Loading...
2011, 09-20 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, September 20,2011 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) Proclamations:National Fall Prevention; Valleyfest Days DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL 1.Marion Lee, Spokane Bike Helmet Information Presentation Regional Health District 2. Steve Worley Sullivan Road Bridge Temporary Repairs Discussion/Information 3.Mark Calhoun Fee Resolution Review Discussion/Information 4.Mike Basinger Bicycle &Pedestrian Master Program Discussion/Information 5.Mayor Towey Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 6. Mayor Towey Council Check in Discussion/Information 7.Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Note: Unless otherwise noted above,there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However,Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council,the Council reserves the right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action"means to deliberate,discuss,review,consider,evaluate,or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Study Session Agenda,September 20,2011 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 20, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Bike Helmets GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Ms. Marion Lee, Public Health Educator of the Spokane Regional Health District, will discuss the value of helmets. OPTIONS: n/a RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: Injury Prevention Program, Spokane's Helmet Ordinance SPOKANE H LT H Injury Prevention Program D I S T R I C T Spokane's Helmet Ordinance Helmets save lives. it's an unarguable absolute—you absolutely need one when you absolutely need one and no one knows when that moment may come. Being prepared for that moment is essential to the health and safety of our community. AKNOWLEDGMENTS: WHO GETS HEAD INJURIES: • City of Spokane for adopting a helmet • 67% are school aged, under 17 years old ordinance in 2004 • Males are more likely to suffer a head injury • City of Spokane Valley for adding a budget line item for helmets KIDS ARE NOT WEARING HELMETS • City of Liberty Lake for incorporating According to the 2008 Healthy Youth Survey: complete streets concepts into their city • 78% report never wearing a helmet when infrastructure biking • Sheriff Community Oriented Policing • 12% report rarely wearing a helmet when Effort (SCOPE) for their commitment to biking bike rodeos and helmet safety • Area public school districts for COSTS: integrating bike safety education into Medical expenses: physical activity courses and supporting • Emergency room visit for a wheeled sport Safe Route to School initiatives injury= $7,400 • Spokane Regional Health District's • Hospitalization for wheeled sport injury= Physical Activity Program and partners $22,200 for promoting and implementing Educational expenses: infrastructure improvements • Cost to educate a student without a • Spokane Police Department for head/brain injury = $8,200.00 per year enforcing the policy when appropriate • Cost to educate a student after a helmet and educating people when a citation preventable head/brain injury= $29,200.00 isn't the best strategy per year (over) Marion Lee PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATOR 2 . INJURY PREVENTION PROGRAM SPOKANE REGIONAL mrlee @spokanecounty.org HLT H 1101 West College Avenue D I S T R I C T Spokane,WA 99201-2095 509.324.3613 , DIRECT 509.324.1599 I FAX www.SRHD.org Spokane Regional Health District, Injury Prevention Program • Helmet Ordinance What is needed? Why an ordinance? POLICIES: Research shows that adopting an ordinance • City of Spokane's Helmet Ordinance increases helmet use, even without • Area school district policies requiring enforcement. helmet use The Centers for Disease Control and ENFORCEMENT: Prevention's research proves that, "Laws • Provide public education mandating helmet use supplement and • Widely disseminate discount coupons reinforce the message of an educational for helmets; reward kids for helmet use campaign, requiring people to act on their • Citations when necessary (ability to knowledge." dismiss tickets with proof of safety device possession) Knowledge alone doesn't always move people to action. EDUCATION & SKILLS TO RIDE: • People know how to lose weight, yet • PE class integration obesity rates rise dramatically every year • Bicycle advisory board • People know how to prevent gum • Spokefest disease, but many people do not floss • Summer parkways every day • Safe Routes to School • Statewide efforts to integrate cyclist Some parents use "it's the law" as leverage awareness into drivers' education to increase safety behavior. programs • Not driving with friends (Graduate Driver's License initiative) FREE OR REDUCED PRICE HELMETS: • Riding in a booster seat until 8 years old • Spokane Regional Health District or 4'9 • Sherriff Community Oriented Policing Effort Reduce costs for everyone. • Community Oriented Policing • Taxpayers bear the burden of uninsured • Big 5 coupons medical costs • Insurance pools are greatly impacted by INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGE: excessive medical expenses • Regional pedestrian plan • Regional bike plan • City of Spokane master bike plan • Complete streets movement • Spokane County connectivity policy CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 20, 2011 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Admin Report: Sullivan Road West Bridge Temporary Repairs GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approved Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) Applications on May 25th, 2010; Admin Report on March 8, 2011; Admin Report on August 23, 2011 BACKGROUND: On August 23, 2011 staff gave a presentation on the status and condition of the Sullivan Road West Bridge (#4508). Part of that presentation discussed the idea of pursuing a temporary fix to the bridge that might be able to remove the current weight restrictions. Staff had Sargent Engineers, our current on-call bridge consultant, do this evaluation and the results are attached. The estimated cost for the temporary repairs $358,000. This includes design and bid documents ($15,000), construction ($313,000) and construction inspection ($30,000). The estimated time frame to complete the design, bid, contract award, and construction is 6-7 months. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Currently the estimated bridge replacement costs = $19.7 million. The city has received a federal Bridge Replacement grant for $8 million and a FMSIB grant for $2 million. The federal grant requires a 20% match. These bridge replacement funds cannot be used for these temporary repairs. Funding for the temporary repairs has not been identified yet. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Reports (2) from Sargent Engineers SARGENT Sargent Engineers,Inc. 320 Ranieri Lena NW Olympia,Washing pan X8502-9241 Tel 36,0:17-9284 Fax 360 857.9318 wxw,sargenlengi neersmm September 9, 2011 Mr. Steve M. Worley; P.E. Cly of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works 11707 East Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Sullivan Road West Bridge - Report Closeout Project No.: A11102.003 Dear Mr. Worley This memo is being sent as a follow lip to the report we provided on possible temporary repairs for the Sullivan Road West Bridge. Our report, dated August 18, dealt with hems 1 through 4 of the Scope of Work for this project,this memo is being provided as the completion of Item 8 of the Scope of Work. Our initial report provided the City with numerous options for the possible temporary repairs of the Sullivan Road West Bridge, including budgetary level cost estimates for these repairs. We have since received questions and comments from the City, we have performed some additional analysis of the bridge,and we have also gathered additional data from local contractors on the constructabitity of these repair options. Based on all of this data, we are recommending the City move forward with Repair Option 8 which requires the addition of supplemental steel reinforcing to the interior girders of the bridge. Lastly, if restricting truck traffic to the west lane of the bridge is not acceptable, we would also recommend installing a temporary barrier system with the face of the temporary barrier being located 2.5-feet from the face of the existing east barrier of the bridge. The center striping of the bridge could also be adjusted to create two lanes of approximately 1235-feet Fri width once the temporary barriers are in place. We have attached an updated cost estimate for Option 8. If you have any questions regarding this memo, please call. Respectfully, `1•o1'!rT Sargent Engineers, Inc. C' kk Erik C. Martin t __ Frincipal 4.10,/, / ECM P",11 File 0A11102.O00 Spokane Valley On-Ca IM111O2.Ooa Sullivan Repair Analy siCarrespundancdrH eporranseoul.due Mr. Sieve Worley 5IWGEN1 Page 2 September 9, 2011 Option 8- Steel Reinforcement Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Rem Cost Mobilization LS I $23,700.00 $24,000 Work PFatfarm SF 13920 $10.00 $139,000 Decks Slots Each 176 500.00 $11,000 Drill Holes Each 352 $30.00 $11,000 Structural Steel Ibs 15535 $ .00 $56,000 Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $20,000.00 S20,000 Contingencies $53,000 Total $3131000 SARGENT Sargent Engineers,Inc. 320 Ronlee Lane NW Olympia,Washington 98502.9241 Tel 360 867.9284 Fax 360 867-9318 vnvw.sargente nginee rs.com August 18, 2011 Mr. Steve M. Worley, P.E. City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works 11707 East Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Sullivan Road West Bridge Project No.: A11102.003 Dear Mr. Worley: The Sullivan Road West Bridge is currently posted with weight restrictions due to the condition of the bridge. This is posing a perceived hardship on the businesses that use the bridge on a regular basis. You requested that we assist you with finding ways to possibly accommodate the trucks that would like to use the bridge. SCOPE OF WORK Our scope of work included the following items: 1. Analyze the current load ratings for the Sullivan Road West bridge to determine what locations of the bridge will need to be strengthened. The City would like to see the capacity of the bridge temporarily increased such that load postings are not required. The temporary repairs need to last approximately five years until the bridge is to be replaced. 2. Based on the results of the analysis, brainstorm possible temporary repair options for the bridge. 3. Select one or two of the most plausible temporary repair options and develop a preliminary cost estimate for the repairs. 4. Review the repair options and corresponding estimates with the City. 5. Based on comments from the City, develop final cost estimates. This report addresses items 1 through 3 and presents the results in accordance with item 4. BRIDGE DEFICIENT AREAS The load rating was reviewed and the areas that are deficient are shown below: 51RGENF Mr. Steve Worley Page 2 August 18, 2011 1. When the lanes on the bridge were modified and new traffic barriers added, the east exterior girder had a significant increase in traffic load. This increase was much larger than the traffic carried by the other girders in the bridge. The following cross section shows what this configuration looks like. This entire girder is unable to carry truck traffic unless the entire girder is retrofitted. , I Girder with too much load 2. The shear capacity of the two interior girders was found to be deficient in specific areas as shown by the following plot. suOranRoad990e WRL31od 10 - 6 9 - r 2 J . Example Deficient Area 0 E0 100 200 320 902 bB0 Ummate Sheer/WIng(i10..r5'ro3) Anywhere where the line drops below 1, the girder is deficient. These areas are quantified in the following plot: SNIGEN1r Mr. Steve Worley Page 3 August 18, 2011 —i Wu Hto-rtl— � ,m,1— rori - tsfr I- =1,,t �iett� Aetl at g'.d[c renloittrn_l The areas that are black are deficient. This occurs on both interior girders. The deck is also deteriorating, but we feel that damage to the deck can be repaired on a periodic basis. The moment capacity of the girders is currently not deficient except for the east exterior girder. The west girder is sufficient in its present condition. Each girder is supported by individual columns, so there are no cross beams that are deficient. POSSIBLE REPAIR OPTIONS We thought of possible options that might help the situation. 1. Close the bridge. The bridge can be closed and southbound traffic could find other ways of going south. This could include using Barker Road or Trent Avenue. 2, Close the bridge and make the east bridge carry one lane of traffic in each direction. This is currently one of the temporary detours that is occurring as the intersection at Sullivan Road and Indiana Avenue is being worked on. Both north bound and south bound traffic would occupy one lane on the east bridge. The intersection controls at Sullivan Road and Indiana Avenue would have to be modified. 3. Confine a single lane of traffic to the center of the bridge. This only works if the traffic is exactly centered between two girders. It if is not centered, then too much load goes into a girder. So we felt like this option was not feasible. 4. A temporary bridge could be placed on top of the existing bridge. This would most likely be an ACROW truss bridge that can span from pier to pier. This would be above the existing bridge deck, so fills would have to be placed at each end of the bridge. Only a single lane of traffic could be accommodated with this option and still fit on the existing bridge deck. If two lanes are desired, then the barriers would have to be removed and the pedestrian crossing closed. 5. Post-tension the bridge. Post-tensioning is the process where prestressing steel applies compression to the bridge. This improves the load carrying capacity of the bridge. Cables would be threaded the full length of the bridge and then stressed. Concrete anchor and deviator blocks would be added to the bridge. 6. Add a composite to the girders. This is typically a carbon fiber or glass fiber composite that improves the member. The problem with this method is that it depends heavily on the bond developed between the composite and the concrete. Since the concrete is deteriorating, this could be difficult to develop. Test would have to be performed to see how well this option could perform. T. Add reinforcing steel and shotcrete to each side of the deficient girders. Holes will be drilled in each girder and reinforcing steel added to the exterior of the girder. Then shotcrete would be added to the sides of the girder. SLRGENT Mr. Steve Worley Page 4 August 18, 2011 8. Add supplemental shear steel reinforcing to the girders. This consists of drilling holes on each side of the girders in the areas where they are deficient. Two steel treaded bars that are welded to a steel plate are inserted through the holes, one on each side of the girder. Then a channel is bolted to the steel bars, Conceptually, it looks like this: r------_ � . ! -- \ e ----� i I j \—Reinforce girders with bolts on the sides of the girders, c pinte en top of the deck, erd o cnenrel on the be:torn of the girder. OPTION COST ESTIMATES Below is a summary of the preliminary cost estimates for each option. Option 3 was not estimated since it did not seem feasible. Option 7 was not estimated because option 8 accomplishes the same objective at a smaller cost. Option Construction Cost Estimate 1. Close the bridge and let traffic use other routes. $66,000 2. Close the bridge and detour traffic to east bridge. $67,000 4. Temporary single lane bridge on top of existing bridge. $971,000 5. Post tension bridge. $1,301,000 6, Composite repair $363,000 8. Shear steel strengthening $313,000 The detailed cost estimates are attached to this report. RECOMMENDATIONS You are currently channeling traffic so that one lane of traffic is going in each direction on the east bridge while you are performing construction on the intersection at Sullivan Road and Indiana Avenue. From this test, you can judge whether it is possible to permanently close the bridge and channel all traffic to the east bridge. We feel that this is the least expensive and simplest way to accommodate trucks. If you do not think traffic is adequately handled, then we feel like the combination of restricting truck traffic to the west lane and installing the shear steel strengthening is the best option. The repair looks like the following: • GE� Mr. Steve Worley Page 5 August 18, 2011 Allow trucks only in this Ione Do not ol ow trucks in this lone--- Reinforce girders with bolts on the sides of the girders, a plate on tap of the deck, and ❑ channel on the bottom of the girder. