks. to the Spokane River. • Use of treated and reclaimed wastewater for creation of wetlands. The scope of work for the WFP is focused on developing an overall wastewater management strategy for the County. In developing the management plan, representative treatment processes will be used to define the estimated requirements for treatment plant space, capital costs, operating costs, cash flow and other resource needs. The County is projected to exceed its contracted wastewater treatment capacity of 10 million gallons per day at the Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant by the end of the year 2006. The County must increase its capacity to treat wastewater to accommodate and support the growth that is projected in the Comprehensive Plan. The WFP will meet the State of Washington's requirements for an "Engineering Report" under WAC 173-240-060. It will also meet EPA's requirements for a "Wastewater 103 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Facilities Plan"under CFR 40-35-917. It is anticipated that the Wastewater Facilities Plan will be completed by the end of 2001. Sewer Financial Plan and Rate Study Spokane County's sewer service rates have not increased since 1996. The sewer system is growing rapidly, with the addition of approximately 2,000 new customers per year. Many factors must be considered in the establishment and maintenance of a fair and equitable rate structure. Spokane County has retained a financial consultant to perform a wastewater rate study and provide financial planning services. The County has identified three major objectives for this study. 1. Perform a revenue requirements analysis, cost of service analysis, and rates analysis to recover the County's wastewater system costs during budget years 2001-2006. 2. Provide a framework in the rate study for use in evaluating rate impacts from future wastewater treatment alternatives. 3. Evaluate financial issues related to construction of future collection system sewers, interceptors, pumping stations and wastewater treatment plant(s). It is anticipated that the financial plan and rate study will be completed in the spring of 2001. A revised rate structure, if deemed appropriate, could be adopted by the summer of 2001. Wastewater Treatment Capacity Regional Treatment Facility • The Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant currently has a rated capacity of 44 MGD, average dry-weather flow. The City estimates that during wet conditions there may be as much as 9.5 million gallons per day of extraneous flows entering the sewer system. The City is working on a variety of projects that will increase both the capacity and the level of treatment at the plant. Additionally, other programs are underway to substantially reduce inflow and infiltration in the City's collection system. City/ County Interlocal Agreement In 1982, an Interlocal Agreement was executed between Spokane County and the City of Spokane wherein the County purchased 10 million gallons per day of capacity in the regional 44-MGD Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant. Currently, the County is utilizing approximately 6.4 MGD, including waste from the town of Millwood, which has contracted with Spokane County to accept and dispose of wastewater flows. The County projected in the 1996 CWMP Interim Update that its wastewater flow will reach 10 MGD by 2007 and approximately 14.5 MGD by 2015. The flow projections are currently being reviewed and updated in conjunction with the work on the Final CWMP. 104 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Future Treatment Options The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) regulates public wastewater utilities under the federal Clean Water Act in Spokane County. Wastewater discharges into surface water, such as the Spokane River, are regulated by DOE to meet specific allowable load limits, in the interest of maintaining water quality. These load limits will affect the approach to providing additional wastewater treatment capacity needed for continued growth. The DOE is moving toward stricter plant discharge limitations for pollutants such as phosphorus, metals and ammonia. The City of Spokane and Spokane County are looking at future options for wastewater management, such as plant expansion, new plants, land application of treated effluent and conservation regulations. Plant expansion and upgrade work is currently underway at the regional facility, not only for additional flow capacity, but also for a higher level of treatment. Other programs to augment treatment capacity include the City's "combined sewer overflow"program, which could reduce extraneous flows by millions of gallons per day. As discussed earlier in this section, the County is actively working towards the development of wastewater treatment capacity beyond the County's current 10 MGD capacity at the regional plant. The Wastewater Facilities Plan (WFP) will recommend the most effective solution to provide future wastewater treatment capacity for Spokane County. The best alternative will likely be one that sets forth a strategy combining additional treatment capacity at the existing regional plant with new state—of—the-art treatment facilities in other locations. The WFP will examine alternatives such as beneficial reuse of the treated flows and other emerging technologies. Based upon the Wastewater Facilities Plan's recommended alternative for meeting future wastewater treatment needs, the County will proceed with the development of the required facilities. Regional Collection Systems City of Spokane The City of Spokane's wastewater collection system provides service within its incorporated boundary and extends into specific portions of the unincorporated areas of the County immediately adjacent to the City's corporate limits. These areas are identified in the County's CWMP as the City Sewer Service Area. The City of Airway Heights and Fairchild Air Force Base (FAFB) have wastewater collection systems that are connected to the City's interceptor sewer on the West Plains. Inventory, level of service and financial information is presented in City of Spokane's Capital Facilities Plan. Spokane County Spokane County's wastewater collection system has been extended into a large portion of the urbanized areas of the Spokane Valley and North Spokane. The total area currently served by the County's sewer system is approximately 12,600 acres. There are currently three connection points of the County's system to the City of Spokane's interceptor sewer system. The County system also receives the wastewater flows from the Town of 105 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Millwood and the Spokane Industrial Park in the Spokane Valley. Small Cities, Towns and Communities in Spokane County A substantial amount of the sewage generated throughout Spokane County is disposed of through collection and treatment systems owned and operated by small towns, cities and communities. These include Cheney, Deer Park, Medical Lake, Rockford, Spangle, Fairfield and the Williams Lake Sewer District. Other sewage disposal systems include smaller collection and treatment facilities that serve a particular subdivision or small development. These community sewage disposal systems usually consist of a community septic tank and drainfield system or a small package treatment system with drainfield disposal. They are regulated by the State Department of Health or by the Department of Ecology, depending upon the total daily flow treated. In general, the rural areas of Spokane County are not served by public sewer systems. Many residences and businesses use septic tanks and drain fields for sewage disposal. The Spokane County Health District regulates septic systems. Information on the individual jurisdictions' sewer systems can by found in their comprehensive plans. Level of Service In accordance with the Growth Management Act, each jurisdiction must include policies in its comprehensive plan to address how urban development will be managed to promote efficiency in the use of land and the provision of urban governmental services and public facilities. The Spokane County Steering Committee's Regional Minimum Level of Service (LOS) for sanitary sewer provides the following for each component. Density Requirements 1. Urban areas, for those jurisdictions in excess of 1,000 population, will be provided with wastewater collection and transport systems where average densities exceed two equivalent residential units (ERUs) per net acres. (Note: Some development regulations allow clustering development on large parcels of land that could reduce the average density below 2 ERUs and thus negate the sanitary sewer requirement. Under these conditions, only the area that is developed will be used to determine the average density.) (An equivalent residential unit (ERU) is defined as a residential dwelling with 2.5 persons living in it (and/or 300 gallons per day) or a nonresidential development which will produce the same average daily flow of wastewater.) 106 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Design Standards 1. Collection systems and transport systems will be designed for peak flow conditions so that overflows, backups and discharges from the system do not occur under normal operating situations. Specific design criteria shall conform to the requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology and local regulations. Treatment 1. Wastewater will be transported to centralized wastewater treatment facilities. 2. Centralized wastewater treatment and effluent disposal facilities will be planned, designed and constructed to provide effluent that does not degrade the quality of surface or groundwater of the State of Washington. Planning and design for wastewater treatment and effluent disposal facilities will be based on 20-year projections of population growth and current water quality criteria as established by the Washington State Department of Ecology. (Note: Centralized wastewater treatment facilities means a sewage system owned or operated by a city, town, municipal corporation, county,political subdivision or the state or other approved ownerships consisting of a collection system and necessary pumping facilities and means of final treatment and disposal, and approved or under permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology.) For the design of wastewater collection and treatment facilities, Spokane County's Division of Utilities uses a minimum design criteria of 2.5 persons per residential dwelling. A flow of 90 to 100 gallons per capita per day is applied; consistent with • historical flow patterns and an allowance for infiltration and inflow. This meets the Level of Service minimum of 2.5 persons per residential dwelling. An appropriate "peaking factor" is applied to the average daily flow to obtain the design flow for each element of the collection system or treatment system being designed. Spokane County Sewer System Inventory Spokane County's system generally consists of major interceptor sewers, major pumping stations, small pumping stations and local collection systems. In total, there are approximately 308 miles of sewer mains and 6,600 manholes in the system. The County also operates a small number of satellite treatment plants in areas that are located a considerable distance from the regional collection system. As the interceptor system is extended into outlying areas, the satellite systems are abandoned and the flows are routed into the regional system. As a result, only four of these satellite systems remain today. Spokane County Wastewater Treatment Facilities Spokane County has 10 million gallons per day of treatment capacity at the Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility. The capacity at the regional plant represents 107 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers the great majority of the County's total treatment capacity. In addition to the 10 MGD at the regional plant, the County has treatment capacity at four small satellite facilities. Table SS-1 provides general information on each of the treatment facilities, including location, service area and the maximum daily flow that can be treated. Table SS-1 Spokane County Wastewater Treatment Facilities Facility,Name ;'Q ' .; Location Servica. Area , '` Capacity Spokane Advanced NE '/ Sec 3, T25 N., Spokane County ! 10 Million GPD Wastewater Treatment Plant R42 E.W.M. I Sewer Service Area Hangman Valley ' NE '/ Sec 28,T24 N., Hangman Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant R43 E.W.M. Subdivision 86,000 GPD - Monte Del Ray Treatment 1 Sec 6, T25 N., R44 Monte Del Ray Plant E.W.M. Subdivision 37,800 GPD Peone Pines Treatment Plant Sec 35,T27 N., R43 Peone Pines 87,600 GPD E.W.M. Subdivision Heritage Estates Treatment Sec 9, T26 N., R43 Heritage Estates 21,000 GPD Plant R.W.M. I Subdivision Spokane County Wastewater Treatment Capacity Analysis Table SS-2 shows that Spokane County's remaining capacity at the_Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility is currently 3.6 million gallons of wastewater per day. The additional projected wastewater flow through 2006 is expected to be 3.6 million gallons per day. Therefore, the County is projected to exceed its contracted capacity of 10 million gallons per day at the Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility at the beginning of 2007. -,,,Table SS-2 ° Spokane County Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity,Analysis\ y Current Remaining Capacity Total Capacity(Regional Facility) 10,000,000 GPD Current Wastewater Flow -6,400,000 GPD Current Remaining Capacity 3,600,000 GPD Projected Wastewater Flows New ERUs(2001-2006) 14,400 ERU Flow per ERU x 250 GPD Total Additional Flow 3,600,000 GPD ERU=Equivalent Residential Units GPD=Gallons Per Day As discussed previously in this section, the Wastewater Facilities Plan will provide the basis for development of additional treatment capacity. We project that a minimum of 5 million gallons per day of additional capacity will be on the line at the beginning of 2007. 108 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Spokane County Interceptor Sewers Spokane County has three major sewer interceptors known as the Spokane Valley Interceptor(SVI), the North Valley Interceptor(NVI) and the North Spokane Interceptor • (NSI). Each of the interceptors is designed to convey the peak wastewater flow from its respective service area. The largest interceptor is the Spokane Valley Interceptor, which has a maximum pipe diameter of 54 inches. Flows from the County interceptor sewers enter the City's collection system at three locations. Table SS-3 provides general information on each of the interceptor sewers, including the general location and service area, as well as the peak wastewater flow that can be conveyed through the interceptor. Table SS-3 Spokane County Interceptor Sewers Name = -. Location Service Area I Capacity- Spokane Valley Interceptor I Havana and Fourth to Liberty South Spokane 30,800,000 GPD (SVI) Lake Valley _ North Valley Interceptor I Regal Street and Spokane North Spokane 16,150,000 GPD (t� i River to Sullivan& Indiana Valley_ �___ _ __ North Spokane Interceptor Rowan and Cannon to Hatch North Spokane 10,150,000 GPD (NSI) I Road and State Highway 395 Urbanizing Arca Spokane County Sewer Interceptor Capacity Analysis Tables SS-4, SS-5 and SS-6 present a capacity analysis of Spokane County's three major sewer interceptors. By the end of 2006, the North Spokane Interceptor is expected to have a reserve capacity measuring nearly 4.7 million gallons per day. The North Valley Interceptor shows a reserve of 10.7 million gallons per day and the Spokane Valley Interceptor follow with a reserve of 12.8 million gallons per day. Table SS-4 'Proposed Level of Service Analysis ; NORTH SPOKANE INTERCEPTOR «., Proposed LOS=650 GPD per ERU (peak flow) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) GPD Current Net Time Period ERU's Required C 650 GPD Reserve/ Per ERU Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 5,508 3,580,200 10,150,000 6,569,800 2001-2006: Growth 2,880 1,872,000 0 -1,872,000 Total as of 2006 8,388 5,452,200 10,150,000 4,697,800 109 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers :?able SS 5 . 7 L • Proposed Level of Service Analysis NORTH VALLEY INTERCEPTOR / Proposed LOS=650 GPD per ERU (peak flow) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) GPD Current Net Time Period ERU's Required @ 650 GPD Reserve/ Per ERU Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 4,786 3,1 10,900 16,150,000 13,039,100 2001-2006: Growth 3,600 _ 2,340,000 0 -2,340,000 Total as of 2006 8,386 5,450,900 16,150,000 10,699,100 -. Proposed Level'of Service Analysis- r.- • ' SPOKANE VALLEY INTERCEPTOR,': . Proposed LOS=650 GPD per ERU (Peak Flow) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) GPD Current Net Time Period ERU's Required @ 650 GPD Reserve/ Per ERU Available Deficiency 2000 Actual 19,717 12,816,050 30,800,000 17,983,950 2001-2006: Growth 7,920 5,148.000 0 -5,148,000 Total as of 2006 27,637 17,964,050 30,800,000 12,835,950 Spokane County Sewage Collection System The majority of the County's sewer collection system (85%) is comprised of 8-inch, 10- inch and 12-inch pipe. The service area is divided into "sewer basins." The boundaries of the various sewer basins are based on topography, major arterials and other factors. The sewer mains in each sewer basin collect the flow from the individual businesses and residences and convey those flows to one of the interceptor sewers discussed above. Table SS-7 provides a breakdown of the footage of gravity sewer main by pipe diameter. Table SS-7. Spokane County Sewer Lines Pipe Size Total Footage 6"Gravity 1,439 8"Gravity 1,197,381 10"Gravity 130,168 12"Gravity 50,592 15"Gravity 38,409 18"Gravity 35,055 21"Gravity 16,597 24"Gravity 33,767 . 27"Gravity 13,725 30"Gravity 18,992 36"Gravity 30,867 42"Gravity 29,543 48"Gravity 11,559 54"Gravity 16,982 Total Fcct 1.625,076 Total Miles 307.8 110 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Spokane County Sewage Pumping Stations The wastewater from large portions of the County's service area must be pumped, due to topography. The County owns and operates eight major pumping stations, with capacities in excess of 300 gallons per minute. The largest of these, the Marion Hay Pump Station, has a current capacity of 2,500 gallons per minute, and pumps all of the flow from the North Spokane service area through the North Spokane Interceptor to the City's system. All major pump stations are designed to allow upgrades at specific flow thresholds. As flows increase, the pumping equipment may be replaced or modified with relative ease. In addition to the eight major pumping stations, the County owns and operates ten small pumping stations. These stations were installed to serve individual developments or localized areas that cannot be served by gravity systems. Table SS-8_presents general information on the eight major pumping stations in the County's system. Table SS-8 Spokane County Major Sewage Pumping Stations ' Facility Name Location. Service Area Capacity Section 18,T. 26N., R. North Spokane Urbanizing Marion Hay Pump Station 2,500 GPM 43 E.W.M. Area Section I8,T.25N., R. Portion of North Spokane Whitworth Pump Station 2,800 GPM 44 E.W.M. Urbanizing Area Section 5,T.26N., R. Portion of North Spokane Dartford Pump Station 2,000 GPM 43 E.W.M. Urbanizing Area Fairwood Park Pump Station Section 7,'f. 26N., R. Fairwood Development 1,370 GPM 43 E.W.M. Section 6,T. 26N., R. Portion of Fairwood Little Spokane Pump Station 360 GPM 43 E.W.M. Development Ella Road Pump Station Section 18,T.25N, R. Portion of Spokane Valley 2,600 GPM 44 E.W.M. Riverwalk Pump Station Section 9,T.25N., R. Portion of Spokane Valley 320 GPM 44 E.W.M. Section 6,T.25N., R. Pasadena Park,N. side of Pasadena Park Pump Station 950 GPM 44 E.W.M. Spokane River Note: Spokane County owns and operates ten additional small pump stations. Spokane County Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Plan Sewer Construction Program This section of the CFP presents Spokane County's Six-Year Sewer Construction Capital Improvement Program. Tables SS-9 through SS-16 show the individual sewer projects, total cost estimates for each project and the respective funding sources. Table SS-17 provides a summary of total costs and revenues, approximately $87 million, for years 2000 to 2006, for the Sewer Construction Program. 111 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Wastewater Treatment Projects • The projects planned by Spokane County in the area of Wastewater Treatment fall into two major categories. The first category is comprised of projects that will be undertaken jointly with the City of Spokane in order to maintain the capacity of the existing Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (SAWTP). The second category is comprised of projects that will be undertaken by Spokane County to increase wastewater treatment capacity. Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades Spokane County currently has 10 MGD of treatment capacity at the Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility(SAWTP). Significant upgrades are ongoing at the SAWTP in order to meet more stringent discharge requirements imposed by regulation. Spokane County participates in the cost of these projects on a "prorated share" basis. Table SS-18 presents Spokane County's estimated share of these project costs for the years 2001 through 2006. Also presented in Table SS-18 is the estimate of revenues that will support these expenditures. It is anticipated that bonds will be sold by the County to pay for these improvements. The debt service for those bonds will be provided from Wastewater Treatment Plant Fund revenues. Note that the estimated revenues to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Fund exceed the debt service estimate in each year. It is expected that the surplus revenues will be held in reserve for future projects and/or debt reduction. Additional Wastewater Treatment Capacity Based upon detailed flow projections, Spokane County will need additional wastewater treatment capacity by 2007, when total flows exceed the existing 10 MGD of capacity at the SAWTP. A variety of alternatives are currently being examined in conjunction with the preparation of the Spokane County Wastewater Facilities Plan. A conservative estimate of the cost of additional treatment capacity has been selected for financial planning purposes. (This estimate is $10 per gallon per day in 2001 dollars). It should be clarified that the specific alternative to be implemented for additional capacity will not be selected by the County until late in 2001. Table SS-19 presents the estimated expenditures associated with the design, siting, and construction of new treatment facilities for the years 2001 through 2006. It is anticipated that the result of these expenditures will be a new treatment facility, providing an additional 5 MGD of wastewater treatment capacity, on-line in 2007. It is expected that bonds will be sold to pay these costs, with the debt service for those bonds provided from the General Facility Charge Fund. Each new connection to the sewer system requires the payment of a General Facilities Charge, and those revenues are projected to exceed the amounts required to cover debt service for the new treatment facilities. Surpluses in General Facilities Charge revenue will be held in reserve for future projects and/or debt reduction. 112 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Total Sewer Cost and Revenue Summary Table SS-20 provides a summary for all Spokane County sewer capital projects. The Table shows that the County will spend nearly $160 million on sewer construction, wastewater treatment plant upgrades and treatment plant construction. • 113 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Table SS-10 Spokane County 2000 Sewer Construction Program . (Project Estimates and Financing in Thousands of Dollars) • Project Cost Estimate Project Financing Summary Project Design Const. *Total No. Mgmt Eng. NIgmt Const. Project Aquifer Sales State Pre- Revenue Total Basin Name ERUs Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Protection Taxes Grants GFCs Payments Bonds Funding Balance Easton 1,064 $206 $410 $410 S4,104 $5,130 $348 $572 $1,450 $0 $552 $2,208 $5,130 $0 College Homes 702 $97 $194 $194 $1.941 $2,426 $165 $271 $586 $0 $261 $1,044 $2,426 $0 Whitworth Terrace 152 $28 557 $57 $566 $708 $48 $79 $200 $0 $76 $305 $708 $0 South Ponderosa 406 $176 $353 $353 $3.526 $4,407 $299 $491 $1,245 $0 $474 $1,898 $4,407 $0 Painted Hills,Phase 1 N/A S24 $48 $48 $480 $600 SO $0 SO $600 SO SO $600 $0 Misc. Projects" N/A $24 S48 $48 $480 $600 $40 $67 $170 SO $65 $258 $600 $0 Total I 2,324 I $555 $1,110 $1,110 $11,097 $13,871 I $900 $1,480 $3,750 $600 $1,428 $5,713 $13,871 I $0 Notes: * The Total Project Cost is based on 1999 estimated costs, which have been inflated by 2.5%per year. ** Miscellaneous Projects include minor sewer construction in conjunction with County Road Projects, maintenance projects and emergency repairs. Abbreviations: ERUs=Equivalent Residential Units GFCs=General Facilities Charges 114 Capit°1 Facilities Plan Sanitary Severs Table SS-11 Spokane County. 2001 Sewer Construction'Program -, (Project Estimates and :Financing°in.Thousands of Dollars)"`, ' • rx = `' Project Cost Estimate Project Financing Summary Project Design Const. *Total No. Mgmt Eng. Mgmt Const. Project Aquifer Sales State Pre- Revenue Total Basin Name ERUs Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Protection Taxes Grants GFCs Payments Bonds Fundin' Balance Hutchinson 401 I $71 $141 $141 $1,413 $1,766 $117 $394 $435 $367 $113 $340 $1,766 $0 Walnut 238 $83 $166 $166 $1,660 $2,075 $172 $585 $645 $0 $168 $505 $2,075 $0 Skyview 336 $84 $167 $167 $1,673 $2,091 $173 $589 $650 $0 $170 $509 $2,091 $0 West Sprague 223 $42 $84 $84 $836 $1,046 $87 $295 $325 $0 $85 $254 $1,045 $0 Painted Hills,Phase 2 62 S44 $88 $88 $882 $1,102 $91 $311 $343 $0 $89 $268 $1,102 $0 Empire Heights 258 $30 $62 $62 $615 $769 $64 $217 $239 SO $62 $187 $769 $0 Mission 458 $123 $247 $246 $2,465 $3,081 $255 $868 $958 $0 $250 $750 $3,081 $0 Misc. Projects** N/A $20 $40 $40 $400 $500 '$41 $141 $155 $0 $41 $122 $500 $0 Total N 1,976 VV $497 $994 $994 $9,944 $12,430 ll $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $367 $978 $2,935 $12,430 V $0 Notes: * The Total Project Cost is based on 1999 estimated costs,which have been inflated by 2.5%per year. ** Miscellaneous Projects include minor sewer construction in conjunction with County Road Projects, maintenance projects and emergency repairs. Abbreviations: ERUs=Equivalent Residential Units GFCs=General Facilities Charges 115 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers . Table SS-12 . Spokane County . ,2002 Sewer Construction Program • (Project Estimates and Financing in Thousands of Dollars) Project Cost Estimate I Project Financing Summary Project Design Const. *Total No. Mgmt Eng. Mgmt Const Project Aquifer Sales State Pre- Revenue Total Basin Name ERUs Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Protection Taxes Grants CFCs Payments Bonds Funding Balance Pasadena Park 561 $191 $382 $382 $3,821 $4,776 $359 $1,220 S1,345 $905 $237 S710 $4,776 $0 _Woodway 134 S36 $73 $73 $726 $908 $85 $286 $315 SO $56 $166 $908 $0 Woodlawn/Beverly Hills 593 _ $126 $251 $251 $2,513 $3,141 $268 $911 $1,006 $248 $177 $531 $3,141 $0 South Wandermere 46 $14 $28 S28 $277 $347 $32 $109 $121 SO $21 $64 $347 $0 Chronicle 260 S92 $184 $184 $1,836 $2,296 $210 $716 $789 $25 $139 $416 $2,296 $0 Misc. Projects** N/A $20 $40 $40 $400 $500 $46 $158 $174 SO $30 $92 $500 $0 Total j 1,594 I $479 $957 $957 $9,573 $11,967 I $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $1,178 $660 $1,979 $11,967 I $0 Notes: * The Total Project Cost is based on 1999 estimated costs, which have been inflated by 2.5%per year. ** Miscellaneous Projects include minor sewer construction in conjunction with County Road Projects, maintenance projects and emergency repairs. Abbreviations: ERUs=Equivalent Residential Units GFCs=General Facilities Charges 116 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Table SS-13 • Spokane County 2003 Sewer Construction Program (Project Estimates and Financing in Thousands of Dollars) Project Cost Estimate I Project Financing Summary Project Design Const. *Total No. Nlgmt Eng. Mgmt Const. Project Aquifer Sales State Pre- Revenue Total Basin Name ERUs Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Protection Taxes Grants GFCs Payments Bonds Funding Balance Mansfield 434 $10 $20 $20 $196 $246 $23 576 $83 SO $16 S48 $246 $0 Pinecroft 120 $5 S9 $9 $93 $116 $11 $36 $40 SO $8 S22 $116 $0 Waikiki 191 $144 $289 $289 $2,886 $3,608 $231 $786 $867 $1,056 $167 $501 $3,608 $0 Hillview Acres 468 $99 $197 $197 $1,972 $2,465 $223 $759 S838 SO $161 $484 $2,465 $0 Harrington 370 $123 $245 $245 $2,450 $3,063 $277 5943 $1,040 $0 S200 $601 $3,063 $0 Upriver Drive 235 S83 $168 5168 $1,678 $2,097 $190 $646 $712 $0 5137 $412 $2,097 $0 Misc. Projects" N/A $20 $40 $40 $400 $500 $45 $154 $170 $0 '$33 $98 $500 $0 Total I 1,818 j $484 $968 $968 $9,675 $12,094 I $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $1,056 $722 $2,166 $12,094 $0 Notes: * The Total Project Cost is based on 1999 estimated costs,which have been inflated by 2.5%per year. ** Miscellaneous Projects include minor sewer construction in conjunction with County Road Projects, maintenance projects and emergency repairs. Abbreviations: ERUs=Equivalent Residential Units GFCs=General Facilities Charges 117 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers , • Table SS-14 • Spokane County - 2004 Sewer Construction Program .. . (Project Estimates and Financing in Thousands of Dollars) - Project Cost Estimate I Project Financing Summary Project Design Const. *Total No. Mgmt Eng. Mgmt Const. Project Aquifer Sales State Pre- Revenue Total Basin Name ERUs Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Protection Taxes Grants GFCs Payments Bonds Funding Balance Carnahan 446 $95 $191 $191 $1,908 $2,38.5 _ SI88 $636 $701 SO 5215 S646 $2,385 $0 Weatherwood 694 $127 $253 $253 $2,533 $3,166 $248 $844 $931 $0 $286 $857 $3,166 $0 Sipple 302 $108 $215 $215 $2,152 $2,690 $211 $717 $791 SO $243 $728 $2,690 $0 Owens 72 $16 S33 $33 $329 $411 $32 $110 $121 SO S37 $111 $411 SO Glen Eden 113 $39 $78 $78 $786 $981 $77 $262 $287 SO S88 $266 $981 50 Veradale 330 $105 $210 $210 S2,095 $2,619 $205 $698 $769 SO 5236 $709 $2,619 _ $0 Misc. Projects** N/A $20 $40 $40 $400 $500 $39 $133 $147 $0 S45 $135 $500 $0 Total I 1,957 I $510 $1,020 $1,020 $10,201 512,752 I $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $0 $1,150 $3,452 $12,752 I $0 Notes: * The Total Project Cost is based on 1999 estimated costs, which have been inflated by 2.5%per year. ** Miscellaneous Projects include minor sewer construction in conjunction with County Road Projects, maintenance projects and emergency repairs. Abbreviations: ERUs=Equivalent Residential Units GFCs=General Facilities Charges 118 Cap;'^I Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Table SS-15 Spokane County . ' • 2005 Sewer,Construction Program ., (Project Estimates and Financing in Thousands of Dollars) .. Project Cost Estimate b Project Financing Summary Project Design Const. *Total No. Mgmt Eng. Mgmt Const. Project Aquifer Sales State Pre- Revenue Total Basin Name ERUs Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Protection Taxes Grants GFCs Payments Bonds Funding Balance Mica Park 174 $31 $62 $62 $619 $774 $67 $226 $249 SO S58 $174 $774 $0 Orchard Avenue 321 $116 $232 $232 $2,325 $2,905 $250 $849 $937 $0 $217 $652 $2,906 $0 Inland 162 S27 $55 S55 $548 $685 $35 $120 $133 $274 S31 $92 $685 $0 Parks Road 423 £58 S116 $116 $1,160 $1,450 $125 $425 $467 $0 $108 $326 $1,450 $0 Sherwood Forest 148 $38 $76 $76 $763 $954 S82 $279 $307 $0 $72 $214 $954 $0 Edgerton 336 S140 S280 $280 $2,798 $3,497 $300 $1,022 $1,128 $0 S262 $785 $3,498 $0 Johnston 179 $46 S91 $91 S9I2 $1,140 598 $333 $368 $0 $85 $256 $1,140 $0 Misc. Projects** N/A $20 S40 $40 $400 $500 $43 $146 $161 $0 $37 $112 $500 $0 Total II 1,743 II $476 $952 $952 $9,525 $11,906 0 $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $274 $870 $2,612 $11,906 $0 Notes: * The Total Project Cost is based on 1999 estimated costs,which have been inflated by 2.5%per year. - ** Miscellaneous Projects include minor sewer construction in conjunction with County Road Projects, maintenance projects and emergency repairs. Abbreviations: ERUs=Equivalent Residential Units GFCs=General Facilities Charges 119 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Table SS-16 ' • Spokane County • 2006 Sewer Construction Program . ' (Project Estimates and Financing in Thousands of Dollars) • • • Project Cost Estimate [ Project Financing Summary Project Design Const. *Total No. Mgmt Eng. Mgmt Const Project Aquifer Sales State Pre- Revenue Total Basin Name ERUs Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Protection Taxes Grants CFCs Payments Bonds Funding Balance Electric RR 334 $121 $241 $242 S2,417 $3,021 $257 S874 $964 SO $230 $694 $3.021 SO Veradale Heights 503 $144 $288 $288 $2,878 $3,598 $306 S1,042 $1,149 $0 $275 S826 $3.598 $0 Vera Terrace 205 $89 $179 $179 S1,786 $2,232 $190 S646 $713 $0 $170 $513 $2,232 $0 Upriver Terrace 244 S108 $216 S216 $2,155 $2,694 $204 S693 $765 $298 $183 $550 $2,694 $0 Misc. Projects** N/A $20 $40 S40 S400 $500 S43 $145 $160 $0 S37 $115 $500 $0 Total I 1,286 I $482 $964 $964 $9,636 $12,045 I $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $298 $899 $2,698 $12,045 I $0 Notes: * The Total Project Cost is based on 1999 estimated costs,which have been inflated by 2.5%per year. ** Miscellaneous Projects include minor sewer construction in conjunction with County Road Projects, maintenance projects and emergency repairs. Abbreviations: ERUs=Equivalent Residential Units GFCs=General Facilities Charges 120 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Table-SS-17 Spokane County Sewer Construction , Cost/Financing Summary r .(Project'Estimates and Financing-in Thousands of,Dollars) - Project Cost Estimate 0 Project Financing Summary Const. *Total No. Project Design Mgmt Const. Project Aquifer Sales State Pre- Revenue Total Year ERUs Mgmt Cost Eng. Cost Cost Cost Cost Protection Taxes Grants GFCs Payments Bonds Funding Balance 2000 2,324 $555 $1,110 $1,110 $11,097 $13,871 $900 $1,480 $3,750 $600 $1,428 $5,713 $13,871 $0 2001 1,976 $497 $994 $994 $9,944 $12,430 $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $367 $978 $2,935 $12,430 $0 2002 1,594 $479 $957 $957 $9,573 $11,967 $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $1,178 $660 $1,979 $11,967 $0 2003 1,818 $484 $968 $968 $9,675 $12,094 $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $1,056 $722 $2,166 $12,094 $0 2004 1,957 $510 $1,020 $1,020 $10,201 $12,752 $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $0 $1,150 $3,452 $12,752 $0 2005 1,743 $476 $952 $952 $9,525 $11,906 $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $274 $870 $2,612 $11,906 $0 2006 1,286 $482 $964 $964 $9,636 $12,045 $1,000 $3,400 $3,750 $298 $899 $2,698 $12,045 $0 Totals I 12,698 I $3,483 $6,965 $6,965 $69,652 $87,064 II $6,900 $21,880 $26,250 $3,772 $6,707 $21,555 $87,064 I $0 Notes: * The Total Project Cost is based on 1999 estimated costs, which have been inflated by 2.5%per year. ** Miscellaneous Projects include minor sewer construction in conjunction with County Road Projects, maintenance projects and emergency repairs. Abbreviations: ERUs=Equivalent Residential Units GFCs=General Facilities Charges 121 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Table 55-18 Projection of Spokane County's Costs for Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant •(SAWTP) Upgrades (Project Estimates and Financing in Thousands'of Dollars).- . . Estimated Revenues to the Wastewater Treatment Fund2 Upgrade Costs Annual Deposited to Year at SAWTP forDebt Servicer Debt Service Reserve Fund Water Quality _ 2001 $3,026 $183 - - - -- $183 $1,369 2002 $3,183 $447 $447 $1,261 2003 $3,278 $725 $725 $1,115 2004 $3,367 $1,011 $1,011 $958 2005 $3,478 $1,305 $1,305 $806 2006 $0 $1,608 $1,608 $648 Totals $16,332 $5,279 $5,279 $6,157 Table SS-19 - -- • Spokane County Projection of Costs for'' , • . Construction of New Wastewater Treatment Facilities " (Project Estimates and Financing in Thousands of Dollars) Estimated General Facilities Charge Revenues' Cost of New Annual Reserve Fund & Year TreatmentI Debt Service Specific General Facilities4 Debt Service Facility Projects 2001 $0 $0 $0 $7,910 2002 $1,545 $0 $0 $6,525 2003 $1,591 $135 $135 $5,542 2004 $9,835 $274 $274 $5,969 2005 $21,385 _ $1,131 $1,131 $5,724 2006 $22,026 $2,996 $2,996 $3,600 Totals $56,382 $4,536 $4,536 $35,270 Notes(Table SS-18and SS-19): 1 "Annual Debt Service"is assumed to commence for a given expenditure in the year following the expenditure. Amount shown includes the estimated debt service for cumulative expenditures and assumes the annual sale of 20-year bonds at a 6%interest rate. • 2 "Estimated Revenue to the Wastewater Treatment Fund"is based on the estimated total number of Equivalent Residential Units(ERUs) served in a given year at the current billed rate of$4 per month. 3 "Estimated General Facilities Charge(GFC) Revenues"is based on the estimated number of new ERUs in a given year times the current GFC rate of$2,220 per ERU. 4 These estimates presume the addition of 5 MGD(million gallons per day)of wastewater treatment capacity by 2007. Table S-18 and S-19 data is preliminary and is subject to change. 122 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers t ? F } +} ''TABLE.S529a+ N r� Capital Projects and Financing,Plan c"+ k::4;:,..7,6 " (All Amounts Are;Times SUMMARY OF COSTS/REVENUES-SPOKANE,COUNTY SANITARY'SEWER,. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL Costs Sewer Construction 13,871.0 12,430.0 11,967.0 12,094.0 12,752.0 11,906.0 12,045.0 87,065.0 Treatment Plant Upgrades 0.0 3,026.0 3,183.0 3,278.0 3,367.0 3,478.0 0.0 16,332.0 Wastewater Treatment Facilties 0.0 0.0 1,545.0 1,591.0 9,835.0 21,385.0 22,026.0 56,382.0 Total Costs 13,871.0 15,456.0 16,695.0 16,963.0 25,954.0 36,769.0 34,071.0 159,779.0 Revenues Aquifer Protection 900.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 6,900.0 Sales Taxes 1,480.0 3,400.0 3,400.0 3,400.0 3,400.0 3,400.0 3,400.0 21,880.0 State Grants 3,750.0 3,750.0 3,750.0 3,750.0 3,750.0 3,750.0 3,750.0 26,250.0 GFC's 600.0 367.0 1,178.0 1,056.0 0.0 274.0 298.0 3,773.0 Pre-payments 1,428.0 978.0 660.0 722.0 1,150.0 870.0 899.0 6,707.0 Revenue Bonds 5,713.0 5,961.0 6,707.0 7,035.0 16,654.0 27,475.0 24,724.0 94,269.0 Total Revenues 113,871.0 115,456.0 I 16,695.0 I 16,963.0 125,954.0 136,769.0 134,071.0 1159,779.0 Balance I 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 l o 1 0 Liberty Lake Sewer System Inventory The Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District serves a combination of residential, commercial and industrial customers in the east Spokane Valley area near the Idaho state line. The Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District owns and operates a 1-MGD treatment plant, with additional land available for potential expansion. The initial Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP), prepared in 1981, specified that the District's facility would be an "interim" facility, with eventual discharge to regional interceptors and treatment at the Spokane Regional Plant. The District made application to Spokane County, pursuant to RCW 36.94, for amendment of the CWMP to provide for expansion of the District's treatment facility from 1 to 2 MGD. Spokane County recognizes that the expansion potential of the District's treatment facility may play an integral role in providing adequate service in the future throughout the region. The Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District's system consists of a wastewater treatment facility, gravity and pressure sewer lines and pump stations. The District has 31.9 miles of sewer mains and 450 manholes. 123 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Liberty Lake Wastewater Treatment Facilities Liberty Lake Water and Sewer District's treatment facility has a I-million-gallons per day hydraulic capacity (Table SS-21). The facility has a phosphorous treatment capacity of 895,000 gallons per day. Table SS-21 Liberty Lake Wastewater Treatment Facilities ' . Facility Name • Location • Service:Area Capacity • • Liberty Lake Sewer and Water SW 1/4 Sec 10,T25N, R45 Liberty Lake 1 Million GPD* District Treatment Plant E.W.M. *Treatment plant has a hydraulic capacity of I million GPD and a phosphorous treatment capacity of 895,000 GPD Liberty Lake Wastewater Treatment Capacity Analysis The Liberty Lake Water and Sewer District's treatment capacity is shown in Table SS-22. Current wastewater flows into the District's treatment facility measure 640,000 gallons per day. This leaves a current reserve capacity of 255,000 gallons per day. The District is planning to upgrade the treatment plant by the end of 2004, upgrading the total capacity of the plant to 2 million gallons per day. Additional projected flows are expected to measure 382,284 gallons per day (2001-2006), leaving a total reserve capacity at 977,716 gallons per day. Table SS-22 Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District Wastewater Treatment Facility Capacity Analysis Current Reserve Capacity Total Capacity 895,000 GPD Current Wastewater Flow -640,000 GPD Current Reserve Capacity 255,000 GPD Projected Wastewater Flows New ERUs(2001-2006) 1,772 ERU Flow per ERU x 222 GPD Total Additional Flow 382,284 GPD Projected Reserve Capacity • Current Reserve Capacity 255,000 GPD Additional Capacity(plan upgrade) +1,105,000 GPD Total Additional Flow -382,284 GPD Total Reserve Capacity(2006) 977,716 GPD Note: Liberty Lake Water and Sewer District's sewer design criteria is based on 222 Gallons per Day(GPD)per Equivalent Residential Unit(ERU) Liberty Lake Sewer Collection System Liberty Lake's sewer collection system consists of pressure and gravity sewer lines, totaling 168,567 feet of pipe, shown in Table SS-23. 