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call. Respectfully, Sargent Engineers, Inc. Monte Smith Principal MJS \\Serverllfiles111 Files1A11102.003 Sullivan Repair AnalysislReport.doc - �a J "r c4-237E .�- �` -) At 3 ; SARGENT Close the Bridge Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Item Cost Mobilization LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 Message Sign HR 43800 $1.00 $44,000 Barriers LF 400 $13.00 $5,000 Misc. Signs SF 100 $10.00 $1,000 Contingencies $11,000 Total $66,000 Move Traffic to East Bridge Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Item Cost Mobilization LS 1 $5,100.00 $5,000 Message Sign HR 43800 $1.00 $44,000 Barriers LF 400 $13.00 $5,000 Temporary Markers Each 65 $10.00 $1,000 Misc. Signs SF 100 $10.00 $1,000 Contingencies $11,000 Total $67,000 Temporary Bridge Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Item Cost Mobilization LS 1 $73,500.00 $74,000 Fill CY 356 $10.00 $4,000 Asphalt Ton 112 $80.00 $9,000 Top Course Ton 288 $20.00 $6,000 Bridge SF 6960 $100.00 $696,000 Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 Contingencies $162,000 Total $971,000 SARGENT Post Tension Bridge Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Item Cost Mobilization LS 1 $85,900.00 $86,000 Work Platform SF 13920 $10.00 $139,000 P. T. lbs 121800 $6.00 $731,000 Concrete CY 83 $1,000.00 $83,000 Reinforcing lbs 24900 $1.00 $25,000 Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 Contingencies $217,000 Total $1,301,000 Composite Strengthening Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Item Cost Mobilization LS 1 $25,400.00 $25,000 Work Platform SF 13920 $10.00 $139,000 Prepare Surface SF 2112 $5.00 $11,000 Composite Application SF 2112 $40.00 $84,000 Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 Contingencies $84,000 Total $363,000 Steel Reinforcement Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Item Cost Mobilization LS 1 $23,700.00 $24,000 Work Platform SF 13920 $10.00 $139,000 Deck Slots Each 176 $60.00 $11,000 Drill Holes SF 352 $30.00 $11,000 Structural Steel lbs 18535 $3.00 $56,000 Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 Contingencies $52,000 Total $313,000 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 20, 2011 Department Director Approval: IN Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information IN admin. report ®pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule for 2012. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Master Fee Schedule setting 2011 fees was established via Resolution #10-019 and was adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2010. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No previous Council action has been taken nor have discussions taken place regarding changes to Resolution #10-019. BACKGROUND: Part of the annual operating budget development process involves City Departments reviewing the Master Fee Schedule that is currently in place and determining whether changes in the fees charged and/or language used in the governing resolution should be altered. Recommended changes include: • Language (but not fee amount) changes initiated by the Community Development Department. • Language and fee amount changes initiated by the Spokane Valley Fire Department. • One fee change initiated by the Parks and Recreation Department at CenterPlace. OPTIONS: 1) Proceed with the updated fee resolution change as presented this evening; 2) Proceed with portions of the updated fee resolution presented this evening; 3) Do not make any changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Based upon City Staff and Spokane Valley Fire Department recommendations we propose the Master Fee Schedule be advanced to the October 25, 2011 Council agenda for action. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The proposed changes are not expected to have a significant impact on 2012 revenues. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • An 18-page "Red I Blue lined copy" of the proposed 2011 Fee Resolution establishing 2012 fees, This allows Council Members to see the original language and fees as well as the proposed changes. • A 16-page "clean copy" of the proposed 2011 Fee Resolution establishing 2012 fees. This version incorporates all proposed changes in a format free of mark-ups that resulted from editing as you see in the previous version. • A one-page memo from Mark Kate McGee, City Building Official describing proposed language changes. • A three-page summary and explanation of fire protection related changes that was prepared by the Spokane Valley Fire Department. 1lSV-FS21Userslmcalhoun\Fee ResolutionlResolution for 2012 Fees12011 09 20 RCA for Fee Resolution.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO.119-f1Ir1l' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING RESOLUTION 10-0019 AND APPROVING AN AMENDED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is the general policy of the City to establish fees that are reflective of the cost of services provided by the City;and WHEREAS,the City uses a resolution to establish fees for City programs, permits and serviees, and periodically the fee resolution must be updated to incorporate new or modified services;and WHEREAS,Council desires to modify the Resolution and accompanying Fee Sehedule. NOW THEREFORE,be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley,Spokane County,Washington,as follows: Section 1. The changes needed at this time are incorporated into the attached schedules and include new fees and ehanges to existing fees. Section 2. Repeal. To the extent that previous fee schedules are inconsistent with those set forth herein,they are repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect January 1, I 2012-L Approved this N.7" day ofMnmilD...t,iitt}r2,20 lilt. ATTEST: CITY OP SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Thomas E.Towey,Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 11.0-.0p.19 Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 1 of 18 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Fee Sehedule Page No. Schedule A:Planning 3 Schedule B:Building 5 Schedule C:Fire Code 10 Schedule D:Parks and Recreation 12 Schedule E:Administrative 15 Sehedule F:Other Fees 15 Schedule G:Police Fees 16 Resolution 11 8-0XX19 Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 2 of 18 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Schedule A—Planning FEE AMOUNT AMENDMENTS Comprehensive Plan Amendment 51,500.00 Zoning or other code text amendment $1,500.00 APPEALS Appeal of Administrative Decision S1,050.00 Appeal of Hearing Examiner Findings $315.00 Transcript/record deposit on Appeals of Hearing Examiner Decisions 5157.00 Appeal of Administrative Decision-Code Compliance Notice and Order 500.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA) Single Dwelling(when required) 5100.00 All other developments $350.00 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)Review,minimum deposit $2,200.00 Addenda of existing EIS Review $350.00 SHORELINE Substantial Development Permit $840.00 CRITICAL AREAS Floodplain Permit 5315.00+552.00 per lot OTHER PERMITS Home Occupation Permit and Accessory Dwelling Units(ADU) $84.00 Conditional Use Permit $840.00 Temporary Use Permit $157.00 LAND USE ACTIONS Subdivisions Preliminary plat $2,324.00+$40.00 per lot Final Plat $1,424.00+$I0.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Short Plats Preliminary 2 to 4 lots $1,224.00 Final plat 2 to 4 lots $924.00 Preliminary plat 5 to 9 lots $1,424.00+$25.00 per lot Final plat 5 to 9 lots $1,229.00+$10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 I Resolution 110-OXXI9 Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 3 of 18 Plat Alteration Subdivision plat $682.00 Short plat $278.00 Binding Site Plan Binding site plan alteration $278.00. Change of Conditions $650.00 Preliminary binding site plan $1,674.00 Final Binding Site Plan $924.00 Aggregation/Segregation Lot line adjustment $105.00 Lot line elimination $105.00 Zero lot line $105.00+$10.00 per lot Plat Vacation $1,474.00 SIGNS Review of permanent sign $50.00+$25.00 if public works review needed Review of temporary sign $50.00 1. d 44I1A 1) bE •NEW RESIDDITIA L _SITE PLAN REVIEW $50 SITE PLAN REVIEW -PER DIVISION REVIEW $275 STREET VACATION APPLICATION $1,365.00 OTHER Administrative Exception S315.00 Variance $1,575.00 Administrative Interpretations $100.00 Pre application Meetings $250.00 Fee will be Udeducted from land use;:, ;i...1 i.! . r eommercinl kcnnit application fee +s. sltep application is filed within one year of pre-application meeting ZONING Zoning map amendments(rezone)* $1,650.00 Planned residential development plan $1,575.00+$26.00 per lot Planned residential development modification $525.00 Zoning letter $210.00 *If rezone is combined with other action(s),cost of other action(s)is additional Resolution 119-0XXI9 Amending Fee Resolution for 201kl Page 4 of 18 Schedule B—Building Fee Payment Plan review fees are collected at the time of application. Such fees may be adjusted during plan review, Overages or under payments will be appropriately adjusted at the time of permit issuance. Plan review fees are separate from and additional to building permit fees. Permit fees and any other unpaid fees are collected prior to issuance of the permit, Fees for outside professional services required during the permit process will be paid by the applicant. Examples of outside professional services include review by contract reviewers, special inspection or construction services, consultant services for special topics, surveying or other services required to determine compliance with applicable codes. Fee Refund Polley P2:111 ,'t--ew-fees- f;en- erta,lnblz once our plan renew work has bo ii started. Permit fees ere-rare refundable once inch authorized by Elie permit li.its begun" Ap rl„e,^ rtait--liakiari.of ps.iec -el le-far fond-must request it refund in writing witbiri-4 ealender-dn l or permit irutumcc, ' Regii. iv #er-1ki0-caI adar di -aae.iiot-el idle#or•refunLlr Refunds nutht}ti,zcd under this policy apply ocly to Schedule F!. Poilging-plan ri= ees rill be tefundeA uircn in eligible request is reieived in writing" r1 533:99 admi-ai-strrOtive fee will be retained. If the paid building plan revie v Fee-refs S35"00, the Dimon! for refuntl-a411-be-ratIenk4ed-et-trIt-: —r,r.. . Pia-hEtiLrLi-ug-triat ie+-fed.pa id-inliiuS414AJ0.: #rtiidistg-pennit will `e refintd ' ••a•--- -Ali bk regnest is received in writing I+it]iin IS0 tfu}s of permit issuance -Am-an tt-eglini..tir-Ilk+ lteurls rate for ortc hour of staff time as desigtrted in this scliednIe-will be retained. IC the building permit fcs is les;than die amount for one hour of staff-lime,the bid ldfng Epe it fee will nnl be reftindcd. TFtile pt,ii4-19"14 Ht-`.-. " 6—ewet Elsa-emabKt-taw rx*4atrr-af mg-t+t he f yelli 1._...,ie dated..vita u� Ohcai l-t C r�l;• e-�-rr.v.-n LIB-peel}" La ncrae� me with.,c lz e€4h Faster}ee-S•elte.tiule- PLAN RFNIEW FEES • Plan review lila ilisiipll-refundable once any plan review work has been stored" • -• - 'Formatted:List Paragraph,Bulleted+Level:I • Paid plain review fees will be refLlmdnd when an elias]e request is received jr:writ 1112. ,+Aligned at: 0.75"+Indent at: t". IP As a minimum.tt 5.35.Q0 adruinistalsiv will be retained, • if the rim Id plait review fee is less ilia 535"O01n no refund is authorized. ▪ If the paid plait review fiee.i5 rn2[9:,13 t 531.00.the amount for refund will be caleithiLed L.lam of]I P%ofthe paid vim rev review fee minus 535,00" -- I Formatted:ust Paragraph,Indent:Left; r PERMIT FEES " --- Formatted;trident;Left: 0.5" ■ Permit fees Are non-refundable(pate work authorized by the permit has begun_ ' - Formatted:List Paragraph,Billeted+Level:1 . Paid permit fen will be reftin itest is received in ii1 i all, +Aiigrled at: 0.75"+Indent al: i" li ,As amininnllrt. a 531,1}0 administrative fee will he tetaiited. — ■ lithe paid permit fee is i 55 than 1135, T,n4 rdiaad ii t}ull priass1 ±_inb9 paid pern til fee is more tlluk/iy/535.Ut),the reflood will be calculated at the rate of 95%, 1rftIle pi III pc-1111ft fee nu11t.4S 535.00" I Resolution 110-0>C(1-9 Amending Fee Resolution for 2012.1 Page 5 of 18 For any application taken or permit issued incrLQ.c u thilLithild of fc s pull 3tiill be mule_ No portion or ik .iJrSc .''.11.1ixic Inincdw Formatted:Font:(Default)Times Now Raglan i FEES GENERAL Hourly Rate for City Employees $61.00 Overtime rate for City Employees(1.5 times regular rate) $92.00 Investigation fee:Work eommeneed without required permits Equal to permit fee Replacement of lost permit documents Hourly rate; 1 hour minimum Revisions to plans requested by the applicant or permit holder will be charged the hourly rate with a minimum of one hour. Revised plans submitted in response to reviewer eorrection letters are not subject to the hourly assessment. Washington State Building Code Couneil Surcharge(WSBCC) $4.50 per permit WSBCC Surcharge(Multi-Family) $4.50 1st dwelling unit+$2.00 eaeh additional unit BUILDING PERivHT: Building permit fees for each projeet are set by the following fees. The figures below are to be used to determine the building permit fees and plans check fees based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safely Journal by the International Code Council,whichever value is greater. Valuations not listed in the Building Safety Journal: Building Tyne Valuation Per Square Foot Residential garages/storage buildings(wood frame) $19.00 Residential garages(masonry) $22.00 Miscellaneous residential pole buildings $19.00 Residential carports,decks,porches $15.00 • Building Permit Fee Calculation Total Valuation Building Permit Fee $1.00 to$25,000.00 $69.25 for first$2,000.00+ $14.00 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including$25,000.00 $25,001.00 to$50,000.00 $391.25 for first$25,000+ $10.10 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including$50,000.00 $50,001.00 to$100,000.00 $643.75 for first$50,000.00+ $7.00 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including$100,000.00 $100,001.00 to$500,000.00 $993.75 for first$100,000+ $5,60 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including$500,000.00 I Resolution 11Q-0XXk9 Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 6 of 18 $500,001.00 to$1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for first$500,000.00+ £4.75 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Up to and including$1,000,000.00 £1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for first$1,000,000.00+ £3.15 for each additional$1,000.00(or fraction thereof) Plan Review Fee Caleulation %of Building Permit Fee Plans review fee(general) 65% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies(single family less than 7,999 sq ft) 40% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies(single family 8,000 sq ft or more) 65% Plans review fee—Group U occupancies(sheds,barns,ct.) 25% Initial Plan Review Fees are capped at$35,000 not including pass-through expenses for outside review as noted in the"Fee Payment"section of this schedule. Resolution 110 9XX= Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 7 of 18 OTHER BUILDING PERMITS: Over-the-Counter Service $61.00 flat fee Demolition Permit Single Family Residence $96.00 flat fee Commercial Buildings $131.00 flat fee Garage or accessory building associated with residenee or commercial building $21.00 flat fee Foundation Only: 25%of building permit fee Swimming Pools,over 5,000 gallons $52.00+ plumbing fees Re-roof(no plan review charge unless submitted for review) Based on Project Valuation Change of Use or Occupancy Classification Permit Hourly Towers,elevated tanks,antennas Hourly GRADING PERiMIT: 100 cubic yards(cu yd)or less $21.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $21.00 for first 100 cu yd.+ $7.00 each additional 100 cu yd 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $88.00 for first 1,000 cu yd+ $6.00 each additional 1,000 eu yd 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $154.00 for first 10,000 cu yd+ $15.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $386.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $15.00 each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,000 or more cubic yards $528.00 for first 200,000 cu yd+ $15.00 for each additional 200,000 cu yd GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEE:_ 50 cubic yards or less No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $12.00 101 to 1,000 $21.00 1,001 to 10,000 $27.00 10,001 to 100,000 $27.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $7.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 $104.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $6.00 for each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,001 or more $166.00 Land Clearing Only(without earth being moved) $68.00 Paving Permit(greater than 5,000 sq.R.—new paving only) $263.00 Resolution 110-0>0(19 Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 8 of 18 MECHANICAL PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at the time of application as noted in the"Fee Payment"section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application,the unit costs are added, but not the "basic"fee for issuing the permit. Mechanical Permit Fees A. BASIC FEES 1.Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2.Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B.UNIT FEES(in addition to the basic fee) 1.Installation or relocation of Furnaces and suspended heaters a.up to and including 100,000 btu $13.00 b.over 100,000 btu $16.00 2.Duct work system $11.00 3.Heat pump and air conditioner a.0 to 3 tons $13.00 b.over 3 tons to 15 tons £21.00 c.over 15 tons to 30 tons $26.00 d.over 30 tons to 50 tons $37.00. e.over 50 tons $63.00 4,Gas water heater $11.00 5.Gas piping system $1.00 per outlet 6.Gas log,fireplace,and gas insert installation $11.00 7.Appliance vents installation;relocation;replacement $10.00 each 8.Boilers,compressors,and absorption systems a.0 to 3 hp-100,000 btu or less $13.00 b.over 3 to 15 hp-100,001 to 500,000 btu $21.00 c.over 15-30 hp-500,001 to 1,000,000 btu $26.00 d.over 30 ph-1,000,001 to 1,750,000 btu $37.00 e.over 50 by-over 1,750,000 btu $63.00 9.Air Handlers a.each unit up to 10,000 cfm,including ducts $13.00 b.each unit over 10,000 cfm $16.00 10.Evaporative Coolers(other than portable) $11.00 11.Ventilation and Exhausts a.each fan connected to a single duct $11.00 b.each ventilation system $13.00 c.each hood served by mechanical exhaust $13.00 12.Incinerators a.residential installation or reloeation $21.00 b.commercial installation or relocation $23.00 13.Unlisted appliances a,under 400,000 btu $52.00 b.400,000 btu or over $105.00 14.Hood a.Type I $52.00 b.Type 11 $11.00 15.LP Storage Tank $11.00 16.Wood or Pellet Stove insert $11.00 17.Wood stove system-free standing $26.00 I Resolution 11Q-0XX19 Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 9 of 18 PLUMBING PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at the time of application as noted in the"Fee Payment"section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the"basic"fee for issuing the permit. A. BASIC FEES 1.Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2,Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B.UNIT FEES(in addition to the basic fce) 1.Each plumbing fixture on a trap $6.00 eaeh (includes garbage disposals, dishwashers, backflow device, drainage, hot tubs, built-in water softener, .eater closets,lavatories,sinks,drains,etc.) 2.Water Heater $6.00 each 3.Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor $16.00 (includes its trap and vent,except kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps.) 4.Repair or alteration of water piping,drainage or vent piping $6.00 each fixture 5.Atmospheric type vacuum breaker $6.00 each 6.Backflow protective deviee other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers $6.00 each 7.Medical gas $6.00 per outlet 8.Interceptors $6.00 each RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT: A traffic plan and traffic plan review is required if more than 50%of the width of any street is closed or if a single arterial lane is closed. A minimum plan review fee of$61.00 (hourly rate for city employees) applies to all right-of-way permits that require a traffic plan.If additional staff time is required,it will be charged at the hourly rate. Category 1.Non-cut obstruction without clean up $73.00 2.Non-cut obstruction with clean up $110.00 3.Pavement cut obstruction,non-winter $168.00 4.Pavement cut obstruction,winter $210.00 5.Approach Permit $52.00 SIGN PERMIT: Sign permits are subject to assessment of planning division review fees as found in Schedule A. Sign Permits are also subject to the assessment of the WSBCC fee as noted in Schedule B"General"section. Signs mounted on buildings $48.00 per sign(flat fee) Sign and pole mounting $68.00 per sign(flat fee) Resolution 11Q-0XXI9 Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 10 of 18 Schedule C-Fire Code FIRE ALARM,SPRINKLER AND OTHER PROTECTION SYSTEMS City processing fee added to these Fire District I fees $37.00 Plans cheek and review fees, inspections and permit for installation of separate fire alarm system or sprinkler system applications,and other fire protection systems. Fire Alarm System=New Installation C9ntro 'anel + illi tip'. Lc 4 devices 51-6 A9_18$.40 Con lrol Puncl with 5 to 100 devices S275.00DIQQ. I'ertiddiiiaainlcrouPiugSo Al,JicioiiiI 100 devices S 063.Oa EczErtat additional panel $' -6950U0 gpvi, r-s+ e+ isloa-ea]wi'er additional floor S8-370051:11,00 Nell additional lloor prijikler Supervision System $4-14095.131:1 Fire Ai4Irnt-11,IodMe:1 i m to EN i illESIUttu to 5 New Devices(on bolter! calculations) 1 to 5 New Devices t%kith battery calcttl pl loug $84,00 AJdillunal b to 20 New Devices &40,0Q 20+New Devices Refer to New Installaton Cool ml Panel Rei lnM cat in vicc rcvisiansl SI88,00 Sprinkler Snpcn.lslm Panel Ret lace,uent ino device revisions) 595.00 Fire Sprinkler Systems—Neu or G isting 1 to 9 heads S.1 g.0066.00 10-to 49 Heads $4.42.0B 47.114 50- 100 T-Ecuti4 5303,00345,04 101-1. 200 (-[ends $W.4144(I8,00 201-iii 300 Hea1t4 53834 39 301-to400 Heads $113.84171.00 401-1„500 Head $ 053-1.00 Osver 500 and mar: 0E16.27 00+$.3641 per head For hydraulically designed systems,multiply the above fee by 2 - 1 Formatted:Justified I Resolution 110-0M1-9 Amending Fee Resolution for 20121- Page 11 of 18 Non-Suppression Systems,-New]u ta1luiIons Rmie,e-UCaSs. l hoods, Clean Agerilheikm, pr y' ti. Llts 2., Wet or D,Ary chemical, CO2, i;'tl 1}D, iineiten-s.rtet eoeth€,etc. Unit 15 nazzlz.alu icI& lti dt[2lro tcJ t tales 5110,00125.00 Q'+e'r S nau le;,Pa nei&Bottle with b or niorr Na z Icy $110.00 1-SI-141013M per nozzle Additional Bottle(s) 53-14:14-36 00pei-44Ne inn-S re5sion SVaterna-,Muds ll entln ns to Usti E Ss s i eii {:loss!hoods,Clean Aeear-Spra3-Booths, Wet or Dry Chemical,CO2,etc- 1 to new Nozzles loo new Filmi le' 540.00 !10 3 new NozzIc:51 ith ne_I IinklIs $Q OQ Fire Pump Installation:Plan review and inspection fee 5550.01627-00 Underground Fire Mains:Plan review and inspection fee 5-145,40,188-0Q Standpipes not a part of automatic suppression system:Plan review and inspection $441-5,41313188.00 I Resolution 11@-0 ?{kp Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 12 of 18 Other Protection Systems Fire ca;tiuguishiag sy_tcni(other titan sprinklers) 555.001 51.50 per nozzle S4^.aIp a I'•^'^"•tht h-Class I and II Standpipe tpari of a Sprinkler Svstenll $6,1,0073.1X1 g1fndpipiau IIsio Class1115talsdpi} (part ore Sprinkler System) S744988,00 Storage Thank jlrtstallation: Ltlanamable&ccombustible liquids 0$0-8(l.00per tank Ste,sre rail-trrs•1aliatt`orrrlsa,h►rsietas#rtrtiatio[} $79 per-Inak Liquefied petroleum Sa70480.00 per hmk Crtogeosic 580-00 per tank Medical Qras t stems(Grnott QuTng.nal tCQtls„sislithx_p 1`tt ullrling Permit) 58d11g Onwetts.otliseo s:rsteuss $78-09 ]mss systems 570.00 Mles[Nt l gns s4.;teins 570.09 Hazardous material recycling systems 904:1480.00 Vapor recovery system Sti4A$0.00 Storage lank installation(I tannin Materiels not mentioned elsewhere] 580.00 per tank 4lllicJjtj Elcnoval gr AlmndoniMILLE ummablc r1ny combination of 11=111.sb]e or combustible hir,luir nonage 1;si.l;s S 105.4(} Emergency or Sstendby Ccommercial Ppower CCaenerator!installation V4,0811011 PERMITS: Conditional Use Permit 57949 [ IJQ Temporary Use Permit 579080,00 Tents/Canopy Permit $ 088_00 Event Permit To Be Determined PLANS CHECK AND REVIEW BY THE 11.1-46hEILW- IRE PREVENTION Ii I BEAU New Commercial plans check and inspection(For pwujeel-c not mentioned elsewhere) M0080.00 LAND USE SubdivisionlPUflHuYdine Site Plan Preliminary SJ 61y,0Q Final $ l}80 0000 Short Plat Preliminary S['10.O4J. ,0 Final $7000811,00 Resolution 110-0M1-9 Amending Fee Resolution for 20124 Page 13 of 18 Schedule D--Parks and Recreation ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Basic fees to be considered wben applying rates Administrative Fee $32.00 Refuse Fee $52.00 AQUATICS Pool admission(age 5 and under) free Pool admission(age older than 5) $1.00 Pool punch pass(25 swims) $20.00 Weekend family discount—1 ehild under 13 free with paying adult Swimming Lessons $30.00 Swim Team Fee $35.00 Reservation(less than 50 people) $105.00 per hour** Food fee(less than 50 people,if applicable) $25.00 Reservation(50-100 people) $131.00 per hour** Food fee(50-100 people,if applicable) $52.00 Reservation(101-150 people) $157.00 per hour** Food fee(101-150 people,if applicable) $79.00 **Minimum 2 hours ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT $10.00 CE\'TERPLACE Conference Center Wing Auditorium $79.00 per hour Auditorium $475.00 per day Auditorium $236.00 per half day Auditorium w/Presentation System $52.00 per hour*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $315.00 per day*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $158.00 per half day*** Auditorium Deposit $52.00 Executive Conference Room $52.00 per hour Executive Conference Room Deposit $52.00 Meeting Room(day and evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting Room $263.00 per day Large Meeting Room $75,00 per hour Large Meeting Room $225.00 per half day Large Meeting Room $450.00 per 9 hr.day Meeting Room $131.00 per half day Meeting Room Deposit $52.00 I Patio Event Package rti,.is,s per event Portable Sound System $150.00 per event Platinum Package $500.00 per event ***Requires rental of presentation system,see next page Resolution 110-0V1-9 Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 14 of 18 Great Room Kitchen with dining room rental $105.00 per use Kitchen Commercial use(2 hour minimum) 552.00 per hour Kitchen deposit 452.00 Multi-use/Banquet Hall $105.00 per hour Multi-use/Banquet Hall $840.00 per 9 hr session Multi-use/Banquet Hall $1,575.00 all day(6 a.m.-1 a.m.) Small Dining Area $52.00 per hour Deposit $210.00 Stage $21.00 per section per day Stage Removal $150.00 Table Settings(linens and tableware) $3.00 per place setting Pipe&Drape rental $100/day Chair Cover rental $3/chair per day Senior Center Wing Lounge with Dance Floor $105.00 per hour Lounge with Dance Floor $850.00 per 6 hours Lounge deposit $210.00 Meeting room(evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting room(evening use) $131.00 per 4 hr session Meeting room(weekend use) $262.00 per day Meeting room(weekend use) $131.00 per half day Meeting room deposit $52.00 Private Dining Room $52.00 per hour Private dining room deposit $52.00 Wellness Center $105.00 per hour i4iis cell aneous Cleanup fee $52 to$315.00 per event Host/Hostess(after hours) $16.00 per hour Presentation System*** $262.00 per day (includes projector,podium,DVDNCR sound system,camera system) Room Setup $26.00 per hour Satellite Video Conferencing $262.00 per hour Sound System $42.00 per day Technical Support $42.00 per hour Television/VCR $79.00 per day Touch Pad Voting System $121.00 base station per day+ $16.00 per keypad per day per hour LCD Projector $25.00 per hour LCD Projector $100.00 per day Coffee Service $25.00 service Linens Only $5.00 per table Wine glass only rental $.50 per glass Resolution 11B-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 15 of 18 EVENTS—includes Pavilion Events include but are not limited to activities such as car shows,tournaments, and activities involving 200 or more people. The Parks and Recreation Director will make the final determination. General Fee $157.00 Non-profit applications $84.00 or free with sponsorship SPECIAL EVENTS:(See Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15) National Night Out $5.00 FIELD RENTAL/USE $26.00 l hour-F $15.00 each additional hour INDOOR USE Open gym admission $2.00 Playground program admission(10 entries) $21.00 1IIRABEAU SPRINGS Small shelter and waterfall $250.00 maximum 2 hours Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Event Pictures(for events reserving CenterPlaee or Mirabeau Meadows) $150.00 per hour 1HRABEAU MEADOWS AND VALLEY 1IISSION Shelter(less than 200 people) $84.00 Shelter(200 or more people) $157.00 Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Refundable deposit(200 or more people) $257.00 PICNIC SHELTERS Less than 200 people $50.00 200 or snore people $157.00 Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Refundable deposit(200 or more people) $257.00 VALLEY MISSION ARENA Rental(Renter responsible for on-site preparation.Requires liability insuranee) $105.00 per weekend Refundable deposit $52.00 PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY—Permit fee $26.00 annual RECREATION Recreation program fees are set to recover costs as specified in the Parks and Recreation revenue policy. I Resolution 110-0M Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 16 of 18 Schedule E—Administration COPY FEE: Copy of audio tapes,video tapes,DVD,CD's,etc. At Cost Copy of written documents in excess of 6 pages $.15 per page Copy large format documents(24"x 36"or greater) $3.00 per page Hourly rate to transfer scanned records to electronic disc $19.00 per hour A deposit of 10%may be required on public record requests NSF Check return fec $26.00 Schedule F— Other Fees BUSINESS REGISTRATION Business Registration $13.00 annual Nonprofit Registration $3.00 annual Late Business Registration Fee:(charged in addition to the business registration fee)(SVMC 5.05.050) Failure to pay the registration fee by the applicable date shall result in a late fee of 50%of the annual registration fee. Failure to pay the annual fee may result in non-issuance of a Washington State license, as determined by the Washington State Department of Licensing. Adult Entertainment Establishment License,Live Adult Entertainment $1,575.00 Establishment License,Adult Arcade $1,575.00 Adult Arcade Device License $157.00 Manager License $157.00 Entertainer License $157.00 Late Adult Entertainment License Fee:(charged in addition to the license fee) 7 to 30 calendar days past due 25%of license fee 31 to 60 calendar days past due 50%of license fee 61 and more calendar days past due 75%of license fee Appeal of Administrative Determination—Adult Entertainment License: Adult Entertainment License denial,suspension or revocation pursuant to SVMC 5.10 $1,050.00 TOW OPERATOR REGISTRATION FEE $105.00 annual OVERSIZED LOAD PERMIT FEE ' $26.00 STORAVIWATER UTILITY CHARGE ON DEVELOPED PARCELS: Each single-family unit $21.00 annual All other properties each $21.00 per 3,160 sq.ft impervious surface Resolution 110-.DXu9 Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 17 of 18 Schedule G--Police Fees Alarm system registration Residential alarm systems $25.00 annual Commercial alarm systems $35.00 annual [If the alarm site has no false alarms during the registration year,the following year's registration fee will be reduced to$15.00 per year for residential,and$25.00 per year for commercial.] Discounted alarm registration fees The annual registration fees and false alarm cost recovery fees are reduced by 50%for eligible citizens. To qualify for the fee reduction,an eligible person a.has a gross annual income of less than$19,100 for a one-person household or b.has a gross annual income of less than$21,850 for households of two or more persons or c. is substantially disabled, meaning that the person has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities or functions, such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks such as walking,seeing,hearing,speaking,breathing and learning. Appeal regarding a false alarm $25.00 Service fees for response to a false alarm: Residential false alarm incident $85.00 per incident Commercial false alarm incident $165.00 per incident Resolution1.1.0-0:.;:qg Amending Fee Resolution for 20121 Page 18 of 18 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 11-0XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING RESOLUTION 10-019 AND APPROVING AN AMENDED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is the general policy of the City to establish fees that are reflective of the cost of services provided by the City; and WHEREAS, the City uses a resolution to establish fees for City programs, permits and services, and periodically the fee resolution must be updated to incorporate new or modified services; and WHEREAS,Council desires to modify the Resolution and accompanying Fee Schedule. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. The changes needed at this time are incorporated into the attached schedules and include new fees and changes to existing fees. Section 2. Repeal. To the extent that previous fee schedules are inconsistent with those set forth herein,they are repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect January 1, 2012, Approved this Xth day of Month,2011. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey,Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 1 of 16 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Fee Schedule Page No. Schedule A: Planning 3 Schedule B: Building 5 Schedule C: Fire Code 10 Schedule D: Parks and Recreation 12 Schedule E:Administrative 15 Schedule F: Other Fees 15 Schedule G:Police Fees 16 Resolution 11-OXX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 2 of 16 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Schedule A— Planning FEE AMOUNT AMENDMENTS Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,500.00 Zoning or other code text amendment $1,500.00 APPEALS Appeal of Administrative Decision $1,050.00 Appeal of Hearing Examiner Findings $315.00 Transcript/record deposit on Appeals of Hearing Examiner Decisions $157.00 Appeal of Administrative Decision - Code Compliance Notice and Order 500.00 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA) Single Dwelling(when required) $100.00 All other developments $350.00 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)Review,minimum deposit $2,200.00 Addenda of existing EIS Review $350.00 SHORELINE Substantial Development Permit $840.00 CRITICAL AREAS Floodplain Permit $315.00+$52.00 per lot OTHER PERMITS Home Occupation Permit and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) $84.00 Conditional Use Permit $840.00 Temporary Use Permit $157.00 LAND USE ACTIONS Subdivisions Preliminary plat $2,324.00+ $40.00 per lot Final Plat $1,424.00+ $10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Short Plats Preliminary 2 to 4 lots $1,224.00 Final plat 2 to 4 lots $924.00 Preliminary plat 5 to 9 lots $1,424.00+$25.00 per lot Final plat 5 to 9 lots $1,224.00+$10.00 per lot Time extensions—file review and letter $80.00 Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 3 of 16 Plat Alteration Subdivision plat $682.00 Short plat $278.00 Binding Site Plan Binding site plan alteration $278.00 Change of Conditions $650.00 Preliminary binding site plan $1,674.00 Final Binding Site Plan $924.00 Aggregation/Segregation Lot line adjustment $105.00 Lot line elimination $105.00 Zero lot line $105.00 +$10.00 per lot Plat Vacation $1,474.00 SIGNS Review of permanent sign $50.00 +$25.00 if public works review needed Review of temporary sign $50.00 NEW RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW $50.00 SITE PLAN REVIEW - PER DIVISION REVIEW $275.00 STREET VACATION APPLICATION $1,365.00 OTHER Administrative Exception $315.00 Variance $1,575.00 Administrative Interpretations $100.00 Pre-application Meetings $250.00 Fee will be deducted from land use application, building permit or commercial permit application fee when application is filed within one year of pre-application meeting ZONING Zoning map amendments (rezone)* $1,650.00 Planned residential development plan $1,575.00 +$26.00 per lot Planned residential development modification $525.00 Zoning letter $210.00 *If rezone is combined with other action(s), cost of other action(s)is additional Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 4 of 16 Schedule B — Building Fee Payment Plan review fees are collected at the time of application. Such fees may be adjusted during plan review. Overages or under payments will be appropriately adjusted at the time of permit issuance. Plan review fees are separate from and additional to building permit fees. Permit fees and any other unpaid fees are collected prior to issuance of the permit. Fees for outside professional services required during the permit process will be paid by the applicant. Examples of outside professional services include review by contract reviewers, special inspection or construction services, consultant services for special topics, surveying or other services required to determine compliance with applicable codes. Fee Refund Policy Refunds authorized under this policy apply only to Schedule B. PLAN REVIEW FEES • Plan review fees are non-refundable once any plan review work has been started. • Paid plan review fees will be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. • As a minimum, a$35.00 administrative fee will be retained. • If the paid plan review fee is less than$35.00,no refund is authorized. • If the paid plan review fee is more than $35.00, the amount for refund will be calculated at the rate of 100% of the paid plan review fee minus $35.00. PERMIT FEES • Permit fees are non-refundable once work authorized by the permit has begun. • Paid permit fees will be refunded when an eligible request is received in writing. • As a minimum, a$35.00 administrative fee will be retained. • If the paid permit fee is less than $35.00,no refund is authorized. • If the paid permit fee is more than$35.00, the refund will be calculated at the rate of 95% of the paid permit fee minus $35.00. For any application taken or permit issued in error, a full refund of fees paid will be made. No portion of the paid fees will be retained. FEES GENERAL Hourly Rate for City Employees $61.00 Overtime rate for City Employees(1.5 times regular rate) $92.00 Investigation fee: Work commenced without required permits Equal to permit fee Replacement of lost permit documents Hourly rate; 1 hour minimum Revisions to plans requested by the applicant or permit holder will be charged the hourly rate with a minimum of one hour. Revised plans submitted in response to reviewer correction letters are not subject to the hourly assessment. Washington State Building Code Council Surcharge(WSBCC) $4.50 per permit WSBCC Surcharge(Multi-Family) $4.50 1st dwelling unit+ $2.00 each additional unit Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 5 of 16 BUILDING PERMIT: Building permit fees for each project are set by the following fees. The figures below are to be used to determine the building permit fees and plans check fees based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safely Journal by the International Code Council, whichever value is greater. Valuations not listed in the Building Safety Journal: Building Type Valuation Per Square Foot Residential garages/storage buildings (wood frame) $19.00 Residential garages (masonry) $22,00 Miscellaneous residential pole buildings $19.00 Residential carports, decks, porches $15.00 Building Permit Fee Calculation Total Valuation Building Permit Fee $1.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for first$2,000.00 + $14.00 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $391.25 for first$25,000 + $10.10 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $643.75 for first$50,000.00 + $7.00 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $993.75 for first$100,000 + $5.60 for each additional $1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$500,000.00 $500,001.00 to$1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for first$500,000.00 + $4.75 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Up to and including$1,000,000.00 $1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for first$1,000,000.00 + $3.15 for each additional$1,000.00 (or fraction thereof) Plan Review Fee Calculation % of Building Permit Fee Plans review fee (general) 65% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies (single family less than 7,999 sq ft) 40% Plans review fee—Group R-3 occupancies (single family 8,000 sq ft or more) 65% Plans review fee—Group U occupancies(sheds, barns,et.) 25% Initial Plan Review Fees are capped at $35,000 not including pass-through expenses for outside review as noted in the"Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Resolution 11-OXX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 6 of 16 OTHER BUILDING PERMITS: Over-the-Counter Service $61.00 flat fee Demolition Permit Single Family Residence $46.00 flat fee Commercial Buildings $131.00 flat fee Garage or accessory building associated with residence or commercial building $21.00 flat fee Foundation Only: 25%of building permit fee Swimming Pools, over 5,000 gallons $52.00 + plumbing fees Re-roof(no plan review charge unless submitted for review) Based on Project Valuation Change of Use or Occupancy Classification Permit Hourly Towers, elevated tanks, antennas Hourly GRADING PERMIT: 100 cubic yards (cu yd) or less $21.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $21.00 for first 100 cu yd. + $7.00 each additional 100 cu yd 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $88.00 for first 1,000 cu yd + $6.00 each additional 1,000 cu yd 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $154.00 for first 10,000 cu yd+ $15.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $386.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $15.00 each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,000 or more cubic yards $528.00 for first 200,000 cu yd+ $15.00 for each additional 200,000 cu yd GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEE: 50 cubic yards or less No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $12.00 101 to 1,000 $21.00 1,001 to 10,000 $27.00 10,001 to 100,000 $27.00 for first 100,000 cu yd + $7.00 each additional 10,000 cu yd 100,001 to 200,000 $104.00 for first 100,000 cu yd+ $6.00 for each additional 100,000 cu yd 200,001 or more $166.00 Land Clearing Only(without earth being moved) $68.00 Paving Permit (greater than 5,000 sq. ft. —new paving only) $263.00 Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 7 of 16 MECHANICAL PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. Mechanical Permit Fees A. BASIC FEES 1. Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2.Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B. UNIT FEES (in addition to the basic fee) 1. Installation or relocation of Furnaces and suspended heaters a. up to and including 100,000 btu $13.00 b. over 100,000 btu $16.00 2. Duct work system $11.00 1 Heat pump and air conditioner a. 0 to 3 tons $13.00 b. over 3 tons to 15 tons $21.00 c. over 15 tons to 30 tons $26.00 d. over 30 tons to 50 tons $37.00 e. over 50 tons $63.00 4. Gas water heater $11.00 5. Gas piping system $1.00 per outlet 6. Gas log, fireplace, and gas insert installation $11.00 7. Appliance vents installation; relocation; replacement $10.00 each 8. Boilers, compressors, and absorption systems a. 0 to 3 hp- 100,000 btu or less $13.00 b. over 3 to 15 hp- 100,001 to 500,000 btu $21.00 c. over 15-30 hp-500,001 to 1,000,000 btu $26.00 d. over 30 ph- 1,000,001 to 1,750,000 btu $37.00 e. over 50 hp-over 1,750,000 btu $63.00 9. Air Handlers a. each unit up to 10,000 cfm, including ducts $13.00 b. each unit over 10,000 cfm $16.00 10. Evaporative Coolers (other than portable) $11.00 11. Ventilation and Exhausts a. each fan connected to a single duct $11.00 b. each ventilation system $13.00 c. each hood served by mechanical exhaust $13.00 12. Incinerators a. residential installation or relocation $21.00 b. commercial installation or relocation $23.00 13.Unlisted appliances a. under 400,000 btu $52.00 b. 400,000 btu or over $105.00 14.Hood a. Type I $52.00 b. Type ll $11.00 15.LP Storage Tank $11.00 16. Wood or Pellet Stove insert $11.00 17. Wood stove system-free standing $26.00 Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 8 of 16 PLUMBING PERMIT: Plan review fees for mechanical permits will be collected at the time of application as noted in the "Fee Payment" section of this schedule. Permit fees will be collected when the permit is issued. If submitted as part of a building permit application, the unit costs are added, but not the "basic" fee for issuing the permit. A. BASIC FEES 1. Basic fee for issuing each permit $37.00 2. Basic fee for each supplemental permit $8.00 B. UNIT FEES (in addition to the basic feel 1. Each plumbing fixture on a trap $6.00 each (includes garbage disposals, dishwashers, backflow device, drainage, hot tubs, built-in water softener, water closets, lavatories, sinks, drains, etc.) 2. Water Heater $6.00 each 3. Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor $16.00 (includes its trap and vent, except kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps.) 4. Repair or alteration of water piping, drainage or vent piping $6.00 each fixture 5. Atmospheric type vacuum breaker $6.00 each 6. Backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers $6.00 each 7. Medical gas $6.00 per outlet 8. Interceptors $6.00 each RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT: A traffic plan and traffic plan review is required if more than 50% of the width of any street is closed or if a single arterial lane is closed. A minimum plan review fee of$61.00 (hourly rate for city employees) applies to all right-of-way permits that require a traffic plan. If additional staff time is required, it will be charged at the hourly rate. Category 1.Non-cut obstruction without clean up $73.00 2.Non-cut obstruction with clean up $110.00 3. Pavement cut obstruction, non-winter $168.00 4. Pavement cut obstruction, winter $210.00 5. Approach Pennit $52.00 SIGN PERMIT: Sign permits are subject to assessment of planning division review fees as found in Schedule A. Sign Permits are also subject to the assessment of the WSBCC fee as noted in Schedule B "General"section. Signs mounted on buildings $48.00 per sign(flat fee) Sign and pole mounting $68.00 per sign (flat fee) Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 9 of 16 Schedule C — Fire Code FIRE ALARM, SPRINKLER AND OTHER PROTECTION SYSTEMS City processing fee added to these Fire District I fees $37.00 Plans check and review fees, inspections and permit for installation of separate fire alarm system or sprinkler system applications,and other fire protection systems. Fire Alarm System -New Installation Control Panel with up to 4 devices $188.00 Control Panel with 5 to 100 devices $313.00 Per additional groupings of 100 devices $63.00 Per additional panel $50.00 Per additional floor $50.00 Sprinkler Supervision System $95.00 Fire Alarm—Modifications to Existing System 1 to 5 New Devices(no battery calculations) $40.00 1 to 5 New Devices(with battery calculations) $80.00 Additional 6 to 20 New Devices $40.00 20+New Devices Refer to New Installation Control Panel Replacement(no device revisions) $188.00 Sprinkler Supervision Panel Replacement(no device revisions) $95.00 Fire Sprinkler Systems—New or Existing 1 to 9 heads $66.00 10to 49 Heads $207.00 50to 100 Heads $345.00 101to 200 Heads $408.00 201to 300 Heads $439.00 301to 400 Heads $471.00 40lto 500 Heads $534.00 Over 500 $627.00 + $.41 per head For hydraulically designed systems, multiply the above fee by 2 Non-Suppression Systems—New Installations Class 1 hoods, Clean Agent, spray booths, Wet or Dry chemical, CO2, etc. Panel &Bottle with up to 5 Nozzles $125.00 Panel &Bottle with 6 or more Nozzles $125.00+ $13.00 per nozzle Additional Bottle(s) $38.00 Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 10 of 16 Non-Suppression Systems—Modifications to Existing System Class I hoods, Clean Agent, Spray Booths,Wet or Dry Chemical, CO2, etc. 1 to 3 new Nozzles(no new Bottle) $40.00 1 to 3 new Nozzles(with new Bottle) $80.00 Fire Pump Installation: Plan review and inspection fee $627.00 Underground Fire Mains: Plan review and inspection fee $188.00 Standpipes not a part of automatic suppression system: Plan review and inspection $188.00 Other Protection Systems Class I and II Standpipe(part of a Sprinkler System) $73.00 Class HI Standpipe(part of a Sprinkler System) $88.00 Storage Tank Installation: Flammable & Combustible liquids $80.00per tank Liquefied petroleum $80.00 per tank Cryogenic $80.00 per tank Medical gas systems (Gaseous Oxygen,Nitrous, etc.) (Not part of a Building Permit) $80.00 Hazardous material recycling systems $80.00 Vapor recovery system $80.00 Storage Tank Installation(Hazardous Materials not mentioned elsewhere) $80.00 per tank Storage Tank Removal or Abandonment(Flammable & Combustible Liquids) $105.00 per tank Emergency or Standby Commercial Power Generator Installation $80.00 PERMITS: Conditional Use Permit $80.00 Temporary Use Permit $80.00 Tents/Canopy Permit $80.00 Event Permit To Be Determined PLANS CHECK AND REVIEW BY THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU New Commercial plans check and inspection (not mentioned elsewhere) $80.00 LAND USE Subdivision/PUDBinding Site Plan Preliminary $160.00 Final $80.00 Short Plat Preliminary $160.00 Final $80.00 Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 11 of 16 Schedule D - Parks and Recreation ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Basic fees to be considered when applying rates Administrative Fee $32.00 Refuse Fee $52.00 AQUATICS Pool admission(age 5 and under) free Pool admission(age older than 5) $1.00 Pool punch pass(25 swims) $20.00 Weekend family discount- 1 child under 13 free with paying adult Swimming Lessons $30.00 Swim Team Fee $35.00 Reservation (less than 50 people) $105.00 per hour** Food fee(less than 50 people, if applicable) $25.00 Reservation(50-100 people) $131.00 per hour** Food fee(50-100 people, if applicable) $52.00 Reservation(101-150 people) $157.00 per hour** Food fee(101-150 people, if applicable) $79.00 **Minimum 2 hours ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT $10.00 CENTERPLACE Conference Center Wing Auditorium $79.00 per hour Auditorium $475.00 per day Auditorium $236.00 per half day Auditorium w/Presentation System $52.00 per hour*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $315.00 per day*** Auditorium w/Presentation System $158.00 per half day*** Auditorium Deposit $52.00 Executive Conference Room $52.00 per hour Executive Conference Room Deposit $52.00 Meeting Room(day and evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting Room $263.00 per day Large Meeting Room $75.00 per hour Large Meeting Room $225.00 per half day Large Meeting Room $450.00 per 9 hr. day Meeting Room $131.00 per half day Meeting Room Deposit $52.00 Patio Event Package $500.00 per event Portable Sound System $150.00 per event Platinum Package $500.00 per event *Requires rental of presentation system, see next page Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 12 of 16 Great Room Kitchen with dining room rental $105.00 per use Kitchen Commercial use (2 hour minimum) $52.00 per hour Kitchen deposit 452.00 Multi-use/Banquet Hall $105,00 per hour Multi-use/Banquet Hall $840.00 per 9 hr session Multi-use/Banquet Hall $1,575.00 all day(6 a.m.-1 a.m.) Small Dining Area $52.00 per hour Deposit $210.00 Stage $21.00 per section per day Stage Removal $150.00 Table Settings (linens and tableware) $3.00 per place setting Pipe&Drape rental $100/day Chair Cover rental $3/chair per day Senior Center Wing Lounge with Dance Floor $105.00 per hour Lounge with Dance Floor $850.00 per 6 hours Lounge deposit $210.00 Meeting room (evening use) $42.00 per hour Meeting room(evening use) $131.00 per 4 hr session Meeting room(weekend use) $262.00 per day Meeting room(weekend use) $131.00 per half day Meeting room deposit $52.00 Private Dining Room $52.00 per hour Private dining room deposit $52.00 Wellness Center $105.00 per hour Miscellaneous Cleanup fee $52 to$315.00 per event Host/Hostess(after hours) $16.00 per hour Presentation System *** $262.00 per day (includes projector, podium,DVD/VCR sound system, camera system) Room Setup $26.00 per hour Satellite Video Conferencing $262,00 per hour Sound System $42,00 per day Technical Support $42.00 per hour Television/VCR $79.00 per day Touch Pad Voting System $121.00 base station per day+ $16.00 per keypad per day per hour LCD Projector $25.00 per hour LCD Projector $100.00 per day Coffee Service $25,00 service Linens Only $5.00 per table Wine glass only rental $.50 per glass Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 13 of 16 EVENTS—includes Pavilion Events include but are not limited to activities such as car shows, tournaments, and activities involving 200 or more people. The Parks and Recreation Director will make the final determination. General Fee $1 57.00 Non-profit applications $84.00 or free with sponsorship SPECIAL EVENTS: (See Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15) National Night Out $5.00 FIELD RENTAL/USE $26.00 1s`hour+ $15.00 each additional hour INDOOR USE Open gym admission $2.00 Playground program admission (10 entries) $21.00 MIRABEAU SPRINGS Small shelter and waterfall $250.00 maximum 2 hours Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Event Pictures (for events reserving CenterPlace or Mirabeau Meadows) $150.00 per hour MIRABEAU MEADOWS AND VALLEY MISSION Shelter(less than 200 people) $84.00 Shelter(200 or more people) $157.00 Refundable deposit(less than 200 people) $52.00 Refundable deposit(200 or more people) $257.00 PICNIC SHELTERS Less than 200 people $50.00 200 or more people $157.00 Refundable deposit (less than 200 people) $52.00 Refundable deposit(200 or more people) $257.00 VALLEY MISSION ARENA Rental(Renter responsible for on-site preparation. Requires liability insurance) $105.00 per weekend Refundable deposit $52.00 PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY—Permit fee $26.00 annual RECREATION Recreation program fees are set to recover costs as specified in the Parks and Recreation revenue policy. Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 14 of 16 Schedule E —Administration COPY FEE: Copy of audio tapes,video tapes,DVD, CD's, etc. At Cost Copy of written documents in excess of 6 pages $.15 per page Copy large format documents(24"x 36"or greater) $3.00 per page Hourly rate to transfer scanned records to electronic disc $19.00 per hour A deposit of 10% may be required on public record requests NSF Check return fee $26.00 Schedule F— Other Fees BUSINESS REGISTRATION Business Registration $13.00 annual Nonprofit Registration $3.00 annual Late Business Registration Fee: (charged in addition to the business registration fee) (SVMC 5.05.050) Failure to pay the registration fee by the applicable date shall result in a late fee of 50% of the annual registration fee. Failure to pay the annual fee may result in non-issuance of a Washington State license, as determined by the Washington State Department of Licensing. Adult Entertainment Establishment License,Live Adult Entertainment $1,575.00 Establishment License,Adult Arcade $1,575.00 Adult Arcade Device License $157.00 Manager License $157.00 Entertainer License $157.00 Late Adult Entertainment License Fee: (charged in addition to the license fee) 7 to 30 calendar days past due 25% of license fee 31 to 60 calendar days past due 50% of license fee 61 and more calendar days past due 75% of license fee Appeal of Administrative Determination—Adult Entertainment License: Adult Entertainment License denial, suspension or revocation pursuant to SVMC 5.10 $1,050.00 TOW OPERATOR REGISTRATION FEE $105.00 annual OVERSIZED LOAD PERMIT FEE $26.00 STORNIWATER UTILITY CHARGE ON DEVELOPED PARCELS: Each single-family unit $21.00 annual All other properties each $21.00 per 3,160 sq. ft impervious surface Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 15 of 16 Schedule G — Police Fees Alarm system registration Residential alarm systems $25.00 annual Commercial alarm systems $35.00 annual [If the alarm site has no false alarms during the registration year,the following year's registration fee will be reduced to $15.00 per year for residential, and $25.00 per year for commercial.] Discounted alarm registration fees The annual registration fees and false alarm cost recovery fees are reduced by 50% for eligible citizens. To qualify for the fee reduction, an eligible person a. has a gross annual income of less than $19,100 for a one-person household or b. has a gross annual income of less than $21,850 for households of two or more persons or c. is substantially disabled, meaning that the person has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities or functions, such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks such as walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing and learning. Appeal regarding a false alarm $25.00 Service fees for response to a false alarm: Residential false alarm incident $85.00 per incident Commercial false alarm incident $165.00 per incident Resolution 11-0XX Amending Fee Resolution for 2012 Page 16 of 16 OF Spokane Valley 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite B-3 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0036 • Fax: 509.688.0037 • email: permitcenter®spokanevalley.org 7 Memorandum To: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director From: Mary Kate McGee, Building Official CC: John Hohman, Community Development Director Date: 08-29-2011 Re: 2011 Master Fee Schedule Update SUMMARY Changes to the Master Fee Schedule, Schedule B — Building are intended to clarify the application of the current fee refunds provisions. No fee increases are proposed. BACKGROUND The Fee Refund Policy in Schedule B was updated in 2009 to allow larger refunds. Most jurisdictions refund 80% of either plan review and/or permit fees when a refund request is eligible. Based on the 2009 revision Spokane Valley refunds 100% of plan review fees for eligible requests, and refunds 95% of building permit fees for eligible requests. The eligibility requirements are similar to other jurisdictions in the region and in the State. After using the refund language for a couple of years, it seemed that some simplification was necessary to assure that the refund policy was clear to permit applicants and permit holders as well as to staff. The following changes are proposed: -the existing refund policy language has been formatted to reflect the same provisions in bullet point format rather than paragraph format -the permit fee refund language has been clarified to clearly read that a minimum of$35 for clerical processing costs is to be retained, as intended in the original language CONCLUSION There are no substantive changes to the fees in Schedule B — Building. Proposed changes are intended to make the fee refund policy easier to read, understand, and administer. 2012 Summary of Changes to Schedule C Schedule C has been edited to create a fee structure for several types of existing fire protection systems that currently have to be based on new system structures. Other items have been reworded,consolidated or deleted to clarify review type so as to avoid confusion. Fees have been increased by 14%as there have no increases since 2009. Fees Current Language: 1 to 4 devices $165.00 Proposed Language: Control Panel With Up to 4 Devices $188.00 Staff Comment: The service name was changed to clarify that the fee relates to new installations. Current Language: 5 to 100 devices $275.00 Proposed Language: Control Panel With 5 to 100 Devices $313.00 Staff Comment: The service name was changed to clarify that the fee relates to larger new installations. Current Language: Additional 100 devices $55.00 Proposed Language: Per Additional Groupings of 100 Devices $63.00 Staff Comment: The service name was changed to clarify that this is in addition to the control panel/devices. Current Language: Sprinkler supervision only $83.00 Proposed Language: Sprinkler Supervision System $95.00 Staff Comment: The service name was changed to clarify that the type of system. Current Language: N/A Proposed Language: Fire Alarm—Modification to Existing System 1 to 5 New Devices (no battery calculations) $40.00 1 to 5 New Devices (with battery calculations) $80.00 Additional 6 to 20 New Devices $40.00 20+ New Devices Refer to New Installation Control Panel Replacement (no device revisions) $188.00 Sprinkler Supervision Panel Replacement (no device revisions) $95.00 Staff Comment: There currently is no language related to modifications of existing fire alarm systems. Review, inspections and permits are based on new installation language which adds a cost burden to contractors given the limited scope of work typically involved. Creating language for these specific situations creates a level of equity previously not present. Current Language: 500 and more $550.00+$.36 per head Proposed Language: Over 500 Heads $627.00+$.41 per head Staff Comment: The service name was changed to clarify that this fee applies when more than 500 heads are installed vs when 500 heads are installed. Current Language: Non-Suppression Systems Range hoods, halon, CO2, dry chemical, FM 200, Intergen spray booths, etc. Unit 1-5 nozzles $110.00 Over 5 nozzles $110.00+$11.00 per nozzle Bottle(s) $33.00 per bottle Proposed Language: Non-Suppression Systems— New Installation Class I hoods, Clean Agent, Spray Booths, Wet or Dry Chemical, CO2, etc. Panel & Bottle with up to 5 Nozzles $125.00 Panel & Bottle with 6 or more Nozzles $125.00 +$13.00 Per Nozzle Additional Bottles $38.00 Staff Comment: Provides clarification of the type of new Installations that are covered by this section. Current Language: N/A Proposed Language: Non-Suppression Systems-- Modification to Existing System Class I hoods, Clean Agent, Spray Booths, Wet or Dry Chemical, CO2, etc. 1 to 3 new Nozzles (no new Bottle) $40.00 1 to 3 new Nozzles (with new Bottle) $80.00 Staff Comment: There currently is no language related to modifications of existing non-suppression systems, Review, inspections and permits are based on new installation language which adds a cost burden to contractors given the limited scope of work typically involved. Creating language for these specific situations creates a level of equity previously not present. Current Language: Fire extinguisher system (other than sprinklers) $55.00+$1.50 per nozzle Proposed Language: Deleted item. Language is vague and confusing. Unclear to what systems this would apply. Staff Comment: Unclear to what systems this would apply. Current Language: Standpipe installation Class I and II $64.00 Standpipe installation Class III $77.00 Proposed Language: Class I or II Standpipe (part of Sprinkler System) $73.00 Class III Standpipe (part of Sprinkler System) $88.00 Staff Comment: Differentiates these types of installation from independent standpipe systems. Current Language: Storage tank installation: hazardous materials $70.00 per tank Proposed Language: Storage Tank Installation (Hazardous Materials not mentioned elsewhere) $80.00 per tank Staff Comment: To clarify that some storage tanks are covered elsewhere and that this section does not apply to those installations. Current Language: Gaseous oxygen systems $70.00 Nitrous systems $70.00 Medical gas systems $70.00 Proposed Language: Medical Gas Systems(Gaseous Oxygen, Nitrous, etc.) $80.00 Staff Comment: Combines multiple medical gases under one line item. Ulcane Parks and Recreation Department Valle 2426 N. Discovery Place Spokane Valley, WA 99216 509.688.0300 Fax: 509.688.0188 parksandrec@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director From: Michael D. Stone, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: September 14, 2011 Re: 2011 Master Fee Schedule Update Request: The Parks and Recreation Department is asking the City Council to consider increasing our existing Patio Wedding fee at CenterPlace from $300 to $500. Background: This fee was put into place in 2010 due to the large requests for an outdoor wedding venue associated with CenterPlace. The price includes not only the venue, but the set up and take down of furniture along with the cleanup of the area after the event. The increase is being requested due to the actual staffing costs incurred for this event. Since 2010 was our first year offering this package, our costs were estimated to establish the first fee of $300.00. Now that we have had two years to analyze our costs and monitor the events it has become obvious that our expenses are exceeding our revenue for this option. Staff is requesting the fee increase to cover our expenses. 