124 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Table SS-23 Liberty Lake Sewer Lines ,Liberty Lake Sewer and.WaterDistrict ',Pipe_Size/Type, - Total Footage- 1t. 2"Pressure 805 4"Pressure 1,699 6"Pressure 9,676 8"Pressure 1,684 10"Pressure 1,679 6"Gravity 3,856 8"Gravity 94,395 10"Gravity 27,811 12"Gravity 8,109 14"Gravity 1,625 15"Gravity 7,867 16"Gravity 65 18"Gravity 4,937 21"Gravity 4,359 Total Feet 168,567 Total Miles 31.9 Liberty Lake Sewage Pump Stations Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District has 12 pump stations in its system. Table SS-24 shows the location of each station, the station's service area and pumping capacity. Table SS-24 Liberty Lake Sewage Pumping Stations Facility Name Location Service Area Capacity Inlet Drive Lift Station NE '/<Sec. 22,T25 N., South East District 918,000 GPD R45 E., W.M. NE '/<Sec.23,T25 N., Gage Street Lift Station R45 E., W.M. East District 378,000 GPD Pine Terrace Lift Station SE Sea 26,T25 N., South District 146,000 GPD R45 E., W.M. DreamWood Pump Station NW '/a Sec. 26,T25 N., R45 E., W.M. South Central District 254,000 GPD Wicomico Beach Pump SE '/ Sec. 22,T25 N, West District 324,000 GPD Station R45 E., W.M. Northwest Shore Lift Station NW '/< Sec.23,T25 N., Central District 33,500 GPD R45 E. W.M. MacKenzie Bay Lift Station SE '/a Sec.23,T25 N., R45 E., W.M. South East District 254,000 GPD Neyland Ave. Pump Station NE 1/4 Sec. 23,T25 N., R45 E., W.M. South East District 24,000 GPD Beach Street Pump Station NE '/<Sec. 23,T25 N., R45 E., W.M. South East District 24,000 GPD Meadow Wood Glen Lift NE '/ Sec. 14,T25 N., Meadow Wood Glen 189,000 GPD Station R45 E., W.M. Highlands Pump Station NE '/<Sec. 16,T25 N., Highlands 756,000 GPD R45 E., W.M. Knox Ave Lift Station NE '/a Sec. 10,T25 N., Meadow Wood 324,000 GPD R45 E., W.M. Business Park 125 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers Liberty Lake Capital Projects and Financing Plan The Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District is planning to upgrade its wastewater treatment plan in 2002 and 2003 at a total cost of nearly $5.8 million. The project will be paid by sewer connection fees as shown in Table SS-25. Table SS-25 . Capital Projects and Financing Plan - (All Amounts'Are Times$1,000) ' . LIBERTY LAKE SEWER AND WATER DISTRICT (I) (2) (3) ' (4) 1 (5) (6) (7) (8) I (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 , 2001 2002 I 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL 1. Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade— Cost II 4,870.0 921.0 ___ 5,791.0 Rev–Connection fees I 14,8700 921.0 _ 5,791.0 I I Total I j I 4,870.0 I 921.0 I I I 5,791.0 126 Capital Facilities Plan Sanitary Sewers SOLID WASTE Background The first coordinated Solid Waste Management Plan for Spokane County was prepared in 1984. Prior to this, there was little overall coordination of solid waste planning in the County. In response to the 1984 Plan, several actions were taken with the aim of developing an efficient, stable system for the management of solid waste. The plan called for the following components to be included in the system. 1. Develop and implement waste reduction and recycling programs. 2. Construct a Waste to Energy (WTE) facility. 3. Conduct a siting study for a new regional landfill. 4. Form an intergovernmental agency to manage solid waste issues. In 1988, the intergovernmental agency known as the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System was formed by interlocal agreement between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and all other cities/towns in Spokane County. The agency is responsible for implementing solid waste management plans, planning and developing specific waste management programs and updating solid waste plans for all of the county, including the unincorporated areas. The City of Spokane manages the Regional Solid Waste System. In 1998, the Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) was updated and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. The SWMP is incorporated by reference, as amended, by the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. Regional Solid Waste System The Regional Solid Waste System (System) includes a Waste to Energy Facility (WTE), two recycling/transfer stations and a Regional Composting Facility. The locations of these System components are shown in on the Solid Waste System map on the following page. The WTE Facility is owned by the City of Spokane and operated by Wheelabrator Spokane, Inc. The WTE Facility includes two 400-ton per day "mass burn" combustion units to generate steam and electricity by means of a 26-megawatt turbine generator. After incineration, fly ash and bottom ash are collected and transported to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County, Washington for disposal. Ferrous metals are recovered from the bottom ash stream and recycled. The WTE Facility is capable of processing approximately 292,000 tons per year. Since opening in 1991, the WTE Facility has processed over 290,000 tons per year. Although there are no immediate plans to expand the WTE plant, adding a third, 400 ton boiler would increase the capacity of the facility to 438,000 tons per year, with a capital cost of$50 million (1996 dollars). 127 Capital Facilities Plan Solid Waste Solid Waste 1 j System j j j © I . �/ I (yam-COLBERT LANDFILL - NOR LDE IDFILI •... SPOKANE Va%fl..,nr I I fir A I E I1 Ermegy Pacify CI i © '.Vw•l 111 j I : \• . 4 Ilk FBdNY(ROC) GREENACRES LANDFILL j . I . 1 2 .SOUTHSIDE LANDFILL 1 jN-MARSHALL MICA 1 LANDFILL LANDFILL jP ERIE 0 0 SIT i1 LEGEND - . il j I ■ GIo Land B I • Ash Leonetti Site considered In Ij' j 1802 Flan,ba no loner an oFOon 'H I4 I A - 011ier Waste Management Faddy.'. ' . 4 Gy Limits4 t'/ SDeicene CountyBoundary- I Ile 1 a maw=. 1 The Regional Composting Facility is located near the North County Transfer Station on a 43.3-acre site. It includes three unpaved windrow-composting areas and is designed to compost an average of 150 tons per day of organic material with an annual capacity of about 40,000 tons. Landfills Landfills are still necessary to provide disposal for solid waste that cannot be recycled or incinerated (nonprocessible waste) or that exceeds the capacity of the WTE Facility (bypass waste). The current landfill program for Spokane County includes the export of nonprocessible and bypass wastes as well as incinerator ash to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill. • The Spokane County Regional Health District licenses six privately owned landfills in Spokane County. In recent years, these facilities received about 90 percent of the construction and demolition waste generated in Spokane County. These facilities include Acme, Beeler, Chester, Central Pre-Mix's facility at Fort Wright, Kaiser and Graham Road. According to the Spokane County Solid Waste Management Plan Update (CSWMP), all of these except Graham Road have relatively short projected lives (I to 3 years). Further, four take inert waste only and two serve only the owner's disposal needs. Waste Stream Historic Generation In recent years, data collection and the reporting of material flows of ferrous metals have greatly improved. Separating these materials from the rest of the waste stream has resulted in a better understanding of the underlying rate of waste generation. Table SO-1 shows generation, disposal and ferrous metals recycling from 1992 to 1995. This table shows that disposal has been relatively flat and the recycling of ferrous metals and other materials has grown significantly in recent years. As shown, disposal has declined while recycling of ferrous metals and other recyclables has increased. Solid Waste Generation and Disposal :` ' Table SO t' lb/cap/day Landfilled Ferrous Total Generated Landfilled Less Recycled Incinerated Disposed Population Less Less Incinerated Ferrous Less Ferrous Ferrous Ferrous 1992 91,529 51,204 281,079 372,608 374,569 5.45 1.34 4.11 1993 127,957 76,706 295,396 423,353 383,600 6.05 1.83 4.22 1994 138,874 72,212 296,668 435,542 392,000 6.09 1.94 4.15 1995 122,260 86,806 294,359 416,619 401,202 5.69 1.67 4.02 4-Yr Average 5.82 1.7 4.12 Annual Change 10.1 % 19.2% 1.6% 3.8% 2.3 % 1.4% 7.6% -0.7% Source: Spokane Solid Waste Management Plan Update— 1998 129 Capital Facilities Plan Solid Waste Waste Composition This section provides an estimate of the composition of solid waste disposed in Spokane County. The percentage figure for disposed waste is derived from a one-day sampling study conducted at the WTE Facility in April, 1993 and the results of the statewide waste composition study conducted by the Department of Ecology in 1992. Table SO-2 provides waste composition estimates for 34 categories and compares disposed waste composition in Spokane County with that of Washington State. Based on this comparison, it appears that the Spokane County waste stream is relatively high in the following categories: paper (36 percent vs. 30 percent), plastics (13 percent vs. 10 percent) and organics (30 percent vs. 24 percent). Compared to Washington State, Spokane County's waste stream is relatively low in Construction and Demolition (CDL) wastes (13 percent vs. 17 percent) and other categories that make up smaller parts of the waste stream. Forecast Generation Forecast solid waste generation for Spokane County is shown in Table SO-3. As shown, annual generation is forecast to increase from about 503,000 tons in 1995 to 550,000 in 2001 and 722,000 in 2020. The forecast assumes a constant per-capita rate of generation for all materials except for ferrous metals. Ferrous metal recycling has increased significantly in recent years (from about 51,000 tons in 1992 to almost 87,000 tons in 1995). This increase has resulted in part because of favorable markets causing inventory reductions and from improved measurements of ferrous metals recycling. Because of these variations, omitting ferrous metals from the historical generation rate presents a more accurate picture. Ferrous metal recycling is forecast to increase modestly until the year 2000 and then remain constant thereafter(a conservative assumption that ensures that waste diversion totals are not artificially inflated). Generation without diverted ferrous is calculated by multiplying per-capita generation by the Washington State Office of Financial Management's high range forecast for Spokane County. Total generation is the sum of generation without diverted ferrous plus forecast diverted ferrous metal. Waste Import/Export Small quantities of waste are imported into Spokane County from adjacent counties because the boundaries of some franchised haulers encompass multiple counties. In 1995, the County recorded 1,407 tons of municipal solid waste delivered to the WTE Facility for disposal from Mexico (airline waste) and the Counties of Stevens, Lincoln, Whitman and Pend Oreille. The Facility also received 121 tons of special wastes (primarily oil filters) from Western Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Canada. Occasionally, wastes generated outside of the county are disposed at System facilities by self-haul customers. Most of the material exported from Spokane County is ash from the WTE Facility that is sent via rail to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County. 130 Capital Facilities Plan Solid Waste • Comparison of Disposed Waste Composition percentages Spokane County vs:Washington State TableSO-2r �. «. .-Fs� Spokane Washington Waste Component County State Paper 36.1 29.5 Newspaper 2.6 4.0 Corrugated Paper 8.7 7.3 Office Paper LI 1.5 Mixed Recyclable Paper 10.5 • 8.2 Other Paper 13.3 8.5 Plastic 13.1 10.0 PET Containers(#1) 0.2 0.4 HDPE Containers(#2) 0.6 0.7 Other Plastics 12.3 8.9 Class 1.8 4.6 Ferrous Metals 0.0 5.6 Tin Cans 0.0 1.5 White/Brown Goods 0.0 0.1 Other Ferrous Metals 0.0 4.0 NonFerrous Metals 0.5 1.1 Aluminum Cans 0.5 0.6 Other NonFcrrous Metals 0.1 0.5 Organics 30.3 24.3 Food 11.8 11.8 Yard Wastes 8.3 7.7 Other Organics 10.2 4.8 Construction Debris 13.0 17.0 Wood Wastes 9.3 10.9 Gypsum Drywall 0.9 0.7 Other Construction Debris 2.8 5.4 Other Waste 4.6 7.0 Disposable Diapers 2.6 2.5 Textiles 1.0 3.4 Rubber Products(except tires) 0.3 0.4 Large Bulky Items 0.5 0.5 Other Materials 0.3 0.1 Hazardous Waste 0.3 0.9 Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.1 0.3 Cleaners 0.0 0.0 Pesticides/Herbicides 0.0 0.0 NonVehicle Batteries 0.0 0.0 Other Hazardous Wastes 0.2 0.5 Special Wastes 0.2 0.1 Used Oil 0.2 0.0 Tires 0.0 0.0 Vehicle Batteries 0.0 0.0 Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: Spokane Solid Waste Management Plan Update- 1998 • 131 Capital Facilities Plan Solid Waste Table SO-3 Spokane County Waste Generation: Historic and Forecast " , # y Generation vilo Ferrous Gene'anon i Years Population r Recycled, '' e ` x x r Ferrous > k `e ,,,,,,i :. , . ,eta . . E2: ,4> Ac4..- gy *c 3 p,,"slb/cap/day„ .%Change„- ,,Total .'�W/Ferrous Historic 1992 374,569 51,204 5.45 372,608 451,135 1993 383,600 76,706 6.05 10.9 percent 423,353 500,059 1994 392,000 72,212 6.09 0.7 percent 435,542 507,754 1995 401,202 86,806 5.69 -6.5 percent 416,619 503,425 Annual percent Change 1992-95 2.3 percent 19.2 percent 1.4 percent 1.4 percent 3.8 percent 3.7 percent Forecast 1996 407,099 88,542 5.69 0.0 percent 422,743 511,285 1997 413,083 90,313 5.69 0.0 percent 428,957 519,270 1998 419,155 92,119 5.69 0.0 percent 435,262 527,381 1999 425,316 93,962 5.69 0.0 percent 441,660 535,621 2000 431,569 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 448,153 543,994 2001 437,913 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 454,741 550,582 2002 444,350 95,841 5.69 0.O percent 461,425 557,266 2003 450,882 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 468,208 564,049 2004 457,510 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 475,091 570,932 2005 466,681 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 484,614 580,455 2006 473,541 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 491,738 587,579 2007 480,502 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 498,966 594,807 2008 487,565 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 506,301 602,142 2009 494,732 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 513,743 609,584 2010 504,723 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 524,118 619,959 2011 512,142 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 531,822 627,663 2012 519,670 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 539,639 635,480 2013 527,309 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 547,572 643,413 2014 535,060 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 555,621 651,462 2015 551,851 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 573,057 668,898 2016 559,963 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 581,481 677,322 2017 568,194 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 590,028 685,869 2018 576,546 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 598,701 694,542 2019 585,021 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 607,502 703,342 2020 603,298 95,841 5.69 0.0 percent 626,481 722,322 Annual percent Change 1996-2020 1.7 percent 0.3 percent 0.0 percent 0.0 percent 1.7 percent 1.5 percent Source:Spokane County Solid Waste Management Plan Update-1998 132 Capital Facilities Plan Solid Waste Impact of Waste Reduction Since 1992, a number of factors have driven residents, industry and local government to reduce the quantity of wastes generated. Many activities help reduce the quantity of waste generated in the county, including public education, business waste audits, a Master Composter program and other initiatives. Recent increases in the cost of waste disposal have also led toward efforts to reduce wastes. The future of waste reduction is unclear but its promotion will continue as a means to reduce the cost of solid waste disposal. No attempt to measure historical waste reduction has been made. Waste generation is calculated as the sum of disposal plus wastes diverted from disposal through recycling or composting. As such, waste generation in recent years would have been higher than those shown without a focused effort to reduce wastes by local government, residents and businesses in Spokane County. Collection Services Spokane County is served by six private companies operating under certificates issued by the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Council to provide service in unincorporated Spokane County. The companies are: I. Empire Disposal (W.U.T.C. certificate G-75) serves a 363 square mile area of south Spokane County with residential and commercial garbage pick-up. 2. Newman Lake Garbage Service (W.U.T.C. certificate G-171) serves a 24 square mile areas in east Spokane County with residential garbage pick up only. 3. Waste Management Inc. (W.U.T.C. certificate G-I03) serves a 101 square mile area of north Spokane County with residential and commercial garbage pick up. 4. Sunshine Disposal (W.U.T.C. certificate G-I99) serves a 145 square mile area of Spokane County with commercial garbage pick up only. 5. Waste Management Inc. (W.U.T.C. certificate G-1) serves a 145 square mile area in east central Spokane County with residential and commercial garbage and recyclable waste pickup. 6. Waste Management of Spokane (W.U.T.C. certificate G-237) serves a 407 square mile area in north central Spokane County together with Fairchild AFB with residential and commercial garbage and recyclable pickup. Waste Management also serves a 628 square mile area in western Spokane County with residential and commercial garbage pick-up. The typical level of service for these private haulers is one garbage pickup per week. Recyclables are collected weekly in most urban areas of the County. Recyclable are not collected at curbside in the rural areas of the County. Weekly yard waste collection is available in urban areas by subscription. It is also delivered to transfer sites by homeowners and businesses including landscaping contractors. Residents may also self-haul refuse, recyclables, yard waste and household hazardous waste to the WTE Facility and the North County and Valley Transfer Stations. Expansion of these transfer sites is being considered to accommodate this demand. State 133 Capital Facilities Plan Solid Waste law permits persons to dump or deposit solid waste (excluding hazardous waste) "resulting from his own activities onto or under the surface of the ground owned or leased by him when such action does not violate statutes or ordinances or create a nuisance" (RCW 70.95.240). Further, the CSWMP reports that a contractor or commercial entity can bury up to 2,000 yards of inert and demolition waste (not construction) on its own land or leased land. Level of Service The Steering Committee of Elected Officials regionally adopted level of service for solid waste processing is as follows: "The processing of solid waste will meet all applicable Federal and Washington State regulations, including maintaining required facilities licenses." Capital Facilities Projects and Financing The following table is excerpted from the City of Spokane's Comprehensive Plan. The tables illustrate the resources and expenditures associated with solid waste management including projections for the Waste to Energy Plant. • 134 Capital Facilities Plan Solid Waste Table SO-4 Six-Year Funding and Projects Solid Waste Disposal (Amounts x $1000) Funding Sources 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Collection Fees 29,487 29,782 30,080 30,531 30,989 31,764 182,633 Disposal Fees: WTE 19,613 19,718 20,111 20,503 21,016 21,541 122,502 Electricity Sales 11,361 10,904 11,431 11,467 11,504 11,542 68,209 Interest Earnings 2,220 1,823 1,800 1,776 1,757 1,749 11,125 Sale of Recyclables 350 350 350 350 350 350 2,100 Miscellaneous Revenues and Grants 521 521 521 521 521 521 3,126 Operations Complex 4,380 3,500 3,640 0 0 0 11,520 Equipment Replacement 1,783 1,938 1,854 2,800 2,805 2,810 13,990 Rate Stabilization Fund 2,600 500 500 500 277 0 4,377 Proceeds from Sale of Fixed Assets 1,305 0 0 0 0 0 1,305 Total 73,620 69,036 70,287 68,448 69,219 70,277 420,887 Expenditures City Collection Costs 13,108 13,078 13,470 13,874 14,290 14,719 82,539 WTE Plant Operations 13,805 11,958 12,745 13,090 13,444 13,810 78,852 Transfer Stations/Recycling Stations 4,695 4,836 4,981 5,130 5,284 5,443 30,369 Landfill Disposal Expenses 5,091 5,533 5,349 5,483 5,620 5,760 32,836 Administration 1,645 1,744 1,800 1,865 1,934 1,996 10,984 Litter Control 388 400 412 420 428 437 2,485 Recycling Program 384 395 407 415 423 432 2,456 Compost Operations 1,500 1,530 1,561 1,592 1,624 1,656 9,463 Operations Complex 4,380 3,500 3,640 0 0 0 11,520 City Pre-existing Landfill Expenses 523 538 555 571 588 606 3,381 Debt Service 18,522 17,535 17,523 17,506 17,496 17,458 106,040 Payments to Regional Cities 250 250 250 250 250 250 1,500 Taxes 4,913 4,919 4,971 5,024 5,171 5,329 30,327 Replacement Funds 4,143 2,766 2,691 3,307 2,934 2,566 18,407 Total 73,347 68,982 70,355 68,527 69,486 70,462 421,159 Resources Less Expenditures 273 54 (68) (79) (268) (185) (273) Beginning Cash 2,107 2,380 2,434 2,366 2,286 2,018 13,591 Balance 2,380 2,434 2,366 2,286 2,018 1,833 11,257 Projects 135 Capital Facilities Plan Solid Waste 136 Capital Facilities Plan Solid Waste STORMWATER Background Stormwater runoff in unincorporated Spokane County flows to a combination of public and private facilities. In rural areas, most runoff is conveyed through roadside ditches. In the more developed areas, runoff flows down street gutters and is disposed through drywells in public road rights-of-way, drywells on private property and grassy swales and overflow drywells in easements on private property. Spokane County has no regional or comprehensive stormwater management system. Watershed plans have been essentially completed for three basins (Chester Creek, Central Park and Glenrose) and stormwater planning is underway in two more areas (North Spokane and West Plains). Current Inventory The County has two large stormwater facilities that were constructed in conjunction with road projects. One facility is a seven-acre evaporation pond constructed to handle stormwater runoff from a road-widening project. The second is a borrow pit from which material was excavated for a road project. The borrow pit was improved to provide a disposal point for water flowing from Chester Creek. The County also operates a groundwater pumping system in the Eaglewood area that lowers the groundwater elevations in a small area. Lowering the groundwater level enables drywells and septic systems in the area to function. The pump system helps keep groundwater levels below the level of basements in the area. • Table SW-1 is a list of large stormwater facilities owned and maintained by Spokane County. Table SW-1 Spokane County Stormwater Facilities Facility Type Service Area Location • Capacity 57h Avenue Evaporation 57th Ave. east of Regal 57th and Regal 1,117,000 cu. ft. Pond Pond Dishman-Mica Borrow Pit/Creek Chester Creek Dishman-Mica No Capacity Borrow Pit Disposal Point Floodplain Rd. and 32nd Calculated Eaglewood Groundwater Eaglewood and Eaglewood Lowe Rd. and Mt. 65 gal./min. Pump System Pump System 2nd Addition Subdivisions Spokane Park Dr. In the past, Spokane County relied on private stormwater facilities as the primary means of handling runoff. As the Spokane Valley developed, stormwater runoff did not present problems because of the pervious, gravely soils. Drywells worked relatively well. When the County became aware of potential problems from taking untreated stormwater into drywells and then to the sole-source aquifer, grassy swales were required to be constructed around new drywells to treat the stormwater. 137 • Capital Facilities Plan Stormwater In 1981, Spokane County adopted the first Guidelines for Stormwater Management, which generally required that the peak rate of runoff from new development not exceed the predeveloped peak rate of runoff from the site. For larger residential developments and for commercial, industrial or institutional facilities, detention ponds were sometimes needed to store stormwater for metering out at the pre-developed rates. The ponds are privately maintained and there is no county inspection of the facilities to determine whether their design capacity is maintained. During the last 20 years, development in Spokane County has begun moving up onto the hillsides and out onto the West Plains, where the soils are unsuitable for infiltration. Because there is no public storm sewer or other public stormwater management system, the County has begun requiring that evaporative ponds be constructed on new development sites where the soils are not conducive to infiltration. Evaporation ponds can take up to 40% or 50% of a development site (depending on the specifics of the site and the proposed development). There are advantages and disadvantages of relying on on-site facilities for all stormwater management in an urban community. The advantages of on-site facilities are that they are constructed with private funds. New development has to handle all the additional stormwater being generated by the development. If the bn-site facilities are well designed and maintained, they can be integrated into the development as a green space amenity. Disadvantages are that on-site facilities often are not well maintained. Their capacity may be diminished over time or they may fail entirely during large runoff events. On-site facilities may take up large portions of a development site, thereby reducing the effective density that can be accommodated in that area. On-site detention facilities can actually exacerbate downstream problems if their stormwater release times are not planned within the context of the entire basin. A comprehensive or regional stormwater system can provide the means of reducing existing flooding problems and accommodating stormwater runoff from new development. A regional system, such as that planned in the Glenrose and Central Park Watersheds, can provide water quality treatment (by allowing stormwater to flow over and through grassed areas) before it infiltrates into the ground. Such systems incorporating the natural drainage system also hold potential for integration with open space, parks and trails. The regional system would reduce the need for evaporation ponds and some other on-site facilities. The disadvantage of a regional system is the cost. In the Glenrose Watershed, the estimated cost for a regional system is approximately $13 million. 138 Capital Facilities Plan Stormwater Level of Service Unincorporated Spokane County has no regional or comprehensive stormwater management systems. Development projects are conditioned during the application process to comply with the minimum requirements of the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management. The Guidelines for Stormwater Management became effective in January of 1981. Since that time, the guidelines have been amended several times and are currently undergoing extensive revision. In 1998 the County passed an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance which became part of the stormwater guidelines. The State Department of Ecology has proposed a statewide stormwater manual to guide stormwater management, but that manual has not been adopted. Almost all stormwater facilities (drywells, detention ponds, evaporation ponds, ditches, etc.) outside the County road rights-of-way are maintained by private landowners or homeowners associations. In a few cases, the County maintains detention ponds and/or swales in subdivisions and charges the homeowners in the subdivisions for that service. Private maintenance of on-site stormwater facilities has not always worked well. In general, the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management require that the rate of stormwater runoff from any proposed land development to any natural or manmade point of discharge downstream shall not exceed the peak rate of runoff for the design storm occurring prior to the proposed land development. If waters from the development drain into a critical flood, drainage and/or erosion problem area, the quantity of water from the site is restricted to the existing quantities leaving the site prior to development. Restriction of stormwater runoff from any proposed land development is effected by stormwater holding facilities either open or closed or by introduction, on- site, of stormwater into permeable soils via an infiltration system. The Guidelines require that detention facilities (facilities that store and then release stormwater runoff) be designed so that the discharge rate does not exceed the pre- developed rate of runoff for each of the following 24-hour storm events: 2-year storm, 10- year storm and 50-year storm. All development within the Aquifer Sensitive Area is required to incorporate stormwater treatment to mitigate the potential for groundwater degradation. Grassed Percolation Areas (GPA) or grassy swales are the treatment method generally used. The GPA is designed to provide water quality treatment for the first half inch of runoff generated from road surfaces, parking lot surfaces and asphalt roofs located in commercial developments. The Guidelines also address the design of evaporative ponds for areas where infiltration is not possible or is inadvisable due to the soils or geology of an area. County staff are working with a technical advisory committee and with interest groups (citizens groups, Homebuilders Association, Consulting Engineers Council of Washington, etc.) to revise the Guidelines. The County is conversing with the 139 Capital Facilities Plan Stormwater Department of Ecology about whether or not the grassy swale methods used here meet state standards. Interim Regional Level of Service Standard for Spokane County Comprehensive Plan New development shall: not increase runoff volume off-site above that which would occur if the developed property was in its natural state; prevent flooding of property, outside specified drainage easements and specified drainage facilities, during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. (Note: This level of protection means that properties will probably be flooded more frequently than once every 25 years. Designing a facility to handle a 25-year runoff event should result in flooding on an average of no more than once every 25 years. A 25 year runoff event includes not only the precipitation from a 25-year storm but also snowmelt and other additions to the flow in the drainageway),; prevent damage to buildings and accessory structures for a 100-year storm event. Existing development shall: prevent flooding of property, outside specified drainage easements and specified drainage facilities, during a 25-year storm event whenever economically reasonable; prevent damage to buildings and accessory structures for 100-year storm events whenever economically and environmentally reasonable. Stormwater Discharge: Storm water discharge into any surface or groundwater will be allowed unless it can be demonstrated that the discharge will degrade water quality below water quality standards. Capital Project Costs and Revenue At public meetings in 1999, the County presented rough cost estimates for needed regional stormwater facilities in the Stormwater Service Area. The total approximate estimate in 1999 dollars is $62.4 million, which was generated from information obtained from the three basin plans that were being completed. That basic information was extrapolated to the other basins in the service area. If improvements are constructed over the next 10 years, the approximate cost will be approximately $75.7 million. If the construction period is stretched to 20 years, inflation will raise the cost to an estimated $83.9 million. To date, Spokane County has not committed to a capital facilities improvement program that will fund the needed regional stormwater facilities. 140 Capital Facilities Plan Stormwater Table SW-2 provides a six-year financing plan for stormwater facility acquisition and construction through 2006. The projects are funded by existing Stormwater Service Fee charges. TABLE SW-2' _ .- Capital Projects and Financing Plan ' ' F (All Amounts Are'-Times $1,000) STORMWATER (I) (2) 1 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) I (8),. 1 (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL I. North Spokane Costs 0.0I 150.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 300.0 Rev-Stormwater Service Fees 0.0 150.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 300.0 I 2. Glenrose Costs 80.0 ' 780.0 400.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,260.0 Rev-Stormwater Service Fees 80.0 780.0 400.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 1,260.0 t 3. West Plains Costs ________0.0 I _150.0 _ Rev150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ____00.0 __3300_.0 -Stomiwater Service Fees 0.0 150.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 ~ 00.0 Total Costs I 80.0 I 1,080.0 1 700.0 I 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 I 1,860.0 TABLE SW-3' Capital Projects and Financing Plan ` . (All Amounts.Are Times$1,000) SUMMARY OF COSTS/REVENUES -STORMWATER , (I) (2) i (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL Total Costs I 80.0 1,080.0 700.0 0 0 0 0 1,860.0 REVENUES Stormwater Service Fees t 1 Total Revenues I 80.0 I 1,080.0 I 700.0 I 0 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 1,860.0 Balance i 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 141 Capital Facilities Plan Stormwater 142 Capital Facilities Plan Stormwater TRANSPORTATION Current Facility Inventory This section of the Capital Facilities Plan includes transportation facilities that Spokane County is responsible for providing, including roads, bridges, pathways and sidewalks. Maintenance is not included as a part of the Capital Facilities Plan. Spokane County's road inventory consists of 2,946.7 miles of gravel and paved public roads. This equates to 82.2 miles of urban principal arterials, 89.0 miles of urban minor arterials, 79.5 miles of urban collector arterials, 516.9 miles of urban access roads, 180 • bridges, and 670.4 miles of rural arterial roads and 1,508.6 miles of rural access roads. Tables T-1 through T-5 include an inventory of Spokane County's arterial intersections, along with their current and 6-year projected Level of Service. An inventory of arterial roads, state highways, trails, transit services, airports and railroads is contained in Draft Plan 2000, page T-l0 through T-27. Level of Service The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires jurisdictions to adopt Level of Service (LOS) standards for both highway and transit services. The GMA requires that each jurisdiction's LOS standards be coordinated within the region and be supported by local regulations. Spokane County has adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards for urban arterial intersections within the Urban Growth Boundary. This level of service is based upon travel delay and is expressed as letters "A" through "F," with "A" being the highest or best travel condition and "F" being the lowest or worst condition. The lowest acceptable level of service for signalized (S) arterial intersections has been set at "D." The lowest acceptable level of service for unsignalized (U) arterial intersections is "E." This standard for LOS conforms to the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, published by the Transportation Research Board. Regional Levels of Service The Countywide Planning Policies require that LOS standards be adopted in accordance with the regional minimum level of service standards set by the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials. The Steering Committee approved the use of corridor travel time for use in establishing the regional transportation system. The Spokane Regional Transportation Council is determining annual average corridor travel time through a travel time study. This study is still in progress and corridor travel • time Level of Service standards will be adopted upon its completion. 143 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation Uses of Level of Service Standards As measures of transportation effectiveness, level of service standards can help jurisdictions identify where and when transportation improvements are needed, and when development or growth will affect system operation. Level of service provides a standard below which a transportation facility or system is not considered adequate. Level of service standards can be used to evaluate the impact of proposed developments on the surrounding road system. They can also be used to identify problems, suggest remedial actions and apportion costs between public and private sources. LOS standards are a cornerstone in the development of equitable traffic impact fee systems, which makes development pay some of the costs for improvements to the transportation infrastructure. The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) performed traffic modeling for the urban area, considering future population growth and distribution. This model examines the performance of the entire urban transportation system. Improvements to provide for the increased traffic volumes shown by the model, at the adopted level of service standards, are included in this plan. More information on the transportation modeling based on future land use assumptions is contained in Draft Plan 2000; page T- 24. Relationship to Concurrency Management Concurrency involves matching public facilities and new development. The concept of concurrency predates the Growth Management Act for some public facilities, specifically through SEPA mitigation requirements. The GMA extends concurrency to transportation facilities by requiring that new development be served by adequate roads and public transportation service, and that development is not permitted to cause these transportation facilities to operate below level of service standards that are adopted by local governments in their comprehensive plans. "Adequate capacity refers to the maintenance of concurrency" (WAC 365-195-835). Tables T-I through T-7 depict level of service information for county arterial intersections and state highway/county arterial intersections. Intersections which fail to meet the level of service standard are denoted with an asterisk*. 144 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation Table T-1: Road Inventory Principal Arterial Intersecting Principal Arterial North/South East/West Road Intersection Current 6 Year Mitigated LOS Road Control LOS Projected LOS (project#1 Argonne Rd (n) Broadway Ave Signal B C • Argonne Rd (a) Sprague Ave Signal B C Barker Rd n Appleway Signal B E* C(15) Dishman Mica Rd A 16th Ave Signal B C Dishman Mica Rd pA, 32nd Ave Stop C D Evergreen Rd nO Broadway Ave Signal B C Evergreen Rd (ril, Sprague Ave Signal C E* B(196) Evergreen Rd A 16th Ave 4way/Signal C B Evergreen Rd A 32nd Ave Stop B C Faucher Rd @ Sprague Ave Signal D E* C(199&wsdot) Faucher Rd @ Broadway Ave Signal C D Harvard Rd @ Wellesley Ave 4way F* F* C(87) Market Rd @ Hawthorne Ave Stop C D Market Rd @ Farwell Rd Signal B C Mill Rd @ Hastings Ave Stop C D Mullan Rd a, Broadway Ave Signal B C Mullan Rd n Sprague Ave Signal B C Nevada Rd A Hawthorne Ave Signal B C Park Rd @ Sprague Ave Signal P C C(202) Park Rd n, Broadway Ave Signal C D Sullivan Rd n, Broadway Ave Signal C D Sullivan Rd n Sprague Ave Signal D E* C(197) Sullivan Rd A 16th Ave Stop/Signal D B Sullivan Rd A 32nd Ave Stop B B University Rd @ Broadway Ave Signal B C University Rd A Sprague Ave Signal C D University Rd n, 16th Ave Signal A C University Rd n, Dishman-Mica Signal B C University Rd nn, 32nd Ave Signal A B Wall St @ Country Homes Signal C D Thicrman Rd @ Appleway Blvd Signal N/A C Park Rd @ Appleway Blvd Signal N/A B Vista Rd @ Appleway Blvd Stop N/A C Dishman Mica Rd @ Appleway Blvd Signal N/A C University Ave A Appleway Blvd Signal N/A D • 145 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation Table T-2: Road Inventory Principal Arterial Intersecting Minor Arterial North/South Road I ,. ', 'East/Wesf Road ' ,Intersection Current . - 6.Year Mitigated LOS . . Control LOS Projected LOS jproject#L ., 16th Ave @ Pines Rd Stop B C 16th Ave @ Bowdish Rd 4way C D 16th Ave @ McDonald Rd 4way B C 16th Ave @ Adams Rd 4way A B 32nd Ave @ Pines Rd 4way/Signal C C 32nd Ave Co Bowdish Rd 4way/Signal C B 32nd Ave @ Adams Rd Stop B B Argonne Rd @ Upriver Dr Signal C D Argonne Rd @ Montgomery Ave Signal C D Argonne Rd @ Mission Ave Signal B C Argonne Rd @ Columbia Dr Stop B D Barker Rd @ Broadway Ave Stop B C Barker Rd @ Euclid Ave Stop C D Broadway Ave @ McDonald Rd Signal B C Broadway Ave @ Bowdish Rd Signal B C Broadway Ave @ Adams Rd Stop B B Broadway Ave @ Havana St Signal B C Broadway Ave @ Heaths(Ave Stop C D Dishman Mica Rd @ Bowdish Rd Signal A B Dishman Mica Rd @ 8th Ave Signal B C Evergreen Rd @ 8th Ave Stop/Signal C B Evergreen Rd @ Mission Ave Stop N/A c Ft.George Wright Dr @ Government way Signal B C Geiger Blvd @ Grove Rd 4way B D Harvard Rd @ Euclid Ave Stop C C Hawthorne Rd @ Waikiki Rd Stop B C Hawthorne Rd @ Parksmith Dr Stop B D Market St @ Parksmith Dr Signal C D Market St @ Magnesium Rd Stop C D Mill Rd @ Waikiki Rd Stop D E Monroe St @ Wall St Signal B C Mullan Rd @ Mission Ave Signal B C Palouse Hwy @ 57th Signal A C Palouse Hwy @ Freya Rd 4way B D Sprague Ave @ Havana St Signal B D Sprague Ave @ McDonald Rd Signal C B Sprague Ave @ Adams Rd Signal B C Sprague Ave @ Appleway Ave Stop/Signal F* F* C(15) Sprague Ave @ Flora Rd Stop/Signal E B Sprague Ave @ Bowdish Rd Signal C C Starr Rd @ Rowan Ave Stop B C Sullivan Rd @ Wellesley Ave 4way F* F* C(81) Sullivan Rd @ Mission Ave Signal B C Sullivan Rd @ 8th Ave Signal C C Sullivan Rd @ Indiana Ave Signal F* F* D(184) Sullivan Rd @ Saltese Ave Stop B C Theirman Rd @ Sprague Ave Signal B C University Rd @ Mission Ave Stop C D University Rd @ 8th Ave Signal A B Wall St @ Whitworth Dr Stop D E Wellesley Ave @ Idaho Rd Stop B C Wellesley Ave @ River Rd Stop B C Wellesley Ave @ McKenzie Rd Stop A B , Wellesley Ave Co.. Campbell Rd Stop B B 146 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation Table T-3: Road Inventory Minor Arterial Intersecting Minor Arterial North/South Road • East/West Road Intersection Current 6 Year Mitigated LOS Control LOS Projected LOS (project iti Adams Rd a, 8th Ave 4way A B Adams Rd n, Mission Ave Stop B C Barker Rd @ Sprague Ave 4way B C Barker Rd @ 32nd Ave Stop A A Bowdish Rd @ 8th Ave Stop C D Bowdish Rd @ Mission Ave Stop C D Campbell Rd @ Euclid Ave Stop A A Carnahan Rd @ 4th Ave Stop A A Carnahan Rd @ 8th Ave Stop B D Evergreen Rd @ Wellesley Ave Stop C C Flora Rd @ Broadway Ave Stop B C Forker Rd a, Progress Rd Stop C C Glenrosc n, Carnahan Yield B C Glenrosc Rd @ 29th Ave Stop B C Grove Rd @ Thorpe Rd Stop A B Havana St a, 8th Ave Stop D E Havana St a, 3rd Ave 3way B C Havana St n, 4111 Ave Stop C D Idaho Rd @ Rowan Ave Stop A B McDonald Rd a, 8th Ave Stop C D McDonald Rd @ Mission Ave Stop/Signal F* F* C(119) Park Rd a, 8th Ave Stop B C Park Rd @ Euclid Ave Stop B B Park Rd a, Rutter Ave Stop B B Progress Rd a, Wellesley Ave 4way E D Regal Rd @ 57th Ave Signal B C Schafer Rd @ 44th Ave Stop A B Thierman Rd @ 4th Ave Stop B C Thierman Rd @ 8th Ave Stop A B University a, Montgomery Stop C D Whitworth Dr a, Hawthorne Rd Signal A B Table 1-4: Road Inventory Principal Arterial Intersecting Collector • North/South Road • East/West Road Intersection Control Current 6 Year LOS Projected LOS Park Rd @ Mission Ave Signal B C Argonne Rd. a Knox Av Signal C D Broadway Ave @ Vista Rd Signal B C Sprague Ave @ Vista Rd Signal B C Sprague Ave at, Farr Rd Signal B C - Sullivan Rd @ Euclid Ave Signal C D Sullivan Rd @ Marietta Ave Signal B D University Rd @ 4th Ave Signal B C - Wall St @ Cascade Way Signal B C 147 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation Table T-5: Road Inventory Rural Major Collector Intersecting Rural Minor Collector "North/South Road zc • " ` East/West•Road Intersection Control Current;Los et tear ; S . . � Appleway Ave @ Liberty Lake Dr Signal C D State Transportation Facilities The Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to include inventory and Level Service information for state transportation facilities in their Comprehensive Plans. State facilities are divided into two categories: Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) and Regionally Significant Highways (non-HSS). The Growth Management Act requires • non-HSS facilities to be subject to concurrency. Table T-6 is lists all State highways serving Spokane County. Table T-6. State Transportation Facilities Highway Description- �D.esignationt s 1-90 Interstate HSS SR-2 Newport Highway HSS SR-195 Pullman-Colfax Highway HSS SR-395 Division Street HSS SR-27 Pines Road Non-HSS SR-206 Mt. Spokane Park Drive Non-HSS SR-278 Hoxie Road Non-HSS SR-290 Trent Avenue Non-HSS SR-291 Francis/Nine Mile Road Non-HSS SR-902 Medical Lake Highway Non-HSS SR-904 Cheney Highway Non-HSS * IiSS=Highway of Statewide Significance Non-HSS=Regionally Significant Highway State Transportation Level of Service The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) requires state transportation facilities in urban areas (inside the UGA) to maintain a minimum Level of Service standard "D." In rural areas (outside the UGA), the minimum LOS standard is "C." Those areas lying outside the UGA that may have urban characteristics can be evaluated by the WSDOT in conjunction with the County on a case-by-case basis to determine which standard is the most appropriate fit. Table T-7 shows the Level of Service for State Highways intersecting County arterials. Six year projected level of service is only shown for Non-HSS highways. 