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Review Meeting Date: September 20, 2011 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ®new business ❑public hearing ❑ Information ® admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Bike and Pedestrian Master Program PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On August 30, 2011 staff provided a detailed overview of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP)and provided an opportunity for open discussion on any changes Council would like to see. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley applied for a competitive grant from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) program and was awarded funds to develop the BPMP. The BPMP is proposed to be an element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expanding on the Transportation Element to focus on non-motorized transportation. If the BPMP is adopted, it is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The BPMP includes background data concerning bike and pedestrian facilities (Section 11.1), applicable federal, state and local codes relating to the topic (section 11.2), and a set of goals and objectives (section 11.3). Section 11.4, contains city-wide bike and pedestrian facility improvements, potential education, enforcement and evaluation tools. As a policy document, this chapter can guide decisions regarding multi-modal transportation facilities. As an implementation tool, it can detail priorities and standards for development. On August 30, 2011, staff provided a detailed overview of the BPMP and an opportunity for open discussion on any changes Council would like to see. Staff and City Council worked through the program identifying specific changes. City Council tasked staff to work through the remainder of document based on the established guidance and to bring back the document in strike through format for further consideration. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed BPMP was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on June 17, 2011. SEPA REVIEW: Pursuant to the State..Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21C) an Environmental Checklist was required for the BPMP. Under SEPA, the BPMP is considered a "non-project actions" defined as actions involving decisions on policies, plans, or programs that contain standards controlling use or modification of the environment. Additional environmental review may be required for the physical development of the bike and pedestrian facilities. 1of2 Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the BPMP. A Determination of Non-significance (DNS) was issued for the BPMP on June 17, 2011 consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Environmental Ordinance. OPTIONS: Consensus for staff to draft an ordinance with changes reflecting City Council's concerns, or remand substantial modifications back to the Planning Commission for a future scheduled public hearing. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP,Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Bike and Pedestrian Master Program 2of2 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 11- BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT 11.0 Introduction 11.0.1 Why Plan for Bicycling and Walking? Bicycling in urban areas has grown dramatically in the last decade due to factors such as healthier lifestyles, rising fuel costs and a desire to lessen impacts on the environment. By creating safe places to ride, the development of new facility types such as bike lanes, bike tfou]evabicycie friendly routes, and shared use paths have enabled more people to use bike transportation. In addition, as the importance of a healthy lifestyle has grown, the desire to incorporate exercise through walking has also grown. As a basic form of mobility, virtually all trips—regardless of mode—start and end with walking. The City of Spokane Valley has the essential elements to create a great place to bike and walk. Most streets connect, congestion is minimal, the terrain is flat, and weather is suitable many months of the year. For these reasons, biking and walking is a great way to get around the City. Where there are close links between home and destinations (such as school, work, and shops) walking and cycling can be the preferred and efficient way to move from place to place. Promoting walking and bicycling can help ease congestion, address weight and health issues and enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. They help to promote interaction between neighbors, strengthen connection to the community, provide 'eyes-on-the-street' security, and support local retail activity. By corriparison. streets and places where people are not present often feel uncomfortable and barren. Iadtl#-i€n--ceer +ilfies that provide- aeU.kieE for walking ar..1 biking have p4evan--tcl--ire--p&eaus s"Esew nr Develepment and mart Gpdwth4 i r-rat+anal—lrsen i-yri k e-v nenk Counei— Cities around the nation with the most positive economic growth acid solid resources from tourism, general retail and other sources are towns piaces where all people can come and feel comfortable. 11.0.2 Overview As an element of the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan, this chapter is organized to present background data concerning bike and pedestrian facilities (Section 11.1), applicable federal, state and local codes relating to the topic (section 11.2), and a set of goals and objectives (section 11.3). Section 11.4, contains t ::: city-wide bike and pedestrian facility-.map; recorni erided improvements, nn s. potential education, enforcement and evaluation tools. As a policy document, this chapter will guide decisions regarding multi-modal transportation facilities. As an implementation tool, it will detail priorities and standards for development. 11.0.3 Vision Statements To increase opportunities for non-motorized transportation that improve the connectivity, safety, convenience and attractiveness of the pedestrian and bicycle network in the City of Spokane Valley. To identify and prioritize facility recommendations based on thorough data collection and analysis, community visioning, regional collaboration, engineering assessment and preliminary cost estimates. 11.0.4 Process Several steps were involved in creating the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. a. Data Collection A comprehensive field inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities was conducted, identifying constraints and opportunities for improvements. The City coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions as well as bike, pedestrian and health advocates, property owners Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 1 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • and other stakeholders. This step Inctud6diricor prated a thorough review of the existing adopted Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, including a review of the bike facility map, goals and policies related to bike and walking activity, as well as a review of recently approved similar plans in the region. Accident data and funding sources for potential future projects were also gathered. A sidewalk inventory completed by students at Washington State University (WSU)was added to the City's GIS system. b. Public Outreach This Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) was created over a year and a half period with participation from a diverse group of citizens, residents and interested parties. A contact database was created to ensure interested parties were notified throughout the development of the plan. Over 900 contacts were included within five months of initiation. The first in a series of BPMP workshops was held on June 16, 2010. A diverse group voiced opinions and concerns on bicycling and walking in the City. Through an interactive exercise, the participants identified destinations, obstacles, and preferred routes for bike and pedestrian facilities. An on-line survey was made available through the City's web page. Over 350 responses were received from the online survey, indicating a significant level of interest. The short, non-statistical survey gathered additional insight into the biking and walking experience in Spokane Valley and into desired routes and destinations. c. Connectivity Assessment and Route Recommendations From the gathered data, a preliminary connection assessment and potential route recommendations were developed. Details of existing rights-of-way, pavement width, driveway approaches and traffic counts were gathered. d. Continued Public Outreach A second community workshop was held on September 19, 2010 to present preliminary bike and pedestrian routes and connections based on the information gathered at the first workshop and through the on-line survey. The Spokane Regional Health District presented information on health impacts associated with alternative modes of transportation. By prioritizing potential projects, participants helped create a vision of a comprehensive bike and pedestrian network, The workshops were publicized online, at schools, bike shops and community facilities throughout the City. In addition, staff prepared newsletters and maintained a BPMP page on the City of Spokane Valley website. Quarterly updates were presented to the City Council as part of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) status reports. e. Safety Analysis and Prioritization of Improvements A portion of money from the City's EECBG funded an engineering consultant to review the proposed routes for safety, cost and prioritizations. This engineering assessment provides technical guidance to help ensure that proposed bike and pedestrian facilities, such as bike lanes on arterials or shared use paths in neighborhoods, are safe, functional, and appropriate for the set route. f, Plan Refinement, Review and Adoption Desired routes were refined based on technical input from the consultant. Classifications for both bicycle and pedestrian facilities were reviewed based on the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines and industry standards. Comprehensive Plan text, maps and exhibits were prepared. Priorities and preliminary implementation schedules were included, Additional workshops were held to gather input on the draft BPMP document. Finally, the BPMP was presented to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 2 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.0.5 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Technical Advisory Group Developing the k ike :.arf PedGstflen Masser- P-rograrnHPMP resulted in partnerships and collaboration between the City, adjoining jurisdictions and many other interested agencies and individuals. Representatives from many of these groups served on the Bike and Pedestrian Technical Advisory Group (BPTAG). The BPTAG met several times to review and make recommendations on potential routes, facilities and implementation strategies. - 11.0.6 Partnerships Preparation of the 31-ke4:44r. e-a tfiak-Meeter-Rrgw- ir•[3NN1P has involved a wide range of people and agencies. Partnerships and collaboration contributes to the quality and integrity of the program. Maintaining these partnerships will contribute toward successful implementation and realization of shared goals. a. Spokane Regional Health District The Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) serves as the area's public health leader and partner in protecting and improving the health of the community. The Health District's Physical Activity program works with community coalitions, elected officials, citizen groups and other organizations to encourage policies that make it easier for people to be physically active. An analysis of existing social, economic and health statistics of the residents of the City of Spokane Valley was prepareu.by tFy . SfHD epidemiologist. (Appeec4i t-, Spel +ie Valley.1=le, tl raffle , The role of SRHD was to bring awareness of the positive health impact bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure can have on a community. b. School Districts and Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School is a national program aimed at enabling community leaders, schools and parents across the country to improve safety and encourage more children to be active by safely walking and bicycling to school. In the process, work associated with Safe Routes to School contributes to reducing traffic congestion, improving physical health, and making communities more livable overall. The SRHD along with the City, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, Central Valley School District, East Valley School District, and West Valley School District worked diligently through the 2010/2011 school year to prepare walking audits of all elementary and middle schools. Walking audits are detailed surveys of streets and sidewalks within a one-mile radius surrounding a school using the Safe Walk and Bike Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to School Options for Students (site: WSDOT and WTSC 2010). Results of the audits are used to prepare preferred walking routes for students and to Identify and prioritize street and sidewalk safety projects. Continued coordinated efforts between school districts, SRHD and the City will aid in the successful implementation of safe routes for pedestrians of all ages. c. Spokane Transit Authority The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) is a regional public transportation agency providing a variety of transportation options, including bus service to the City of Spokane Valley. The transit system effectively expands the area that pedestrians are able to access for daily services and activities. STA's database of pedestrian paths throughout its service area was used as base data for the City's sidewalk inventory, gap analysis and recommended pedestrian network. The data identified barriers to people using the sidewalk network to access the bus system. d. Bicycle Alliance of Washington The Bicycle Alliance of Washington is a non-profit organization advocating for bicyclists and bike-friendly communities throughout Washington. The Alliance works toward increasing the percentage of all types of bicycle riders and increasing funding available for inclusive, Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 3 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan non-motorized transportation facilities. The Alliance works closely with Safe Routes to School programs and serves as a clearinghouse for bicycle education and advocacy. e. Washington State University In 2007, Washington State University. Interdisciplinary Design Institute_.(1SU) created a pedestrian model by mapping pedestrian networks throughout Spokane Transit Authority's service area, identifying barriers such as the absence of sidewalks and curb ramps, and non-ADA compliant variations in the surface condition, height, width, and slope of pedestrian facilities. The data has been used to identify existing routes and to determine sidewalk infill priorities. By partnering with the City, data developed through the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program will be used to update the WSU pedestrian network model. In turn, the model will be useful in prioritizing pedestrian Improvements in an effort to increase safety throughout the City. f. Spokane Regional Transportation Council The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) is the local metropolitan planning organization encouraging coordination and collaboration between planning and transportation departments throughout the region. SRTC maintains the Transportation Improvement Program, a three-year list of state and federally-funded transportation projects, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan in Spokane County, a document addressing transportation needs for the next 20 years. SRTC recognizes that walking and bicycling are simple and efficient modes of travel that can increase public transit ridership. Coordination between the City and SRTC will create opportunities to implement effective non-motorized projects and programs. 11.1 Planning Context The Bike and Pedestrian Element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expands on the Transportation Element to focus on non-motorized transportation. Also referred to as the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program, this element is consistent with the overall .Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use Transportation, Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. 11.1.1 GMA The Washington Growth Management Act (GMA), the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provide for the inclusion of non-motorized transportation elements in comprehensive plans. Bike and pedestrian planning is sometimes included in the land use, transportation or recreation elements. Using a separate element to address opportunities and constraints specific to these non-motorized forms of transportation allows the City of Spokane Valley to focus on improvements that enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. e Fel-Itep -r el live- e-nnc11-11;GtG:+ �; ;a&p±4.:tat;ar-plannlag-are-found in-4118-1R DAL an4- WAC: G}ofdleation Slynli}°ways--arickaf#eFlak a L ioysI c edest4e-R--Prague exteRcis-th-Feugh-She-uFirdlcti9R #o--anether- The- omp et stye plans-of each count,„ --Q; ' s -be--ce mated-witt and nd4ent-w#phase-elf-adjase,41 a miss-0 -sines fRCW 36.70A 1W17) ti-6eFyss4e11S A r s 1stlen is resp0n-slbJe-fer-wetting--level--of service--staadaF ace -0n--flee-- 'a -F4r I 011are0ter of the area--and-oonslsteet-with-the land use pica-anal pol4c4s ol-ult+Fneda1-le4e1-Qf- -vise et#todolegles-and-stan fs-silenld-connid-e -Else-gamic of ravelefe-u-etng-the jvr odes.-of tra vet -autemo#IlarptFFillo-tra thin id l-kir ha-desired-semmunIt+--cha sferr-available 1' ncting-and-traveiar €pestation-s--sneuld be coneideFe er--a laFting-levels--of ervl -f r #raAsportatIon-faellitis-(16 AC 6-19644C . llrnate- honge Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 4 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan The Slate of Washing-te islatwe recogni ed-tai-it-Is-I fhe-public's in-teest-to-Fetluee-the-s-tatels dependenco --fefeig-n--s-e r ef-aarhan--feels--thak-ia-aot-demote-energy tndepeFleeFFSe--or e osenoRlfc--strewed--of-iie-state. Trio legislature tl erafore-en err ea-the dovola en a peliala paclices arid methodologies that—may assist countle -and cities--ire--eddressing chaaie+ as assoolated with tranape#atien-related-altecpatives (fRCW 2008 c 28g). Adopted TBD Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 5 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.1.2 County-Wide Planning Policies County Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) provide a policy framework for the County and its respective cities. Specifically items 10 and 16 under Policy Topic 5—Transportation, state: 10. Each jurisdiction should coordinate its housing and transportation strategies to support existing, or develop new, public multimodal transportation systems. 16. Each jurisdiction shall address energy consumption/conservation by: a. Designing transportation improvements for alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle; b. Locating and adopting design standards for new development to support pedestrian or non-motorized travel; c. Providing regulatory and financial incentives to promote efforts of the public and private sector to conserve energy; and d. Reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled and number of vehicle trips. As described in Section 11.0.6 above, the SRTC is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Spokane region. SRTC maintains the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), a 20-year strategy to meet the transportation needs of the region. MTP goals related to non-motorized transportation include: • Establishing a bicycle and pedestrian program that will increase the mode-share of people walking and bicycling as a means of transportation over the next 20 years; • Eliminating barriers that discourage or prohibit pedestrian or bicycle access; • Identifying the needs and gaps in the regional bicycle and pedestrian system; and • Encouraging connections between residential areas and adjacent land uses to enhance awareness and cooperation between all roadway users. The MTP facilitated the creation of three complementary products: the Spokane Regional Bike Plan (adopted in 2008); the Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan (adopted in 2009) and the SmartRoutes program. All of these were collaborative efforts with SRTC, the Spokane Regional Health District, the Active Transportation Technical Committee (including representatives from the City of Spokane Valley and other cities and towns) and a citizen-based steering committee. Each of these documents encourages jurisdictions to tailor the regional plans to their own needs and to use them for guidance to develop appropriate bicycle and pedestrian projects that traverse jurisdictional lines. 11.2 Existing Setting 11.2.1 Comprehensive Plan The City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies to guide development within the City. All elements within the Comprehensive Plan must be internally consistent. Goals found within other elements encourage the development and implementation of a bike and pedestrian system within the City. The following are from the Land Use, Transportation, Natural Environment and the Parks and Recreation elements: Land Use -Goal LUG-7 Provide a balanced transportation network that accommodates public transportation, high occupancy vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles and integrated parking. Transportation -Goal TG-9 Enhance community livability and transportation by encouraging a connected system of pedestrian and bicycle ways that is integrated into a coordinated regional network. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 6 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment-Goal NEG-20 Support regional efforts to improve air quality. Parks and Recreation -Goal PRG-4 Based upon budgetary resources, promote, develop, operate and maintain a comprehensive trail/bicycle system within Spokane Valley that provides non-motorized travel (walking, bicycling, skating, and horseback riding)to meet city residents recreation, fitness and commuting needs. 11.2.2 Current Activity a. Collision Data The ` sJl ntgn. State_ Department Of TranSPortation maintains records of iledeStrian and bic cle colllslan data. Be weep 2UQ3 incprnoratlan] and 2010. There were six fatalities and 295 serious or disabling injuries in Spokane Valley associated with pedestrian and blcvci collisions. On average, there are 41.pedes.#rian and bicycle . oliisions per +ear. The majority of the collisions occurred on ma r arierlals including Argonne, Phies and Sullivan Roads. It is estimated that many bicycle and pedestrian collisions have happened but have not been reported. ;.- Citizen Input To ensure the bike and pedestrian system reflects the community's desires, an extensive outreach component was built into the process. As described in the previous section, this process included workshops and an on-line survey. The results showed that a majority of respondents walk or bicycle for exercise/health, enjoyment, or to commute to work/school. When asked what prevents a person from biking or walking, an overwhelming 70% of the respondents said it was due to the lack of facilities. The results showed the community's desire to see improved bike and pedestrian facilities in or around the following six routes: 1. Sprague Avenue 2. Pines Road 3. 32nd Ave 1 Dishman Mica 4. Argonne/ Mullen corridor 5. Valleyway Avenue (as a Dike be leva bicycle friendly route) 6. Sullivan Road Many mentioned the need for more north/south connections to the Centennial trail. The preferred facilities were bike lanes and shared use paths. The graphs below illustrate the respondent's views. A summary-Qf-ihe survey-and- mrriuciit-Input-resN1ts cams-found-in ApperKiix..2 ;o.tlirs•C.hapterT Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 7 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Why do you bike or walk? Note: Respondents were asked to check all that apply 94% 89% 58% 55% • l 35% II 1 I I J 1 ;i _ I 9%% _ 3% 4 ��X` �� oy a� o\ y� �i- k \rea o��e 2ayo <<- �.\yGro `ate oc�a Once 0�G\y0 �c 1 oGa` Q`�� �G�Y' 0,0``0 `�� CC 0 ��oQ J`e o -Co ooh Go What prevents you from biking or walking? Note: Respondents were asked to check all that apply 70% H 57% 43% 28% i 28% . 28% . : 14% 13% 17% a% [— ;'; I y e G 9 �O� � l I� O� \\�0 �C o,z, aCG aJ�O J\p aS` ��(� �C `,C0 zG Qa e� zr eca o�< �Qa� r<.'-' O cio 6 0 yC J a t f a \ --1 O ••••••••c‘y \Q Q D ¢O O <6,s, a�J � , Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 8 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Where would you like to be able to bicyle or walk? Note:Responses were tallied from qualitative data 23% 21% 21% i i i 5%L41'°L 5% 5% l 4% I• ' 2% 2% 2% 2% l ��a\ Za\\ �,0� a�� tab `\°` 00a a,5 coo 00 00.y �,, G�`� ,z �,P o`e�c 0\ �0e,�� .?0e`a\O`y ,.�� Q c, y4�a N.Y a\�a� l� as •0° J CP x045 5 Which roadways are difficult for bicyclists or pedestrians? Note:Responses were tallied from qualitative data 24% 11 17% 16% . i II i 10% .i 6% 5% G 0 2% ;I 3% 3% 1% 3/° 3% 1% 3% 1% 'I 3% o 1/0 1%0 1/0 1/0 I j _ _ ;; 3� _ l J h— �e � � \0(4' o e0 .1-- eJ 1 °p a\ a� ara �e � yQQ���� ate 4e sp 0 �oS' Oa `ca e ° $ 4 �•S_ J•-.. •\,6. P4 tG r�• O • Adopted TBD • Chapter 11 – Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 9 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan What bicycle and pedestrian facilities do you prefer? Note: Respondents were asked to check all that apply 78% 62% 51% I • . 36% : I ; I ! / Bike Lanes Shared Use Paths Signed,Shared Bicycle Boulevard Roadways Which of the following programs would you like to see implemented? Note:Respondents were asked to check all that apply 87% I • I 1 66% ■ 55% 47_% 46% 36% I i 34% 28% H I S` ``oo ec, eta X45 ley eb �e5 o`�c2t 4 Jo ��ea�r� ore eq\a� \'P �` a� Q-o m�e 1 a.c, Health Data As part of the initial community workshops, the SRHD prepared information correlating active lifestyles, including bicycle and pedestrian commutes, to improved health. Sedentary lifestyles can contribute to obesity. _ObesiryrwhIcli _can be defined as a person with a body mass index of 30 or greater_ - hiolt-related esity can_cQnifibute to illnesses including heart disease and strokes, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, diabetes and some forms of cancer. Less than '/2 of all adults and children are getting the Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 10 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan recommended levels of moderate physical activity. In the City of Spokane Valley; SRHD data also shows that only 52.7 percent of the City's population met the recommended physical activity level. Their data also show that from 2004 to 2008, 26.8 percent of the population was obese and an additional 37/ percent was overweight. Lack of physical activity increases health risks, resulting in increased costs for medical care, worker compensation and lost productivity. SkHD estimates this cost as $111,8 million--per-yeaf-er pr 11 taffy $1.9 ef-person Fri Spoke-Valley (site: The-Ca+le e-ef i=i ---aman Performanse- Obesity and lack of activity contribute to chronic diseases including cancer, heart and respiratory disease. The top five causes of death in Spokane Valley are shown below: Table 11.1 Top Five Causes of Death,Spokane Valley 2004-2008 { Cause of Death Rate per 100,000 Rank 1 Cancer 184.0 i Diseases of the Heart 159.7 2 Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 50.5 3 Cerebrovascular Diseases-Stroke 48.2 4 - Injuries 45.8 5 _Source_Spokane Recional HeDl;iiD'E.trict Literature reviews have shown that urban design and land use policies creating opportunities for physical activity within communities have been effective and are considered best practices for increasing a community's health and reducing obesity. The relationship between the presence of sidewalks and the amount of physical activity are illustrated below: Presence of Sidewalks Encourages Walking6° 25 to 20 . w 0 v 10 ti L r, 5 � p. 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of route with a sidewalk Source: Rodriguez D,et al., 151-173 Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 11 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Approximately 65 percent of Spokane County's carbon monoxide emissions are from vehicle sources. Reducing vehicle trips by accommodating and encouraging active transportation positively impacts health by improving air quality. SRHD also considers socio-economic factors as they relate to health. A link exists between education, poverty, and mobility choices. In Spokane Valley, between 2004 and 2008, 37.4 percent of the population had less than a high school diploma or GED. The amount of education a person achieves influences their ability to earn a certain standard of living. Between 2004 and 2008, 43.9 percent of the City's population was at or below the 200 percent federal poverty level, 4 E-.96,4 c far it Fif-fekHf plan ,4G10--lam= Fnerith-vr---less Tha-Bowes# ;fiIi- Anieric ns--spend parser+L-ai-tlair.ERR nal hausehotd budgek• autarnobileo ,+ner-ship•(site?-Sa€face-Tr-anrpartailon licy-Projeet) That is more than twice the national average. A substantial percentage of the population either cannot afford automobile transportation, or affording it is a financial hardship. For these people, in addition to the young in age and the older population, getting around by other alternatives such as walking, bicycling or transit is a necessity. c. Coi+tsfof-Ba#a Tr+ei.ohn s0'4E+1-State-El aper-tnlent<of-TF`anapi tiny} mainiaina-Fesorde-of-petlestFlae-and bleyyols-collision--iata,lBetween--24A7-ar41-2009--lhare-was--wee-en a-fatsIilk+-and-elg1t seFlous--oF-rltsab ling--injufiies<-In eel rye-VaIley-ass fated-w1th-adlastrlan--anal--talsys-le callislerws-4-1-An-addllaonal-76•repertad-events-resulted-In-possible-anj4rl.es_ Tt�a ajorltycif ti1e-aallIsFarls--acs xred-onafiaJor-ar#aplals-Inskiding-ArgerineFlainas--arri-Seraliva-Roadsl.t is eetin atod that many b]cy to o d ec(raan-sel.lislei-s-havo happened but have-sot been fepartreci. 