148 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation • Table T-7: Road Inventory State Highway Intersecting County Arterial •Intersectio 6 Year Mitigated North/South Road East/West Road Current LOS Projected LOS: n Control LOS (project#) SR2(Newport Hwy) @ Farwell Rd Signal C Not Available, SR2 @ Nevada Rd Stop D Not Available SR2 @ Hawthorne Ave Signal C Not Available . SR2 n, Hayford Rd Signal B Not Available SR27(Pines Rd.) a, 32nd Ave Signal B C SR27 @ 16th Ave Signal D B SR27 @ 8th Ave Stop C E SR27 @ Sprague Ave Signal D Ft C(196) SR27 @ Broadway Ave Signal C D SR27 @ Mission Ave Signal D D SR27 @ Indiana Ave Signal C D SR27 @ Mirabeau Pkwy Stop/Signal C B SR206(Mt. Spokane Park Dr) @ Market St Stop B B SR290(Trent Ave) @ Argonne Rd Signal C D SR290 @ Fancher Rd Signal C D SR290 @ Park Rd Signal B C SR290 @ Sullivan Rd- EB Ramp Stop C Ft B(185) SR290 @ Sullivan Rd- WB Ramp Stop Ft Ft B(185) SR290 @ Barker Rd Stop Ft Ft E(28) SR290 @ Harvard Rd Stop C Ft B(89) SR290 A Starr Rd Stop E E SR290 @ University Rd Stop D Ft D(wsdot) SR290 a, Evergreen Rd Stop C C _ SR290 @ Progress Rd Stop Ft Ft C(wsdot) SR290 @ Flora Rd Stop Ft Ft C(77) SR290 A McKenzie Rd Stop C D SR 290 @ SR27 Signal C D SR291 (Francis/9 Mile Rd) @ Seven Mile Rd Stop C D SR395 (Division St) @ Country Homes Blvd Signal C Not Available SR395 @ Hawthorne Rd Signal C Not Available SR395 A Hastings Rd Signal B Not Available SR395 @ Whitworth Dr Stop Not Available Not Available- Intergovernmental Coordination Spokane County Transportation Plans have been distributed for comment to all cities and towns in Spokane County, adjacent counties, The Spokane Transit Authority, The Washington State Department of Transportation and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC). SRTC has overall responsibility for intergovernmental coordination of transportation plans. Each jurisdiction in the region must submit transportation plans to SRTC for inclusion in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. SRTC responsibilities include: I) Certifying the transportation elements of comprehensive plans adopted by the County, cities and towns within the region for consistency with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan; 2) Maintaining consistency 149 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation between infrastructure plans and land use development plans and 3) Reviewing level of service thresholds for transportation facilities in the Spokane Region. SRTC is also responsible for monitoring and evaluating the performance of regional transportation facilities as affected by land use and transportation improvement decisions. Concurrency management is linked to the planning process. Any amendments to the comprehensive plans are required to undergo concurrency management systems analysis and meet thresholds before their adoption. On an annual basis, SRTC will assess the regional transportation system with respect to concurrency with regional level of service standards. These reviews will be coordinated with the annual comprehensive plan amendment process. Capital Facilities Projects and Financing Table T-8 contains a complete listing of capital road projects showing capacity and non- capacity projects for the years 2000-2006. The total project funding for the seven-year period is $208.8 million. Of that total, capacity projects amount to $124.4 million. Non- capacity projects have a total of$84.5 million for the same period. This detailed plan is presented in alphabetic order. A summary of expected revenues by grant program is shown in Table T-9. Federal grant programs include the Transportation Equity Act of the 21ST. Century, denoted by Surface Transportation Program (STP), Bridge Replacement (BR), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) and any other federal grant program (Other Fed). State grant programs include funds administered by the Transportation Improvement Board and include the Transportation Partnership Program (TPP), the Arterial Improvement Program (AIP)and the Pedestrian Safety Mobility Program (PSMP). The County Road Administration Board administers the County Arterial Preservation Program (CAPP) and the Rural Arterial Program (RAP). Other state funds include participation by WSDOT and other state sources. "Other" denotes private sources and other public agency participation. Capacity improvements provide new roads, additional lanes or other improvements that provide greater traffic-carrying capacity of existing roads to accommodate for increasing traffic demand. Non-capacity improvements include all other projects, including the following: • Safety projects are designed to eliminate or reduce traffic collisions. These projects include installing traffic signals, guardrails, short roadway realignments, sidewalks, pathways or railroad crossing protection. • Preservation projects provide improvements to the existing road system to conform to design standards. These projects include reconstructing bridges, paving gravel roads, resurfacing existing pavements or adding shoulders or curbs. This plan includes roadway improvements that will bring the highest-priority County roads up to current standards for safety. The proposed safety improvements include those that could receive matching grant funds from state or federal grant programs. There is considerable competition for limited grant funding. Granting agencies prioritize applications 150 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation for funding by different formulas or policies. Grant projects must meet particular requirements of a granting agency, regardless of the local priority for those projects. The County normally submits more projects than can be funded by the granting agency in order to increase the likelihood of receiving funds for a needed project. The Transportation Improvement Plan, as well as this Capital Facilities Plan could include projects that must compete for funding with both regional and statewide projects. This is especially the case in the later years of the six-year program. Table T-8. Road Projects and Financing Sources and Uses of Funds 1Project Name: 10th Av,13thAv,Warren,Marigold >.Capacity': NO-Project Estimate: -:$240,000 10th Av from Warren Rd to Adams Rd 0.06 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave existing gravel road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $1,000 $119,000 RID Bonds $1,000 $119,000 Total: $2,000 $238,000 2.Project Name: 14th Ave,Vercler Rd,and Glenn Rd: Capacity:No Project Estimate:. $126,000 14th Ave from 0.1 mi.west to Vercler Ave 0.09 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave existing residential gravel roads. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $63,000 RID Bonds $63,000 Total: $126,000 3.'Project Name: 15th Avenue Capacity: No Pioject Estimate: - $53,000 15th Ave from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and pave existing gravel road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $8,000 RID Bonds $45,000 Total: $53,000 '4., Project Name: 16thAvenue-Project 1 .: Capacity: No ;Project Estimate: ':' $37446,000 16th Avenue from SR 27 to Sullivan Road 2.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct to a standard three-lane road with curbs and sidewalks on both sides. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $73,000 $240,000 $25,000 STP(U) $288,000 $958,000 $99,000 AIP $378,000 $1,256,000 $129,000 Total: $739,000 $2,454,000 $253,000 5. Project Name: 16th Avenue-Project 2 Capacity: No:.:Project Estimate: $2,719,000 16th Ave from Dishman Mica Rd to SR 27 1.60 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct as a three-lane arterial with curbs and sidewalks with accommodations for bicycles. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $93,000 $92,000 $182,000 STP(U) $593,000 $592,000 $1,167,000 Total: $686,000 $684,000 $1,349,000 151 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation 68T—o-je_tfa_m ; 32_ Avenae= c: = xx cCapaeio .P_roj_e_c t Estimate:, „134$533;000 32nd Avenue from SR 27 to Sullivan Road 1.26 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen to three lanes with curbs and sidewalks. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $72,000 STP(U) $461,000 Total: $533,000 7;`-Pioject Name: n 38th Aver Adams Rd;Best Rd, Capacity: No', Project Estimate.. =,:. $r,032,000 36th Ave from Adams Rd to Sullivan Rd 0.50 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave existing residential access road 28 feet wide,shoulders only. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $258,000 $258,000 RID Bonds $258,000 $258,000 Total: $516,000 $516,000 87-Project Name: ,, 3rd Best,5th,6thAyes.,and Bolivar ' Capacity: No Project Estimate:. $478,,000 3rd Avenue from Evergreen Road to Best Road 0.22 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave existing residential gravel access roads 28 feet wide with shoulders only. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $124,000 $115,000 RID Bonds $124,000 $115,000 Total: $248,000 $230,000 9. Project Name:' 40th Avenue: .._ Capacity: No ' Project.Estimate: $8,000 40th Avenue from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and pave an existing gravel road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $1,000 RID Bonds $7,000 Total: $8,000 ;10.Project Name: --48th.Avenue-UPRR Crossing. Capacity:No Project Estimate: - '$65,000 48th Ave from Sands Road to Dishman Mica 0.11 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct emergency egress from the Ponderosa neighborhood to Dishman Mica Road Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $65,000 Total: $65,000 11. Project Name: 55th Avenue Evaporation Pond Capacity: No Project Estimates $207,000 Description: Enlarge an existing drainage pond. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $207,000 Total: $207,000 12. Project Name: - 57th Ave Avel Glenrose Road Realignment Capacity: No Project Estimate: - $800,000 57th Avenue from Ben Burr to Yale Road 0.23 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Realign horizontal curve between 57th Ave.and Glenrose Road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $800,000 Total: $800,000 152 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation .�_._oject Names �"_ . _,o ,13. PrSzEh veLG enrose Roa Rightcf•N/ay,�;11Y'Ca�acity: No Project. sttmate. ,.r , ' $76,000 57th Avenue from Ben Burr to Yale Road 0.23 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Purchase right-of-way for future improvement of horizontal curve between 57th Ave.and Glenrose Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $2,000 $74,000 Total: $2,000 $74,000 0-- -_ 14. Project Name:- .=9th Avenue,Chronicle Road . �tk}ites,:"Capacity: No Project Estimate: - $68,000 9th Avenue from Chronicle Road to Carnahan Road 0.12 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave an existing gravel road 28 feet wide including shoulders Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $33,000 RID Bonds $33,000 Total: $66,000 05. Project Name: Appleway Road Capacity: Yes Project Estimate: $5,127,000 Appleway Road from Tschirley Road to Hodges Road 1.26 mi XLOS:B 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct to a five-lane urban arterial Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $60,000 $254,000 $380,000 STP(U) $378,000 $1,622,000 $2,433,000 Total: $438,000 $1,876,000 $2,813,000 06.Project Name: Appleway Road Capacity: No Project Estimate: $490,000 Appleway Road from @ Spokane River to #5515 0.10 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace existing bridge Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $98,000 BR $392,000 Total: $490,000 117. Project Name: Argonne Road -. Capacity: No Project Estimate: $135,000 Argonne Road from at Maringo Drive to 0.09 mi XLOS:F 6LOS Description: Widen Argonne Road to accomodate two left-turn lanes at Maringo Drive Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $1,000 $12,000 STP(S) $12,000 $110,000 Total: $13,000 $122,000 ,16.ProjectName: ..Argonne Road Bridge Capacity: No ',Project Estimate: `. $2,800,000 Argonne Road Bridge from Over Spokane River to 0.10 mi XLOS: ' 6LOS Description: Reconstruct west bridge over the Spokane River. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $28,000 $532,000 BR $112,000 $2,128,000 Total: $140,000 $2,660,000 X19. Project Name: . Argonne Road Ditch Capacity: No Project.Estimate: $5000 Argonne Road from Mt.View Estates to Columbia Drive . 0.25 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Rip rap roadside ditch Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $5,000 Total: $5,000 153 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation 20.f Piojed Name:nsrgonhe$ewer.Paveback F'^= .Capacity s,.N Piojed Ertimate 'x an$6 000 from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave road after sewer is constructed Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $6,000 Total: $6,000 21 7 Project Name tArgonne Bigelow Gulch I/S,S(gnal�,"Y',Capactty Noxr'Project'Estimate:H I x bz°"ez T p%3< 1w. $94,000 Argonne Rd from at Bigelow Gulch Road to 0.02 mi XLOS:6LOS Description: Install a traffic signal at existing four-way stop. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $74,000 $20,000 Total: $74,000 $20,000 „_..a 22.^P.,rojecYName.d�;„:rArferialTSidewalks�B:Pathways� C, :�-;Capacity.�'No,�xa1-Proj .ectEstimate , ,t'-'�=ay ,tr$S'00,000 Description: Construct sidewalks along various arterials Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 PSMP $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 Total: $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 23. Project:Name ,Capacity N577 ProjectsEssttimate. „,c; $7:263,000 Barker Road from @ Spokane River to #5503 0.10 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace bridge over the Spokane River. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $83,000 $685,000 $685,000 BR $328,000 $2,741,000 $2,741,000 Total: $411,000 $3,426,000 $3,426,000 24 Project--Name11?Barker Road'= ?��4°-`4 K "c=1; ;.'_.Capacity„No,r Project:Estimate z. <, $1,805,000 Barker Road from Mission Avenue to Euclid Avenue 1.00 mi XLOS:E 6LOS Description: Reconstruct to a three-lane curbed arterial Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $31,000 $51,000 $162,000 • STP(U) $198,000 $324,000 $1,039,000 Total: $229,000 $375,000 $1,201,000 257Project.Namea !Barker Ro'ad7e .4-a�,'t-<- "TMCapacrty.-. Not-h..PiajecL Estimate ;,. -' $204,000 Barker Road from 8th Avenue to Appleway Road 0.75 mi XLOS: Tµ 6LOS Description: Reconstruct to a three-lane urban arterial Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $28,000 STP(R) STP(U) $176,000 Total: $204,000 26 PiojeEtTNName: 4/(BarkitRoada;: - _ , ;'9"1*- , , x .• Capanty No PFoolect`Estimate ,;;„?--t) $206;000 Barker Road from Appleway Road to Mission Avenue 0.77 mi XLOS:D 6LOS Description: Reconstruct to a three-lane curbed arterial Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $28,000 STP(U) $178,000 Total: $206,000 154 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation _T _ . .Barker Road« �;�,".?9e.<�e - �—`-" –1 27Project Name: Capacf "No•�,.r Project Estimate: i"�� $224,OOq Barker Road from Euclid Avenue to SR 290 0.95 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct to a three-lane curbed arterial Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $30,000 STP(U) $194,000 Total: $224,000 28.Project Name: -.Barker/SR290Minor intersection Capacity: No Project Estimate: $15000 Barker Rd from SR290 to SR290 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct raised curb channelization to eliminate WBL movement and provide NBL acceleration Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 . 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $3,000 Other $12,000 Total: $15,000 29. Project Name: Bigelow Guuich Rif./Forker Rd. Capacity: Yes Project Estimate: $291,000 Bigelow Gulch Road from Urban Area Boundary to Forker Road 5.96 mi XLOS:F 6LOS C Description: Realign road and widen to four lanes. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $39,000 STP(R) $252,000 Total: $291,000 30.Project Name: Bigelow Gulch Rd./Forker Rd. Capacity: No . Project Estimate: $221,000 Bigelow Gulch Rd from Havana St to Urban Area Boundary 0.64 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Perform an environmental study and prepare the appropriate environmental document. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $26,000 $3,000 STP(R) $167,000 $25,000 Total: $193,000 $28,000 31 Project Name: BigelowGulch Road Capacity': No Project Estimate: $370,000 Bigelow Gulch Road from Evergreen Road to Forker Road 0.34 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Realign with a curve onto Forker Road. Construct two lanes with left turn lanes. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $70,000 STP(S) $300,000 Total: $370,000 32 Project Name: Bigelow Gulch Road-Project 1 Capacity: Yes Project Estimate: $3,472,000 Bigelow Gulch Road from Havana Street to Urban Boundary 0.62 mi XLOS:0 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct and widen to a four lane width. Construct two lanes with shoulders. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $2,000 $176,000 $292,000 STP(R) $1,868,000 STP(U) $8,000 $1,126,000 Total: $10,000 $1,302,000 $2,160,000 155 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation . -_ _ Wc- --T- - 33Project=Neme...,,aBlgelow Guich.Road-Project 2 ,�. Capacity: Nes.,�:Project Estimate: $6,02M0 Bigelow Gulch Road from Urban Boundary to East Weile Road 1.32 mi XLOS:D 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct and widen to four lanes and shoulders. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $64,000 $111,000 STP(R) $2,895,000 STP(S) $211,000 RAP $575,000 $993,000 $1,178,000 Total: $639,000 $1,104,000 $4,284,000 34. Project Name: Bigelow Gulch Road-Project 3 Capacity: Yes Project Estimate: , ;: $4 002,000 1 s j '� Bigelow Gulch Road from E.Weile Road to Argonne Road 1.20 mi XLOS:F 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct roadway and widen to four lanes Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $158,000 . $350,000 $450,000 $1,050,000 STP(R) $183,000 $311,000 $450,000 $1,050,000 Total: $341,000 $661,000 $900,000 $2,100,000 33 Project Name: Bigelow Gulch Road-Project 4 Capacity: Yes Project Estimate: '.. $4,952,000 Bigelow Gulch Road from Argonne Road to Forker Road 2.91 mi XLOS:D 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct and widen to four lanes Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $54,000 $34,000 STP(R) $347,000 $3,517,000 RAP $1,000,000 Total: $401,000 $4,551,000 36 Project Name: Bowdish Road Capacity: No - .Project Estimate: $2,984,000 Bowdish Road from 32nd Avenue to 8th Avenue 1.52 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen roadway to three lanes. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $132,000 $210,000 $256,000 AIP $527,000 $838,000 $1,021,000 Total: $659,000 $1,048,000 $1,277,000 37. Project Name: - Broadway Elementary School Capacity: No-Project,Estimate _ s A%,;-..$80,000 Broadway Av from @ Pierce Rd to 0.01 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Install a crosswalk with flashing warning lights Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $16,000 Other $60,000 Other $4,000 Total: $80,000 38. Project Name:.- -Brooks Road � '`° J y a '� Capacity:� No. '""Throject`Estlmate ,r 4/:=; $736;000 Brooks Rd from Medical Lake City to Sr 206 3.88 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Repair pavement and overlay with ACP Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $99,000 STP(R) $637,000 Total: $736,000 156 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation 39.Project Name: '-Centennial Middle Scchool'Crossin "Capacity:NO-Project Estimate:t ' .= •, $40;000 Broadway Av from @ Rd. to 0.01 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Install a crosswalk with flashing warning lights Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 • 2006 County $8,000 Other $30,000 Other $2,000 Total: $40,000 40. Project Name: •,Center,Oak,Freya,and Boston . ; :-Capacity: No Project Estimate:-. $266,000 Center Rd from Oak St to Market St 0.52 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave existing gravel roads. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $1,000 $132,000 RID Bonds $1,000 $132,000 Total: $2,000 $264,000 41, ProJect Name: Charles Road: '.: .t s. . :Capacity: No Project Estimate: ; $16,000 Charles Road from Long Lake Road to Dover Road 3.04 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Recycle existing structural section and apply BST Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $16,000 Total: $16,000 '42. Project Charles Road - - Capacity: No Project Estimate: $900;000 Charles Rd from South Bank Rd to West Shore Rd 0.80 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen existing two-lane road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $17,000 $32,000 $72,000 STP(R) $108,000 $207,000 $464,000 Total: $125,000 $239,000 $536,000 ' 43`Project Name: Charles Road Capacity: No Project Estimate: $555,000 Charles Rd from Inch Rd to Sr 291 4.11 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Repair pavement and overlay with ACP. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $75,000 STP(R) $480,000 Total: $555,000 44. Project Name: Chatcolet Road .---e , Capacity: No Project Estimate: z -$506,000 Chatcolet Road from @Rock Creek to 0.10 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct bridge with precast girders Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $17,000 $84,000 BR $67,000 $338,000 Total: $84,000 $422,000 45. Project Name: Chattaroy Road Bridge. >' s, Capacity: No Project Estimate: $495;000 Chattaroy Road from Little Spokane River to #3801 0.02 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace existing bridge Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $19,000 $80,000 BR $76,000 $320,000 Total: $95,000 $400,000 157 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation r ct 46':project<- Name:r,,'s"„�kCheneyWaangie Tra(ig „aa; m' .;$Capaat'y" No,a�"�:ProjectEstimate $222;000 Cheney-Spangle Rd from Columbia Plateau Trail to Cheney City Limits 0.68 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct a trail from the Columbia Plateau Trail to the Cheney City Limits Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $1,000 $30,000 STP(E) $9,000 $182,000 Total: $10,000 $212,000 -it 5:777 47.„Project-Name W'„CheoeySpokane�Road-Overlay "�Capaaty No„t.,,=.Proiect:Estmate est�"a,4290;D06 Cheney-Spokane Rd from Bridge 2404 to Spokane City Limits 3.02 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Repair and overlay existing road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $40,000 STP(R) $250,000 Total: $290,000 48:ProjectName>"1Cl nton Rd., + , , "';", ,",;;Capacity 7Nor.• =Project Estimate ck:+:„;ii p-$32000 Clinton Rd from 12th Ave to 10th Ave 0.12 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave existing residential gravel road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $16,000 RID Bonds $16,000 Total: $32,000 49:7„ProjecfName: "s.,:;Coilege Homes Drainage� " „ 'at.Capacity` No;,,7g:Project'Estimate-''_ . 5�"'�$90,,000 Description: Construct drywells and catch basins in conjunction with the College Homes sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $7,000 $83,000 Total: $7,000 $83,000 50 ,ProjecName:s LColiege:Homes SewerPaveback#; iCapacity No`w Prgect Estimate .$209,000 Description: Replace existing base and pavement in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $103,000 $0 CAPP $106,000 Total: $209,000 $0 51"Project.Name Commute Trip;Reduction'ti ;,<_:tt,%':.Capacity, NoProjectEstimate'e, x$580,000 Description: Promote three TDM campaigns:"It's Cool to Carpool","Bike/Walk to Work Week",&"Employer Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $3,000 $3,000 $1,000 CMAQ $200,000 $200,000 $100,000 Other $29,000 $29,000 $15,000 Total: $232,000 $232,000 $116,000 52 CProject Name:'.v'::Commute,Trip Reduction : ,, $_-„„ 're pacittir No-,-;.;r.ProjectiEstimate u,$134;000 Description: Promote five TDM campaigns:Oil Smart,Rideshare Week,Ease the Flow,Way to Go Awards,and Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $9,000 $9,000 CMAQ $58,000 $58,000 Total: $67,000 $67,000 158 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation � 53_Project Name:.- Const PedestrianlBike Route"„.” .--- .. :Capacity. No�s'tProject Estimate: $22;000 Waikiki Road from Hawthorne Road to Mill Road 0.76 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct sidewalks Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $22,000 STP(C) Other Total: $22,000 54. Project Name: Country Homes BivdSidewalks - Capacity: No - Project Estimate: $189.000 Country Homes By from Wall Street to Whitehouse Street 0.35 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct sidewalks on both sides of the street. , Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $2,000 $36,000 PSMP $7,000 $144,000 Total: $9,000 $180,000 55:Project Name: Country Vista Road Capacity: Yeses Project Estimate: $2,350,000 Country Vista Road from Appleway Road to Henry Road 1.06 mi XLOS:F 6LOS B Description: Construct a five-lane curbed arterial to connect Appleway Road and the existing Country Vista at Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $27,000 $387,000 TPP $62,000 $1,371,000 Other $303,000 $200,000 Total: $392,000 $1,958,000 56.Project Name: Country Vista/Liberty Lake Rd Signal >. ' Capacity No Project Estimate: $127,000 Country Vista Dr from @ Liberty Lake Rd to 0.02 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Country Vista Dr and Liberty Lake Drive. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Other $127,000 Total: $127,000 _T 57. Project Name: Crawfo>rdRoad .Capacity:. No Project Estimate: $36-,,000000 Crawford St from Us Hwy 395 to Deer Park City Limits 0.16 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Remove and rebuild structural section with base and ACP.Joint County/Deer Park project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $18,000 $18,000 Total: $18,000 $18,000 58.Project Name: Curtis Road ::: Capacity: No Project Estimate: $510,000 Curtis Road from Cheney-Spangle Road to Short Road 4.12 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen two-lane roadway. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $50,000 $10,000 RAP $450,000 Total: $500,000 $10,000 _.—Word 59. Project Name: Dalton Recycle Capacity: No Project Estimate: $16000000 Dalton Road from Deer Park CL to Montgomery Road 1.78 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Recycle existing pavement,surface and BST Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $16,000 , Total: $16,000 159 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation 6OYP.ioject.Name:fl'Dartfo>rd DriveBridge s;"' " '> , §:z Capacity 195 PaojectiEstimateS, s=: $1T483;6150 Dartford Drive from #3601 to @Little Spokane River 0.10 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace Bridge. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $1,000 $295,000 BR $5,000 $1,182,000 Total: $6,000 $1,477,000 61:ProjectName.s�;�'D`e"el:Park,Milan.Bndgeflkanse4P"7,/,,,,lapacity.,„No;'•a:':Pioject Es'tlinate , $'491;000 Deer Park Milan Road from @Little Spokane River to BR 3902 0.02 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace existing bridge Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $18,000 $80,000 BR $71,000 $322,000 Total: $89,000 $402,000 62 Paoject Name:fe TDenison=Chattaroy Road,=:3 Th44, l; Capacity No' ;;ProjeitTEatimate,t " =y -$3 090;000 Denison-Chattaroy Rd from SR 395 to SR 2 4.12 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen to 40 feet. Realign substandard curves. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $8,000 $81,000 $219,000 RAP $74,000 $734,000 $1,974,000. Total: $82,000 $815,000 $2,193,000 63:Project Name. .`Dishman Mica Rond,Overlay, , ,•"s5ago Capacity Nora=`:PiojectEstimate gyp moi. $236,000 Dishman-Mica Rd from 16th Av to Appleway Blvd. 1.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind the existing pavement,repair,and overlay with asphalt concrete. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $32,000 STP(U) $204,000 Total: $236,000 64°.'Project:Name:4, Dishman MicaVlllSewer Pavebackt1s ,".-CapacitfNo"? ProjectEstirnate 1c"1.,` $1000 Description: Replace existing base and pavement in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $3,000 CAPP $15,000 Total: $18,000 65`Projec1Name r.;>,.:EastonSewer.PavebackIc C, ,., ,. ", ,; 7 Capacigr No` .=:-,P.roject Est mate s.,rx=„; :,$339,000 Description: Replace existing base and pavement in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $201,000 CAPP $138,000 Total: $339,000 66 aProject'Name !,:Ella Road�T ;<1 W =.� ?or r`, ,Caacity No ..x:Project Estimate %Aeaka$88,000 Ella Rd from South End to Upriver Drive 0.12 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave two-lane existing residential gravel access road with mountable ACP curbs. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $44,000 RID Bonds $44,000 Total: $88,000 160 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation . .T._ "—' .Project Estimate. _ $130;000 67. Project Name: �r.EmpireHeights:Sewer.Paveback. x�„j ,Capacity:":No 1 Description: Full width pavement replacement in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $130,000 Total: $130,000 68.Project Name: Espanola Road: (" '! Capacity:. No Project Estimate: $117,000 Espanola Road from @ Deep Creek to 0.05 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct bridge with precast girders Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $24,000 BR $93,000 Total: $117,000 69. Project Name: Euclid-Fair Flora Rd _ >= �::Capacity:> No Project Estimate: $600,000 Euclid Av from Flora Road to Barker Road 0.97 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct to provide a two lane,shouldered arterial Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $600,000 Total: $600,000 70. Project Name: Euclid'Road i Capacity':. No Project Estimate: $420,000 Euclid Road from SR 27 to 3537 ft.east 0.67 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and pave existing gravel road Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $59,000 RID Bonds $361,000 Total: $420,000 71 Project Name: Evergreen Road Capacity: Yes Project Estimate: $5,372,000 Evergreen Road from Sharp Avenue to Indiana Ave.(1-90) 0.98 mi XLOS:D 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct and widen To five lanes.Construct I/C at SR 90 Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $449,000 $538,000 Other TPP $3,783,000 Other $602,000 Total: $4,232,000 $1,140,000 72 Project Name: Evergreen Road Capacity:. Yes Project Estimate: $2,590,000 Evergreen Road from Sprague Ave to Sharp Ave 0.88 mi XLOS:D 6LOS B Description: Reconstruct road to a five-lane arterial Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $1,152,000 $67,000 TPP $1,270,000 $101,000 Total: $2,422,000 $168,000 73. Project Name: - 'Evergreen RoadCapacity: No Project Estimate: _ $2;500,000 Evergreen Road from 32nd Avenue to 16th Avenue 1.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen to three lanes Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $100,000 $180,000 $220,000 AIP $400,000 $720,000 $880,000 Total: $500,000 $900,000 $1,100,000 161 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation _ _ � 74.'_Project-Namesr'�`-EJergreen.Roadrz--. XS, rzx tr., {>, 4�`iCapaci o,��zu;ProjecYFstiFnate.�;�;,.t 3,6 ;;000 Evergreen Road from 16th Avenue to 2nd Avenue 0.90 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen to three lanes to 8th Avenue,five lanes from 8th Ave.to 2nd Ave. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $255,000 $375,000 $75,000 AIP $1,019,000 $1,501,000 $299,000 Total: $1,274,000 $1,876,000 $374,000 757ProjectName.;w"�Fancher Road;Overlay�`z>~•;,;,� :�,�:.?ett-rCapacity. NoC'Project Estimate: Wyttit$22300. Fancher Rd from Broadway Av to BNSF Railroad Bridge 0.52 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind existing pavement,repair,and overlay with asphalt concrete. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $20,000 STP(U) $203,000 Total: $223,000 76:Project-Name: ,„Fanvell Roadr;�3 g,,;. i „ �NA:4,.. ,1t,-ss4tsCapacdy.ko=.tProjecY,Estimate A'X $1;325:000 Farwell Road from SR 2 to Market Street 1.17 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct to a three-lane road with curbs and sidewalks Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $116,000 $150,000 AIP $462,000 $600,000 Total: $578,000 $750,000 77:Projeet Name:' Flora RdISR29O MinorlZersectiont° "- Capacity ;No,cProject.Estimate„M r,:x k$;13;000 Flora Rd from SR290 to SR290 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct raised curb channelization on SR290 to eliminate NBL&SBL movements Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $2,000 Other $11,000 Total: $13,000 79 Pro ect,Name ..Y°flora`Road.C -"floc?. "` ' „� ?>*,�,�.j^ -, , _ ,;=Capacity. Nom.,°'Project Estimate .�- s��`$200,000 Flora Rd from Sprague Av Y�to Mission Av 1.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct to a three-lane arterial. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $27,000 STP(U) $173,000 Total: $200,000 79:1Projec Name:.a`".Foothills Road= ttrmCapacity ,No=,."?:ProjectEstimate �r, -It%-t$137000 Foothills Road from Forker Road to Frederick Road 0.78 mi XLOS: 6L05 Description: Reconstruct and pave gravel road Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $2,000 RID Bonds $11,000 Total: $13,000 81L.Project.-Name.".�t+'FoothiOs�Roatl� .�'� ,, i. .,. 1-7 .1 ;ACCapabity_(No' ProjectEstimate kr-4,40."'0420,000 Foothills Road from Forker Road to Frederick Road 0.78 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and pave gravel road Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $17,000 RID Bonds $3,000 Total: $20,000 162 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation _ ,T -- -- _ -- 8'1�ProjecCName: : -Forker Road,P,roect 1 ._;.t, -� r%Capacity:,*ryes ::P,rojecbEstirriate:; Forker Road from Wellesley Road to East Progress Road 0.50 mi XLOS:E 6LOS C Description: Construct new four-lane arterial Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $68,000 $135,000 STP(U) $433,000 $865,000 Total: $501,000 $1,000,000 82:Project Name: Forker Road-Project 2 ' ;r Capacity:- Yes2ri Project Estimate: $1,499,000 Forker Rd from East Progress Rd I/S to West Progress Rd I/S 0.50 mi XLOS:D 6LOS C Description: Construct new four-lane arterial Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $67,000 $135,000 STP(U) $432,000 $865,000 Total: $499,000 $1,000,000 83 Project Name: Forker Road-Project 3 Capacity: Yes ,+:Project Estimate: $3,000,000 Forker Road from Progress Road to Bigelow Gulch Road 0.95 mi XLOS:E 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct and widen arterial. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $81,000 $324,000 STP(R) $519,000 $2,076,000 Total: $600,000 $2,400,000 84. Project Name: Frideger Road Bridge . Capacity: No -: Project Estimate: $765,000 Frideger Road from @ Little Spokane to #4902 0.02 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace existing bridge Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $23,000 $130,000 BR $92,000 $520,000 Total: $115,000 $650,000 85 Project Name: Gravel Resurfacing Dist1&3 Capacityu No ,:� ..Project Estimate: -. $225,000 Eloika Lake Rd from SR 2 to End gravel section 1.08 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grade,compact,and place gravel on existing roadway surface. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 .,2005 2006 County $225,000 Total: $225,000 86.Project Name: Gravel Resurfacing Dist2 Capacity: No " Project Estimate: - $231,000 Sands Rd from Cornwall Rd to Cameron Rd 0.92 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grade,compact,and place gravel on existing roadway surface. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $231,000 Total: $231,000 67 Project Name: Harvard Road ; Capacity:.Yes Project Estimate: , $17549,000 Harvard Road from Mission Avenue to 0.4 mi. North 0.60 mi XLOS:E 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct and widen to five lanes Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $18,000 $191,000 STP(R) $114,000 $1,226,000 Total: $132,000 $1,417,000 163 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation 88. ProjecfName:- ;..Harvard.Road%SR.901nterchange ,.:`��" ,._rCapaclty: YrProjecLEstlmate:� '_ $1,575,000 Harvard Road from at 1-90 to 0.20 mi XLOS:F 6LOS B Description: Realign WB off-ramp north to line up with Mission Ave. Const. loop ramp in NE quadrant of I/C. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Other $50,000 TPP $2,000 $1,065,000 Other $1,000 $457,000 Total: $53,000 $1,522,000 897ProjecaName: :Harvard/SR29ti SignaIlFi lon. - Capacity: No Project Estimate: $175,600 Harvard Rd from SR290 to SR290 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct traffic signal at intersection of Harvard&SR290 Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $35,000 Other $140,000 Total: $175,000 90 Project.Name:`.:: Hastings Overlay - .,, CapacityrNo Project Estimate: . ' $15,000 Hastings Road from Mill Road to SR 395 0.87 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind existing pavement and overlay with ACP Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $15,000 Other Total: $15,000 91. Project Name: r Hatch, Hussle,&Slaton - - Capacity: No Project Estimate: $14,000 Hatch Road from S.end to Eloika Lake Road 1.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Perform grading and drainage work. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $2,000 RID Bonds $12,000 Total: $14,000 92.Project Name: Havana Street Sidewalk Capacity: No Project Estimate: . $50,000 Havana St from Sprague Ave to Broadway Ave 0.50 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct a sidewalk on the east side of Havana Street. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $1,000 $9,000 PSMP $4,000 $36,000 Total: $5,000 $45,000 93.Project Name:.- Hayford . - - Capacity: Yes. Project Estimate:- $400,000 Old Trails Road from Trails Road to Newkirk Road 1.25 mi XLOS:C 6LOS B Description: Reconstruct and widen two-lane arterial. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $54,000 STP(R) $346,000 Total: $400,000 164 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation 9'4TProject Name: Hayfo7d Road ' ° ' '<<r,-4#4,CapacitlTiNo >^ =Project Estimate:itga.li.$27280,000 Hayford Rd from Newkirk Road to Seven Mile Road 3.05 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct new shouldered road Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $133,000 $175,000 STP(R) $852,000 $1,120,000 Total: $985,000 $1,295,000 .-6 95 Project Name: Flays Road67idge ',� ' a Capacity:m No', • Project Estimate z'LA.,- $126,000 Hays Road Bridge from #4212 @ Latah Creek to 0.20 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace steel stringers and timber deck with a concrete superstructure Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $25,000 BR $101,000 Total: $126,000 -- -- ,,7.... ---- 96. Project Name: Hutchinson Sewer Paveback ..�. �Capacity: No � Project Estimate: ;.-$223,000 Description: Full width pavement replacement in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $186,000 CAPP $37,000 Total: $223,000 --a _.. 97. Project Name: Improve access/Centennial Trail - Caa pacity: No.: , Project Estimate: $374,000 Frederick Avenue from Havana Street to Upriver Drive 0.67 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct a pathway along roadway • Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $26,000 $26,000 STP(E) STP(U) $161,000 $161,000 Total: $187,000 $187,000 -T.-T'--r—_.-. ._. 98 Project Kenney Road - , , Capacity: ,No ,.::Project Estimate: $81,000 Kenney Road from UPRR Crossing to 0.05 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct railroad gates and signals. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $1,000 STP(S) $80,000 Total: $81,000 99i Project Name: Knox Av,Dollar Rd,Mansfield Av Capadty: No Project Estimate: $120;000 Dollar Rd from South end of Dollar Rd to SR 290 0.05 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave existing gravel residential roads. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $60,000 RID Bonds $60,000 Total: $120,000 �100. Project Name: Lemon Lane Capacir No Project Estimate: $49,000 Lemon Lane from Parkway Rd to Approx.400 feet 0.08 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and pave 400 feet of gravel road with AC curbs. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $8,000 RID Bonds $41,000 Total: $49,000 165 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation jitiliTISRECNamet „,Liberty aake,DutferC6annel-Trail: {x'',---Z Capacity:,, erProject/Estimate w$313 600 Description: Construct a Class I pathway Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $4,000 $26,000 STP(E) $15,000 $192,000 Other $64,000 $12,000 Total: $83,000 $230,000 j102TProoJectName:s'liberty Lake.Road{Guaraiall,„* Gapacity"$`.,,.NolA:'YPioject Estimate.,. �:w��i0100o Liberty Lake Rd from Sprague Av to Valleyview Golf 0.82 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Install guardrail on Liberty Lake Road Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $100,000 Total: $100,000 11037tProject Name: .,Eiberty Lakes rail Bridge��"1 ;�. _D " apacity., NoWe:ProjecfEstimate. .,Xr46576i)0 Liberty Lake Rd from to Mission Av 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct a trail bridge over SR 90 on the west side of the Liberty Lake Road Overcrossing. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TPP $50,000 $410,000 Other $21,000 $176,000 Total: $71,000 $586,000 _, �. t104:`P_roject Name: ,Lin.,6colnlGarfiel0 Roadr:�� r�..a� <z„Capacity';�No;`kc;iProjectEstmateat-”,./.13':$236;0000 Lincoln Rd from Craig Rd to Garfield Rd 1.35 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen two-lane road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $31,000 STP(R) $199,000 Total: $230,000 . - . �105:;Project,Name:f-Linwood Elementary N1517-7-Project Capaiity:- s"�ProjectEstlmate mt�„f,L„ .x$80,_000 Monroe Rd from Weile Ave to 0.01 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Install a crosswalk with flashing warning lights Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $16,000 Other $60,000 Other $4,000 Total: $80,000 1 6?PiojeEtNameSc.L'ittleSpokane;Dnve9. .' �',� -} Capacity.°�'No„� "":Project'Estimate °r" .,4$100;000 Little Spokane Drive from @ Bridge#3602 to 0.10 mi XLOS: _ 6LOS Description: Construct approaches to new bridge Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $100,000 Total: $100,000 f107::-.ProjectName. Little$pokane`Drive,4-&-cs. `,.r. ;,;z•,,,„,';Capacity. Not- V Project Estimate .,:-" $749 000 Little Spokane Drive from @ Little Spokane River to #3702 0.14 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace existing bridge with a new concrete structure.. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $32,000 $119,000 BR $124,000 $474,000 Total: $156,000 $593,000 166 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation ;108. ProjectName: :-Otl Spokane:Drive c,tc, Capaeity: No Project Estimate: $47'000 Little Spokane Dr from At Bridge#3702 to 0.16 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct the bridge approach to join the new bridge. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $11,000 $36,000 Total: $11,000 $36,000 X109 Project Name: Lyons Avenue Sidewalk 4 Capacity:No Project Estimate: $47000 Lyons Avenue from Whitehouse Street to SR 395 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct sidewalk Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $4,000 PSMP Total: $4,000 ,110, Project Name: Mansfield Avenue - Capacity: No Project Estimate: . $57,000 Mansfield Av from Dora Rd to Coleman Rd 0.06 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct existing gravel road and pave with ACP. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $1,000 $28,000 RID Bonds $0 $28,000 Total: $1,000 $56,000 1111 Project Name: Market Street Capacity: No Project Estimate: $739,000 Market Street from Francis Avenue to Lincoln Road 0.98 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind existing pavement and recycle as base. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $710,000 Other $29,000 Total: $739,000 ,112. Project Name: McDonald Road Overlay Capacity: No Project Estimate: $280,000 Mcdonald Rd from 16th Av to Sprague Av 1.01 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind existing pavement and overlay with asphalt concrete. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $38,000 STP(U) $242,000 Total: $280,000 013.Project Name: Medical Lake/Four Lakes Road Capacity: No Project Estimate: $682,000 Medical Lake/Four Lakes from White Road to Craig Road 2.11 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Overlay existing pavement with asphalt concrete. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $426,000 CAPP $256,000 Total: $682,000 1114 Project Name: Mill Road Capacity: No Project Estimate: $15,000 Mill Road from Waikiki Road to Hastings Road 0.54 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind an overlay the existing AC pavement. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $15,000 Total: $15,000 167 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation i1157P7oject Name: ':Ml nor Ruiai Projects ,, i;Capacity: •No Project Estimate. .N,W $17920;000 Various roads from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Minor improvements at various locations. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $180,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 Total: $180,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 116 1116_. , .-Protect Name::SMinor.Urban Projects • ' ' • '. ' Capacity: No "Project Estirnate:, , _: $2;580,000 Description: Minor improvements at various locations. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $180,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Total: $180,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 117-Project Name: :Mirabeau Parkway-Stage T Capacity: No Project Estimate f4a.:; .- $55,000 Mirabeau Parkway from Indiana Ave. to 0.46 mi N.Of Indiana 0.46 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct a new arterial. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $22,000 TPP $33,000 Total: $55,000 ,118 Project Name: MissionAvenue-Project 1 Capacity: No- Project Estimate: - • $530,000 Mission Av from Argonne Rd to Herald Rd 0.63 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct Mission Avenue in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $120,000 CAPP $300,000 Other $110,000 Total: $530,000 ,119. Project Name: Mission Avenue-Project 2 Capacity: No' Project Estimate: - $3,750,000 Mission Avenue from McDonald Road to Sullivan Road 1.56 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen to three lanes from Blake Road to Sullivan Road. Construct curbs an Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $8,000 $140,000 $602,000 AIP $32,000 $560,000 $2,408.000 Total: $40,000 $700,000 $3,010,000 120.-Project Name: Mission Avenue-Project 3 Capacity: No Project Estimate: $89,000 Mission Av from Mercier Rd to McDonald Rd. 0.27 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace pavement in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $89,000 Total: $89,000 121. Project Name: Mission Avenue Sewer Paveback • Capacity:. No Project Estimate: - $1 300;000 Mission Av from Woodruff Road to SR 27 1.50 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave Mission Avenue with sewer project.Install pedestrian signal,curbs,and drainage at Mission Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $459,000 CAPP $313,000 Other $528,000 Total: $1,300,000 168 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation 022. Project Name Mjsslon Park Ciosswalk5ignals _ MICapacjty7NFrProject Estimate: - $36,000 Mission Av from 0.06 mi.E.of Pierce to 0.01 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Install a crosswalk signal system Project Funding: Source/year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $35,000 Total: $35,000 X123. Project Name: Mission Sewer Paveback - - `t.=Capacity: :No Project Estimate: $426,000 Description: Full width pavement replacement in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $371,000 CAPP $55,000 Total: $426,000 1724 Project Name: MitchellDrive ;>Capacity:No Project Estimate: - $933,,000 Mitchell Dr from Joseph Avenue to North End 0.20 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct a shouldered road on south with swales. Pave to existing curb on north side. Project Funding: Source/year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $14,000 RID Bonds $79,000 Total: $93,000 025 Project Name: Molter Road - Capacity: ..No Project Estimate: $460,000 Molter Road from Sprague Avenue to Valley Way 0.25 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct road to a three-lane arterial with curbs and sidewalks. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $62,000 STP(R) $398,000 Total: $460,000 ,126. Project Name: Montgomery Avenue Sidewalks Capacity:. No Project Estimate: $162,000 Montgomery Av from Locust Road to UPRR Crossing 0.45 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct sidewalks on both sides of the road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $2,000 $31,000 PSMP $6,000 $123,000 Total: $8,000 $154,000 1127 Project Name: Montgomery Road - ' Capacity: No'Project Estimate: $407,000 Montgomery Rd from Stevens County Line to Sherman Rd 3.65 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Recycle structural section and place CTB Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $407,000 Total: $407,000 ,128.Project Name: Mullan/Argonne Road Capacity: No'Project Estimate: $17862A00 Mullan Road from Sprague Ave to Mission Ave 1.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind existing pavement and overlay with asphalt concrete. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $1,003,000 CAPP $165,000 Other $694,000 Total: $1,862,000 169 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation 1297-Project NamNine.Milee Bridge , Ca acity" 5Prro ect- Estimate: ttigtr425,000 Charles Road from @Spokane River to BR 2602 0.11 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Repair delaminated deck with latex modified concrete. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $85,000 BR $340,000 Total: $425,000 130:Project Name: :.Northwest Connector Right=of-Way .. , '. Capacity: No, '=Project Estimate: � • $190,000 Northwest Connector from Old Trails Road to Seven Mile Bridge 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Purchase RM/to preserve corridor Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $10,000 $10,000 $170,000 Total: $10,000 $10,000 $170,000 ,131.Project Name:,.Northwest.Connector Study Capacity: No ..Project Estimate: $20,000 Description: Study alignment alternatives. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $20,000 Total: $20,000 1132;Project Name: Ownby,Nelson,Partrtdge�Pheasant, - : �"1 367:ProjecFName Park Road ,,s..,^.0 r t tr.°=a 6^#Capacity'N Project Estimate. t ,''..$2 715,00d Park Rd from Broadway Av to Indiana Av 0.75 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen to five lanes Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $73,000 $178,000 $292,000 AIP $292,000 $712,000 $1,168,000 Total: $365,000 $890,000 $1,460,000 13TPiect Name: Park Road/BNSF GradeSeparation Capacity:�Ys Pr1ectEstimate: $84000,000 Park Road from Indiana Avenue to Montgomery Ave. 0.20 mi XLOS:D 6LOS B Description: Reconstruct Park Road to separate the grades of Park Road and the BNSF railroad tracks. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $40,000 ' $592,000 $488,000 $240,000 TPP $60,000 $888,000 $2,232,000 $1,860,000 Other $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Total: $100,000 $1,480,000 $3,720,000 $3,100,000 ,138. Project Name: Park Road/BNSF GradeSepaFation Capacity: No- Project Estimate:' $28,000 Park Road from Indiana Avenue to Montgomery Ave. 0.20 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Study Park Road/BNSF crossing for possible separation of grades. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $8,000 $20,000 Total: $8,000 $20,000 139. Project Name: Pave Gravel Roads-PM10 Capacity: No Project Estimate: $2:044,000 from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave gravel roads to alleviate PM10 impact.Curb,AC pavement,&drainage Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $270,000 $752,000 RID Bonds $270,000 $752,000 Total: $540,000 $1,504,000 140 Project Name: Peone Road . - Capacity: No Project Estimate: • $472,000 Peone Road from Bruce Road to Moffat Road 1.61 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Widen and reconstruct road Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $63,000 STP(R) $409,000 RAP Total: $472,000 141 Project Name: Peope Road Railroad Crossing , Capacity:No ;. Project Estimate: $153,000 Peone Rd from @ BNSF Crossing to 0.01 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Remove old shoulder-mounted signals and install new railroad gates and signals. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $0 $2,000 STP(S) $3,000 $148,000 Total: $3,000 $150,000 ,142.Project Name: Perry Road - Capacity:No Project Estimate: " "• $19,000 Perry Road from Denison-Chattaroy to Chattaroy Road 0.99 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and pave existing gravel road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $3,000 RID Bonds $16,000 Total: $19,000 171 Capital Facilities PlanTransportation �143.�Project;Name. „Pnebiuff,�RoadBridge p..= '.,;Capacity.>�Noh24;P.rojectEstimate.KF,?1�'dj� $251;000 Pinebluff Rd from @ Coulee Creek to #2609 0.21 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace existing bulb-tee girders at the center span. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $9,000 $41,000 BR $35,000 $166,000 Total: $44,000 $207,000 ;1M PiojecfName;K"PiitebrookCourt u 3 a'*1 ,of„ Y;p=;M;,,e '''Capacity«tN6 •- Project.Estimate;w °",.$128;000 Pinebrook Court from W.End of Road to Sioux Ct. 0.25 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and pave existing gravel road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $20,000 RID Bonds $108,000 Total: $128,000 1457Pioject Name:"-Pmeglen.RoaZI • t „ .s w,. =;4 ';. 7Capacit .:`.No"-^Pio ect`€stimate <,at t°$55000 Pineglen Rd from Yale Rd to 620 feet east 0.12 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grade,and pave gravel road with shoulders. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $6,000 $2,000 RID Bonds $36,000 $11,000 Total: $42,000 $13,000 ,148ProjectNamer ti:t-tapacityy:a`°No 't Project Estimate: .r9:1:3228,000 Pines Road from 32nd Avenue to 23rd Avenue 0.57 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct sidewalks on both sides of the road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $4,000 $76,000 PSMP $7,000 $141,000 Total: $11,000 $217,000 ,1,47,Project Name:-`Ponderosa Drive a=,k..„a °F• `" _.x, t�:r=s `"'�7Capacity No',x�1 Project Estimate'�t;s �;$671;000 Ponderosa Dr from Bates Av to Dishman Mica Rd 0.11 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct a 40 foot wide urban arterial road to link Ponderosa neighborhood with Dishman Mica Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $671,000 Total: $671,000 ,148 ;Project Name: Prairie View Road=5,1 t? > _� � Capacityi No;?a'P.roject'.Estirnafl''�;�`$3 1807000 Prairie View Road from SR 195 to Spring Valley Road 4.08 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen two-lane arterial. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $45,000 $151,000 $123,000 RAP $405,000 $1,352,000 $1,104,000 Total: $450,000 $1,503,000 $1,227,000 14077,,Pro eat Names Rambo Road✓/�LiFE lrl Roads a• . +`l- 'r '""'" x 11 a �, j :Nr.�No .�Project Estimate ,,,,..,�$20;000 Description: Study alignment alternatives Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $20,000 Total: $20,000 172 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation j1607Pioject Name: . Ramb/Ci ii Roads;^:a^ ";Capaeity 7 No s?.<t Project.Estimate )411$1=550;00 Rambo Road from Jacobs Rd to Lincoln Rd 1.01 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct by realigning and widening to 30 feet.Pave with ACP. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $100,000 $350,000 $1,100,000 Total: $100,000 $350,000 $1,100,000 ...- --- Q51: Project Name: Regina Avenue Overlay �-•. ' t:apacity:�No. �.ProjecbEstimate: � ; $50-2;000 Regina Av from Mill Road to Florence Avenue 0.52 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind existing pavement and overlay with ACP Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $251,000 Other $251,000 Total: $502,000 (152•+Project Name: Regravel Projects`'= Capacity-: No Project Estimate: -•:$2,944,000 Description: Regravel various rural roads. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $44,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $400,000 CMAQ Total: $44,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $400,000 ,153. Project Name: RID Projects Capacity: No Project Estimate: - $10,323,000 Various roads from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and pave gravel roads Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $27,000 $23,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 RID Bonds $146,000 $127,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Total: $173,000 $150,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 • $2,000,000 $2,000,000 1154`. Project Name: Road Ditching and Shouldering Capacity: No Project Estimate: - - $185,000 Spotted Rd from Cheney-Spokane Rd to White Road 3.75 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grade shoulders,excavate ditches,repair and replace culverts. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $185,000 Total: $185,000 (155. Project Name: Rural Arferlal Preservation Capacity: No Project Estimatr$2,065,000 Description: Resurface or reconstruct road structural section. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $279,000 $269,000 $259,000 $249,000 $249,000 CAPP $152,000 $152,000 $152,000 $152,000 $152,000 Total: $431,000 $421,000 $411,000 $401,000 $401,000 056 Project Name: Safety Improvement Projects - Capacity:No Project.Estimate: ; . T' ?-$1,890,000 Various roads from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Minor traffic safety improvements at various locations. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 STP(S) Total: $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 173 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation d57:;P.ro ect Name.,.`SohoolD)strict,Pathviays-Projects;weet,fiCapacity; NoMitP.rojecf Estmate:; ,r;91a€.$11$00;000 Various roads from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct pedestrian pathways Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $200,000 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Total: $200,000 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 1158 4 Project Name:"SeSen Mile:Bridge'4 a`is ' - "Capacjt NB: c Project Est mate., i;.taw` $705 000 Seven Mile Road from @ Coulee Creek to #1602 0.10 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace existing bridge Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $21,000 $120,000 BR $84,000 $480,000 Total: $105,000 $600,000 -b ,159:�Ptoject NamRoad e:;:Seven Mlle .` .`3t�'�Capactty, No7=eta Projeet Estimate:�,-A :{4�$300D00 Seven Mile Rd from Inland Rd to Spokane River 1.49 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen existing two-lane road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $26,000 $14,000 STP(R) $169,000 $91,000 Total: $195,000 $105,000 160 ,Project Name:m'Sewer Paveback"Projects x+.�.,. r,'Y;'' PY-.:,Capacity. No. 7Prroject' $4,500;000 Various roads from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Resurface arterial and residential roads after sewer construction. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $0 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $800,000 CAPP $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Total: $0 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $1,300,000 1617Project Name:,rSherman Road s „„,;s�'f' -� ?a,-'a'Av Capacity:: Nobt,a P,rojeitEstimate,4-..c`i'ae02,000 Sherman Rd from Montgomery Rd to Stevens County Line 4.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Recycle structural section and place CTB Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $412,000 Total: $412,000 1162.,Project Name:”Silver LakeRoachwtxt �.`.:; a + .m'-."-" _�`=.CapacIfy-ErNo Project,Estirate era sSk: x$144,000 Silver Lake Rd from Willow Lake to Granite Lake 0.40 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Place fill to raise the road, place base and asphalt concrete pavement. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $114,000 Total: $114,000 Silver Lake Rd from Willow Lake to Granite Lake 0.40 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Place fill to raise the road, place base and asphalt concrete pavement. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $114,000 Total: $114,000 174 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation Nr., -- - - - ,183rProject Names.Skyview Sewer PaveliEle `.0x,iit iiialw i'' Capacity: No,-Project;Estimate , , 4:.$377;000 Description: Construct pavement section to provide full width replacement in conjunction with the sanitary sewer Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $360,000 CAPP $17,000 Total: $377,000 X164. Project Name:' Small Bridge Improvements : ` - '.Capacity:ty: NNo o Projectect Estimate: . ,`': $350;000 Various roads. from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Bridge improvements at various locations. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Total: $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 ;165. Project Name: . SMS Colliston Review Committee' -. Capacity: No - Project Estimate: $36,000 Various locations from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Establish a SMS committee Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 STP(S) $13,000 $11,000 $5,000 $2,000 Other $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Total: $15,000 $12,000 $6,000 $3,000 1766. Project Name: Sorrel Avenue Capacity: No Project Estimate: $164,000 Sorrel Av from Stoneman Road to Fairview Avenue 0.29 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave existing residential gravel road with curb on north side and gravel shoulder on south side. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $1,000 $105,000 RID Bonds $1,000 $57,000 Total: $2,000 $162,000 (167rProject Name: South Bradshaw Road Bridge Capacity: No Proje-if Estimate: $400,000 South Bradshaw Road from #5203 to @ S.Rock Creek 0.10 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace bridge. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $16,000 $64,000 BR $62,000 $258,000 Total: $78,000 $322,000 X188-Project Name::. South Ponderosa Sewer Paveback Capacity: No °. Project Estimate: :-: :$774,000 Description: Replace existing base and pavement in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $402,000 $372,000 Total: $402,000 $372,000 - .r_ X169:Project Name: Southeast Connector Study Capacity:No_« Projectt Estimate: <- , °$20;000 Description: Study alignment alternatives. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $20,000 Total: $20,000 175 Capital Facilities Plan ' Transportation 1170::Project Name:ItSpokane`Area SStormwater_Quality..WAS .Capaci y Nou:;.;`'=P,rojeclEst mate E - "r $320;000 from Various roads to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Study the effectiveness of oil/water separators and grassed swales. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $11,000 $16,000 $16,000 STP(U) $69,000 $104,000 $104,000 Total: $80,000 $120,000 $120,000 1717P. oject'Ninmei,Spokane Re onal;Bie cle,�.,, ' "" g" y �,,. ,t,t.�. �:�Capaaty:c No"T?P„rojectlst mate.,,,w aWr$60,000 Description: Provide signage and construct 9 kiosks with bicycle route information on existing urban paved Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $330 $2,165 STP(E) $6,920 $44,980 Other $200 $1,300 Other $550 $3,555 Total: $8,000 $52,000 "i1725TOSeCI NamezSprague/PR",90 Intersecin Signa °- ;=c-, CIriaary'�NoAdtprojectEstfmate.K� v2""< „x$ 000 Sprague Av from Fancher Road to Dyer Road 0.31 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Purchase signal controller and misc.equipment for new intersection with SR90 ramps. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $23,000 Total: $23,000 ;173.Project Name: ,-Staley Road Bridge»».. +.e .ti . -CapacityNOte a Project Estimate`t' 4s$568;000 Staley Road from #2802 @ Dragoon Cr. to 0.16 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace a 20-foot wide timber bridge with a 34-foot wide concrete structure. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $77,000 BR $491,000 Total: $568,000 174TProjeciNamec,:Sttaarr ik adrMKT'".a.:-„°'?='1,.,`au,r€' ,>a Capacity No"" Project.Est mate nx.= < .$203;000 Starr Road from Alignment to @ BR.#5605 0.01 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct substandard horiz and vertical curves. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $10,000 $53,000 RAP $140,000 Total: $10,000 $193,000 ,175:;;ProJect Name: Starr Road ,Ka <»_kVA; ' "f47-Capacity. No,'•vdProjeetEtjmate : Q a $11;06b Starr Rd from @ BNSF Overpass to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Place concrete barrier to protect traffic from bridge columns. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $11,000 Total: $11,000 11767Projecf Name:!;Steen Road=." fr .`k� "��"�r;.:�r�� , S, pa Cacity No"?�',uProject Estimate.. ��=� - x.$16;000 Steen Road from 4th Avenue to Sprague Avenue 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and pave existing gravel road Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $3,000 RID Bonds $13,000 Total: $16,000 176 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation — 0777-Project Name: Sullivan RoadCapaci�No"�-Project Estimate: $2:357,000 00 Sullivan Road from 32nd Avenue to 16th Avenue 0.95 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen to three-lanes with curbs and sidewalks from 32nd to Saltese Road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $446,000 AIP $1,885,000 Other $26,000 Total: $2,357,000 178:Project Name: .,.Sullivan Road - - Capacity:k Yes:'Project Estimate: $1;392000 Sullivan Road from 1-90 to Euclid Avenue 1.14 mi XLOS:E 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct to a seven-lane urban arterial.Widen bridges at UPRR,BNRR, and SR 290 Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $107,000 $426,000 Other TPP $160,000 $639,000 Total: $267,000 $1,065,000 ,-._--T-.�._ _ -_ 1/97-Project Name: .Sullivan Road ': -'Capacity: Yes Project Estimate: $1 028,000 Sullivan Road from Euclid Avenue to Wellesley Avenue 1.00 mi XLOS:E 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct to a seven-lane urban arterial.Widen bridges at Spokane River,UPRR,BNRR,and Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $93,000 $374,000 Other TPP $0 $561,000 Total: $93,000 $935,000 180. Project Name:. Sullivan Road Bridge Repair Capacity: No Project Estimate: $147;000 Sullivan Rd from SR 290 Eastbound to SR 290 Westbound 0.06 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Repair bridge damaged by an overheight truck. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $135,000 $12,000 Total: $135,000 $12,000 181.Pro1ject Name: Sullivad Road OverlayCapacity: oo Project Estimate: $250,,000 Sullivan Rd from Spokane River to SR 290 EB Ramps 1.59 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind,patch,and overlay with asphalt concrete pavement. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $250,000 Total: $250,000 182 Project Name: r Sullivan Road Voluntary CTR Capacity': No Project Estimate: $322,000 Sullivan Road from SR 90 to SR 290 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Implement and evaluate voluntary CTR programs among Sullivan Road businesses. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $94,000 $94,000 $94,000 Other $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 Total: $114,000 $104,000 $104,000 177 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation �183"`Pro ect.Name:� Sullfvan.Road West Bridge ' ' - =-Capacity:.`Yes•{,7 Project.tilimate: $8001',000 Sullivan Road from @ Spokane River to #4511-5 0.22 mi XLOS:D 6LOS C Description: Reconstruct and widen west bridge Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $87,000 $757,000 $757,000 BR $348,000 $3,026,000 $3,026,000 Total: $435,000 $3,783,000 $3,783,000 184. Project Name:, Sullivan Road/I-90 Interchange : Capacity: Yes :'Project Estlmate: • $2,062,000 Sullivan Road from 1-90 EB Ramps to Indiana Avenue 0.15 mi XLOS:F 6LOS D Description: Reconstruct WB off-ramp and construct a new WB on-ramp Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $47,000 $423,000 Other TPP $247,000 $1,101,000 Other $33,000 $211,000 Total: $327,000 $1,735,000 085.Project Name: Sullivan/SR290 Signalization Capacity: No . Project Estimate: $330,000 Sullivan Rd from EB Ramp to WB Ramp 0.06 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Install traffic signals on Sullivan at EB&WB ramps of SR290 Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $3,000 $30,000 STP(S) $27,000 $270,000 Total: $30,000 $300,000 ,186. Project Name:: Thierman Road . - Capacity: No Project Estimate: - ' $121,000 Thierman Road from 44th Avenue to 2,600 ft north 0.49 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and pave existing gravel road. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 RID Bonds $121,000 Total: $121,000 187:Pro ect Name: Traffir Si nal LED Retrofit Ca-Flay: No Pro ect Estimate: " $51,000 i j 9 P Y� 1 Description: Retrofit incandescent traffic signal heads with LED lenses Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $51,000 Total: $51,000 188:-Project Name: Un versittyy Road - - Capacity:No.Project Estimate: $2,126,000 University Road from Main Avenue to Mission Avenue 1.01 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen to a three lane arterial with curbs and sidewalk. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $395,000 STP(U) $518,000 AIP $1,213,000 Total: $2,126,000 ON.,Project Name: .Uprive@Drive ":,� � :< " ;...,^ • Salty: ,,No � 1" � . $6.40,000;000 Project Estimate: ,? Upriver Drive from Centennial Trail to Plantes Ferry Park 0.58 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Add bike lanes and a pathway Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $100,000 STP(E) STP(U) $540,000 Total: $640,000 178 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation _ t1907PIO ct Name: .Upriver.Dnve „ ,Pa '+g,Capacity: No Projects Estimate:, ',. , $165,000 Upriver Drive from Argonne Road to 0.10 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct additional lane to accomodate turning traffic.Construct curb and sidewalk. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $8,000 $8,000 STP(S) $76,000 $73,000 Total: $84,000 $81,000 ,19k. Project Name: -Urbann Nrterial Preservation . > > -;-tx".Capacity: No project Estimate: "(-$4,500,000 Various from to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Resurface or reconstruct road structural section. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 CAPP $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Total: $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 - ___ ,192.-Project Name: Valley Chapel Road ,!:: Capacity: No Project Estimate: $971,000 Valley Chapel Road from @ Spangle to #3302 0.02 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace bridge. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $35,000 $159,000 BR $142,000 $635,000 Total: $177,000 $794,000 1193. Project Name: Valley Chapel Road Capacity: No Project Estimate: $1,129,000 Valley Chapel Road from @ Rock Creek to #3304 0.19 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Replace bridge with a concrete structure. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $29,000 $177,000 $20,000 BR $115,000 $710,000 $78,000 Total: $144,000 $887,000 $98,000 - - -- - ,194-. Project Name: Valley Chapel Road Capacity: No Project Estimate: $29,000 Valley Chapel Rd from @ Rock Creek to 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct bridge approaches both sides of new Valley Chapel Bridge#3304. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $4,000 $20,000 $5,000 Total: $4,000 $20,000 $5,000 095r Project Name: Valley Corridor Environmental Study Capacity: No Project Estimate: $437,000 2nd Ave. from University Road to Appleway Av 4.25 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Environmental Study of transportation alternatives including extending the Valley Couplet. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $36,000 $23,000 STP(U) $233,000 $145,000 Total: $269,000 $168,000 179 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation X198:vpr'oject Name:T;YalleyA„ Duple"t P7oject2:t,a'r ',NftCapacNy Ryes . Project;Estimate' W $11;b4,900 Sprague Ave from University Rd to Evergreen Rd 2.02 mi XLOS:E 6LOS C Description: Construct multi-lane facility with curbs and sidewalks. Remove islands on Sprague Avenue and Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $98,000 $1,656,000 STP(U) $583,000 $1,417,000 Other $470,000 TPP $1,020,000 $3,190,000 • Total: $1,701,000 $6,733,000 1977ProjectName:k::Valley Couplet Project3raa,s.?, „sas,,e,t. Capactty ;Yes r,4 Project Estimate;`<$4tt$3;301b000 Valley Couplet from Evergreen Road to Sullivan Road 1.02 mi XLOS:E 6LOS C .. Description: Construct multi-lane facility with curbs and sidewalks. Remove islands on Sprague Avenue and Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $15,000 $65,000 $148,000 $261,000 STP(U) $97,000 $97,000 $947,000 $1,671,000 Total: $112,000 $162,000 $1,095,000 $1,932,000 49$:Project Name:-"Valley Couplet-'Project 4 3:,,,,.;,,,; Capacrty..,Yes,^'PTojec£Estimate.„ `„S~ ';r$7Z9;000 Valley Couplet from Sullivan Road to Appleway Road 1.19 mi XLOS:E 6LOS C Description: Construct four lanes with curbs and sidewalks. Remove islands on Sprague Avenue and restripe. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $54,000 $51,000 STP(U) $350,000 $324,000 Total: $404,000 $375,000 =199: Project Name:aValleyIDCouplet-,Stage 1,',.,,,,,V,-,,Y0='u-'• .ei`,:CapacilVtest PiojectEstimate.4'^ 4=> $2 030"000 Sprague Avenue . from 1-90 to Thierman Rd 1.68 mi XLOS:F 6LOS B Description: Convert Sprague Ave.to a five-lane,one-way arterial from Dollar Rd to Thierman. Construct Project Funding: . Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $480,000 $406,000 TPP $620,000 $524,000 Total: $1,100,000 $930,000 200 Project Name Valley Couplet ;Stage 11 Capacity Yes& *,7Project,Estimate[`. �t> ,a,. ;,4 .$2 050,000 2nd Avenue from Dishman Road.. to University Road 1.21 mi XLOS: 6LOS B Description: Construct curb and sidewalk.Overlay with asphalt concrete and install permanent traffic signals. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $238,000 $970,000 TPP $412,000 $430,000 Total: $650,000 $1,400,000 • 201nlTajectName::+;Walley Couplet=Stage 3 :.s .tn„ ? Capacrty7a_T, "'"j"" iWI " No.,<"-Pro ect�Estjmates;>�a,. $3,290`000 First Ave/Second Ave from Thierman Rd to Dishman Rd 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct a new one-way,four-lane,curbed arterial along 1st/2nd Avenue. Project Funding: . Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $1,391,000 $44,000 TPP $1,799,000 $56,000 Total: $3,190,000 $100,000 180 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation • �'r 2o2715ojectName:'ValieyCouPlei Stage4�;2^'.,`- -_`1':`-Capacity;,Yes<r:` Project Estimate ::;2e$-1r665T00d r Sprague Ave from Thierman Rd to Argonne Rd 1.48 mi XLOS:F 6LOS B Description: Install permanent signals,overlay with asphalt concrete,and construct curb and sidewalk. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 • -2003 2004 2005 2006 County $87,000 $873,000 TPP $113,000 $592,000 Total: $200,000 $1,465,000 . 203. Project Name: ,Valley Slgnallzedrl7S'InterconnecP . A x• 'k? pacjty;.�Yes ` ,Project:Estimate: . -k $443;000 from ` to ' 0.00 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Interconnect state and county signals on 1-90 ramps at Argonne Rd.,Pines Rd.,and Sullivan Road Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $60,000 - ' STP(U) $383,000 Total: $443,000 204 Project Name:- Valley Way, Moitei;8 Sprague mss= Capacity: No Project Estimate: $125,,000 Valleyway Av from Molter Road to 0.41 mi XLOS: 6LOS - Description: Construct a ten-foot pathway. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 `-2003 2004 2005 2006 Other $125,000 Total: $125,000 205. Project Name: Vista Road ' ' Capacity: 'No. Project Estimate:.' ' $256,000 Vista Rd from Upriver Drive to Wellesley Avenue 0.17 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pave two-lane existing residential gravel access road with mountable ACP curbs. oilProject Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 • 2006 CMAQ $89,000 $39,000 J RID Bonds $89,000 $39,000 Total: $178,000 $78,000 208. Project Name: Waikiki Road Overlay Capacity: No. Project Estimate: :` $257,000 Waikiki Rd from Wall St to:Mill Rd - .. 1.06 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind the existing pavement,repair,and overlay with asphalt concrete. Project Funding: ' Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $35,000 STP(U) $222,000 Total: $257,000 207:.Project Name: WallStreetOverlay . ,?.-;-"I'-a,-:Capacity: No_Project Estimate: . $12,000 Wall Street from Country Homes Drive to Waikiki Road 0.87 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Grind existing pavement and overlay with ACP .. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 .2003 . 2004 2005 2006 County $12,000 Total: $12,000 =. 208. Project Name:-: W'alnutSewer Paveback < ' - ;- ''-"Capacity: No Project Estimate: . . $614,000 Description: Construct pavement section to provide full width replacement in conjunction with the sanitary sewer Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 - 2004 2005 2006 County $158,000 CAPP $356,000 Total: $514,000 rill 181 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation 209; roject Name:::. Waverly Road ° ;7riC,,,- . ..'Capacity No 3 Project Estimate: ' $1,786,000 til Waverly Rd from Waverly City Limits to Sr 27 2.29 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Reconstruct and widen two lane road. .. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005` 2006 County $20,000 $55,000 $165,000 STP(R) $130,000 .$356,000 $1,060,000 Total: $150,000 $411,000 $1,225,000 210.Project Name: Waved Road Guardrail 1, T= 1 y Capacity:Now:`: Project Estimate: -.$40,000 Waverly Rd from Main St to 1/2 mile East of Main 0.48 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Install guardrail along Waverly Road next to Latah Creek. Project Funding: Lb Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 r 2005 2006 County $40,000 Total: $40,000 211. Project Name: Wellesley Avenue,�J-ctwa „,:,'°:�'-•�"",Capacity: No �ProJect Estimate:, .: $8;0000 Wellesley Avenue from - Campbell Rdad^r• - to McKinzie Road - ' 1.63 mi' XLOS: 6LOS Description: Construct a pedestrian pathway. c: . Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $2,000 Other - ' s,;);s C; PSMP $6,000 %.1)n' i - r , Total: $8,000 C. Co', 2127-Project Name: Wellesley Road Overlay '.'. ' ,-.-.'c:. ', Capacity:, No.- Project Estirnafe:. $65,000 Wellesley Ave from Progress Rd to Sullivan Rd 0.25 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Repair existing pavement and overlay with asphalt concrete. 11114.1 Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $9,000 STP(U) $56,000 Total: $65,000 _._ 213. Project Name: West Sprague Sewer.Paveback ,.: `. -Cavacity':' No Project Estimate: $41,000 Description: Full width pavement replacement in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $19,000 CAPP $22,000 Total: $41,000 214. Project Name: Wh(tworthyTerrace SewenPaveback , :: .' Capacity: No.:_;Project Estimate: - . $90,000 Description: Replace existing base and pavement in conjunction with sanitary sewer project. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $90,000 Total: $90,000 it57Proje'et Name Wood Road Rehabilitation.Project* `rya .''Capacity:,No'. 'Project Esitmate: $1059;000 Wood Rd from Espanola Rd to Coulee Hite Rd 7.37 mi XLOS: 6LOS Description: Pulverize and mix cement treated base by contract. Place surfacing and BST by County forces. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $1,059,000 Total: $1,059,000 ell 182 Capital'Facilitics Plan - Transportation 2167-Project Ninier,WEECIRoad/Chades calriatiFyrNo, Project Estimate: Wood Rd from Kitt Rd to Charlasand, 3.08 mi XLOS:' 6LOS Description: Recycle structural section and place CTB :T)) Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 ' 2001 2002 2003-ic 2004 2005 2006 County $421,000 $90,000 Total: $421,000 $90,000 217. Project Nan—TeXWOOTIlart Road —WCaj— Zit-77-No Project Estimate:aril'$144 Woodlawn Rd . from North End to 50 feet north a 0.01 mi XLOS:. 6LOS Description: Pave existing gravel residential access road. Project Funding: SourceNear 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CMAQ $72,000 RID Bonds $72,000 Total: $144,000 218.- proirciName:sywares—cezwit 4.6;-, Ni777-ProllelEitinW$2-66TOtiti Description: Reconstruct existing roads in conjunction with sanitaryosewcg construction. Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 vcv 2004 , , 2005 2006 County $290,000 • Total: $290,000 219 Project Nair, Yardley Draallmprovementtt4 NrProject Estimate:%%e' $221000 Description: Construct swales,drywells and catch basins in conjunction with the Yardley Central Sewer Phase II Project Funding: Source/Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 County $91,000 ' $130,000 . Total: .' $91,000 $130,000 - • litk I ,r '7• SCE • . „ ;0.1S • -14,1 •. • , . - a ' . eC: 183 .• Capital Facilities Plan Transportation Q J TRANSPORTATION CFP PROJECS AND FINANCING PLAN c 's ti ': v` .Y 4 s> (All Amounts.Are Times:$1 000) 1,i t' m. . . . ''''.. `I. e. . .. F44"SUMMARYOF COSTS/REVENUES :' c t,.? r . (I) I O (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) _COST/REVENUE 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL_ Total Costs ( 33,628.0 44,177.0 30,267.0 25,444.0 29,322.0 29,271.0 28,051.0 220,160.0 1 REVENUES: County 12,305.0 13,560.4 8,891.2 7,842.0 7,805.0 6,761.0 7,660.0 64,824.6 BR 1,143.0 4,216.0 1,983.0 3,852.0 3,409.0 3,202.0 4,418.0 22,223.0 CMAQ 1,108.0 1,929.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,137.0 STP(E) 24.0 380.9 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 449.9 STP(R) 167.0 1,211.0 3,513.0 4,412.0 4,660.0 4,504.0 6,080.0 24,547.0 STP(S) 89.0 206.0 707.0 639.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,641.0 STP(U) 1,660.0 5,137.0 2,410.0 2,831.0 4,488.0 3,730.0 3,177.0 23,433.0 Other 1,559.0 2,512.5 29.5 1.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 0.0 6,102.0 RID Bonds 1,915.0 1,942.0 1,700.0 1,700.0 1,700.0 1,700.0 1,700.0 12,357.0 AIP 3,508.0 2,835.0 4,038.0 991.0 1,959.0 3,348.0 1,621.0 18,300.0 CAPP 828.0 952.0 952.0 952.0 952.0 952.0 952.0 6,540.0 Other State `, 50.0 150.2 '471.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 163.0 834.5 PSMP 26.0 408.0 80.0 84.0 116.0 80.0 80.0 874.0 RAP 855.0 2,067.0 2,097.0 1,252.0 1,001.0 1,974.0 1,000.0 10,246.0 TPP 8,391.0 6,670.0 3,250.0 888.0 2,232.0 2,020.0 1,200.0 24,651.0 Total Revenues I 33,628.0 I 44,177.0 I 30,267.0 I 25,444.0 I 29,322.0 I 29,271.0 I 28,051.0 I 220,160.0 Balance l ( 0 1 0 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 Funding Sources: State assistance:TPP, AIP, and PSMP are Federal assistance: These funds are authorized administered by the Transportation Improvement under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Board. RAP and CAPP are administered by the Efficiency Act(ISTEA)and the Transportation County Road Administration Board Equity Act for the 21 A Century(TEA-21)and are administered by the Federal Highway TPP-Transportation Partnership Program Administration through the Washington State AIP- Arterial Improvement Program Department of Transportation and the PSMP: Pedestrian Safety Mobility Program Metropolitan Planning Organization(SRTC). RAP- Rural Arterial Program BR-Bridge replacement projects(Federal Grant) CAPP-County Arterial Preservation Program CMAQ-Congestion Management and Air Other State-Other state funds Quality Other Fed-Other federal funds. Local funding: RID Bonds are sold to finance the STP-Surface Transportation Program. construction of local roads.This funding is Individual funds are designated by the letters in administered by Spokane County. Private funds parenthesis that follow the initials"STP": are paid by private companies or individuals for (U) Urban improvements various reasons,usually for commercial reasons. (R) Rural improvements RID Bonds- Road Improvement District funding (C) Competitive funding from private property owners. (E) Enhancement improvement Private-Funds from private sources. (S) Safety improvements County- Funds collected by Spokane County primarily from the road tax and state gasoline tax. 184 Capital Facilities Plan Transportation