11.2.3 Existing Bicycle System Though developed as a compilation of rural townships over time, the City of Spokane Valley has a strong grid pattern of streets. The placement of principal and minor arterials, collectors and local access streets overlaid on the relatively flat topography provides an excellent base for non- motorized transportation. a. Types of Bicycle Users There are many types of bicyclists with varying skills and levels of comfort in terms of riding in traffic. While bicyclists can be loosely categorized as experienced adult, casual adult and child cyclists, there are many levels of cycling competency and just as many opinions as to what makes an ideal bike route. Some experienced cyclists ride on busy arterial streets regardless of bicycle facilities. Some cyclists will ride on busy roads only if bike lanes are provided. Some will use the lanes only if parallel residential roads are unavailable. Children are at times encouraged to use sidewalks if available. b. Existing Bicycle Facilities A combination of striped bike lanes, posted I lke--ro tesbi;ycle r cifcil _rotity > and separated bike facilities are found throughout the City. In addition, other streets act as informal routes, favored by bicycle commuters as safe and convenient alternatives to bike ways with heavy automobile traffic. The following different types of bicycle facilities, as defined by the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) are found throughout Spokane Valley: i. Shared Use Path: Facilities on separated right-of-way and with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. Minimum width is six feet; optimal width is ten feet. Shared use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 12 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan a The Centennial Trail is an example of a shared use path in the City. With connections through adjacent jurisdictions, it is an important regional recreational and commuting facility. Other shared use paths exist along the south side of Appleway Avenue from Sprague Avenue to the eastern City boundary and on Sullivan Road, from Centennial Trail to just south of Trent Road. ii. Bike Lanes: A portion of a roadway designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. The required width of a bike lane on a given street varies based on several factors, such as existence of a gutter and curb. Parking and traffic volume must be considered as well. AASHTO and SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) guidelines recommend that for a street without gutter or curb, the minimum width of the bike lane should be four feet. If the street includes curb and gutter, the minimum width should be five feet. In situations where parking is permitted without any striping or stalls, AASHTO guidelines recommend an 11-foot bike lane width. Bicycle lanes improve conditions for cyclists of all abilities within a given corridor and encourage increased bicycle use by providing a greater degree of comfort and perceived safety for less skilled cyclists. Striped bicycle lanes are located along several arterials, including 32nd Avenue, portions of Broadway, Evergreen Road, Mission Road, Sprague Avenue and 16`h Avenue. Mirabeau Parkway from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue and Indiana Avenue from Mirabeau to Evergreen Road are also improved with bike lanes. Signed Shared Roadway: Signed lane allowing both vehicular and bicycle traffic. Minimum width is 14 feet. Signed shared roadways indicate to cyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes compared to alternate routes. a In the City of Spokane Valley, signed shared roadways exist on 4th Avenue from University to Conklin, and on Trent from Flora to the eastern city boundary. iv. Shared Roadway: Lane allowing both vehicular and bicycle traffic. No signing is involved. a All public streets in the City of Spokane Valley can be defined as shared roadways. Existing bike facilities in the City of Spokane Valley are shown in Map 11.1. Other bicycle facilities found throughout the City include bicycle parking facilities at some commercial, public and office facilities and bicycle racks on transit vehicles. c. System Deficiencies Barriers surrounding both recreation and commuting bicycle activity throughout the City include crossing Interstate 90, railroad tracks, and the Spokane River. Currently, principal arterials cross these barriers. However, the limited space for bike facilities on these arterials plus the traffic volume hinders the safety and comfort for many riders. This impacts those trying to access commercial and employment centers in the north part of the City as well as those trying to access the Centennial Trail. Other factors impacting bicycle activity include impaired sight distances, limited street connectivity, cyclist and motorist behaviors, lack of way-finding signs, and maintenance issues. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 13 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.2.5 Existing Pedestrian System a. Types of Pedestrians For trips of a certain length, walking is the simplest, most affordable way to get around. Spokane Valley, with relatively flat terrain and a predominately grid street pattern, has great opportunities for pedestrians of all kinds. People choose to walk for many of reasons including recreation and necessity. Pedestrians include adults, children, seniors, people without cars and people with disabilities. Those with higher levels of transportation choice, i.e. those specifically able to afford cars and of driving age, make use of autos for most trips. This situation is not so much a reflection of popular transportation preferences but of the many auto-dominated land use and transportation decisions that created present day Spokane Valley. All citizens, Including those driving cars as well as seniors, youth and people with disabilities, need safety, connectivity and accessibility. b. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalk inventories were performed by City staff as part of the analyses conducted for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program and the American with Disabilities Act transition plan. Also, in association with the Safe Routes to School program, volunteers from all elementary and middle schools in the City conducted walking audits to determine potential routes to their schools and to identify missing sidewalk segments, potential pedestrian conflicts and existing safe haven areas for students. The existing pedestrian system in Spokane Valley Includes sidewalks, shared use paths, wide shoulders on rural roads and residential streets. Generally, sidewalks exist on most of the existing arterials and range in width from three to six feet. In addition, most streets surrounding elementary, middle and high school facilities are improved with sidewalks. Several shared-use paths, intended for all types of non-motorized transportation, are located throughout the City (see section on existing bicycle facilities above). Map 11.3 shows locations of existing sidewalk facilities. Other infrastructure associated with pedestrian activity includes curb ramps, intersection markings, cross walks with and without associated signals, benches and shelters for transit facilities, and street trees. c. System Deficiencies: For the most part, sidewalks on arterials are constructed adjacent to the curb and lanes where cars are traveling in excess of 30 and 40 miles per hour, impacting pedestrian comfort and safety, In addition, while current development standards require separated sidewalks, there are portions where sidewalks were not built with initial street construction. Other factors making walking difficult include crosswalk issues on high-volume streets, obstructions such as power poles and utility boxes in the sidewalk, outdated or non-existent curb ramps, poor lighting, limited facilities at transit stops, and maintenance issues. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 14 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.3 Goals and Policies Spokane Valley is intended to become a bicycle and pedestrian friendly City, where bicycling and walking are encouraged and promoted as safe and convenient forms of transportation and recreation. Goals help guide actions towards fulfilling this vision. Policies are more specific statements relating to implementing measures that will achieve the goals. As with many cities, Spokane Valley will have limited funds with which to pursue its bike and pedestrian goals. The City will have to use its resources in a focused and prioritized manner to have a positive impact on non-motorized transportation infrastructure. It will be imperative that Spokane Valley make strategic investments of the limited resources available and where possible, leverage resources in cooperation with other governmental and private agencies. The following goals and policies are consistent with the goals and policies of other chapters of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, with the Countywide Planning Policies and the Growth Management Act. Network and Facilities Goal & Policies Goal BP-1 Provide a comprehensive__;-I ced and cquftabl bikeway and pedestrian system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, trails, and employment areas within the City and to adjacent jurisdictions. Policies BP-1.1 # Elie numbeF--a#Encourage bike lanes, shared use paths and sidewalks throughout the City where applicable and appropriate. BP-1.2 ErssLIr ..Errcouf�gobicycle parking facilities are—provided at commercial and public facilities as well as places of employment. BP-1.3 Work with Spokane Transit Authority to develop safe, comfortable and secure pedestrian amenities and bicycle parking facilities at transit stops as well as bike racks on transit vehicles. BP-1.4 Construct Encourage sidewalks, bicycle facilities and shared use paths as part of development where applicable. BP-1.5 Encourage treea, plait♦rig-stfipsiandscaping, bollards and other treatments with new streets, parking lots and other pedestrian activity zones to create an effective safety and visual buffer between the sidewalk and the street. BP-1.6 Coordinate on regional non-motorized efforts in partnership with adjoining jurisdictions and with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. BP-1.7 Coor eralive;y oFursue joint funding applications for implementation that will expand the regional bikeway pncl pedestflan_network. BP-1.8 MStrive to maintain pedestrian, bicycle,_ 3rIci t ep--rleeciedT vehicle and emergency response access rights when street closure or vacation requests are processed. BP-1,9 es a le-a+ld-app iat Encourage the fuse of technological advances as a tla le-to update-a-nd--€ iRta+a provide a safe, user friendly -tale-bicycle and pedestrian network,.jilCitidlrig but not limited-e-bap-crack-s ar}aing te. h olvgy-at wa ftnding-slatiiansr alternative-parling.cptIGns.-eta BP-1.10 When considering alternative modes of transportation priority sflculd be placed on providing sidewalks for children particularly In areas near parks and schools. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 15 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Safety and Accessibility Goal and Policies Goal BP-2 Reduce the number of bicycle and pedestrian injuries through development of safe and accessible routes for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Policies BP-2.1 €nsiT e-Encortrage bicycle and pedestrian facilities to meet nationally.recognized design standards for safety and accessibility such as AASHTO. BP-2.2 ER-sure that „Encourage bicycle routes and shared use paths aro-to be properly signed and;marked and lit to address personal safety. BP-2.3 PTemete-Encourage_safe bicycle and pedestrian crossings of major arterials, railroads, I-9O and the Spokane River through use of innovative treatments where appropriate. BP-2.4 I•1.ereaso-Encuracre the enforcement of pedestrian and bicycle safety rules on City streets and bikeways. BP-7 =; Consider—pc lentlal-furu pegs o- sur a safety, Including--bye helmet-ese= Promotion and Education Goal and Policies Goal BP-3 Implement comprehensive education and encouragement programs targeted at all populations in the City. Policies BP-3.1 Continue coordinating with existing agencies and prograrr6, _'ud1nq the Spokane Regional Health District, the Safe Routes to Schools program, the Shcrrifl- olice Department, SCOPE, the Commute Trip Reduction program and other entities concerned with bicycle and pedestrian safety; to create education programs focused on safe bicycle riding, walking and motorist activity. BP— --Gentinue--te erk with oxisting prograrxis su^h, th C.G4R r- to 171p--Re60ction ar lie Safe Routes to School--prams to pFO c1a--bas 4iR d- 5+att irig—to werk, BchaelTeneppi -and-fasraaflena tivaties- BP-3.32 Provide current and easily accessible information about the bicycle and pedestrian networks. f lsyele-programs and t)i-Rcle p ar i facilities. Implementation, Funding and Maintenance Goal and Policies Goal BP- 4 Seek funding from all available sources to implement and maintain bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as ongoing education and • enforcement. Policies BP-4.1 Maintain a prioritized and phased implementation plan that takes into consideration the scope, cost and benefits of a facility, `=l: nci available funding opportunitiesd-the availaikit}�eir s#ai€. BP-4.2 Include facilities as described in this Bike and Pedestrian Element as part of the annual t-I-ransportation •improvement pl'!ogram (TIP) where feasible. BP-4.3 Review and monitor opportunities for multi-modal grant funding as they become available. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 16 of 32 • City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Han BP-4.4 City should strive to maintain quality street surfaces that Provide a safe environment for both vehicles and cyclists.. BP-4.5 Ensure internal coordination between departments prior to developing street projects that include bike and/or pedestrian facilities, Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 17 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • 11.4 Bike and Pedestrian Master Program 11.4.1 Engineering Improvements a. Overall Bicycle and Pedestrian Network The City of Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Program is based on field data, citizen input and engineering analysis of constraints and opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It should be noted that this is a master program, not a detailed feasibility analysis. As such, exact routing and designations could be modified during the course of more detailed studies of specific projects. The recommended bikeway network is shown in Map 11.2 and recommended pedestrian network is shown in Map 11.4. Map 11.5 shows the recommended travel ways for the schools that participated in the safe routes to school exercise. b. Possible Engineering Solutions The specific types of bike and pedestrian treatments that are applied to roads vary depending on factors such as existing right-of-way, traffic counts, traffic speeds, roadway cross section, number of approaches or driveways on the street, topography, etc. A summary of bicycle treatments are described below. More specific design guidelines including the complete toolbox and typical cross section layouts are found in Appendix 32: Facility Design Guidelines. i. Bicycle IBe e',+t;rd&-Friendly_f nt.rte5 -- Bicycle b ;roe =d friendly routes are roadways with low speeds and Icw volumes optimized for bicycling. The treatments recommended for bicycle b, ule.va a—routes should strive to improve through movements for bicyclists and other non-motorized modest- 1I -d;e-sekrragligg-through Fri.Qvecilecita by vehicles. Bicycle beulekvar -rorrte treatments are ideal on two-lane roadways where traffic volume is less than 3,000 vehicles per day (although less than 1,500 vehicles per day is preferred) and posted speeds of 25 miles per hour or less. See Appendix;!-:,!.for specific bicycle boulevard treatments and cross sections. ii. Bicycle Lanes - Bicycle lanes designate an exclusive part of the roadway (typically on the right side of the roadway) to be used by bicyclists only. A bike lane is typically located between the right most traffic lane and the curb or on street parking area. A bicycle lane should be considered on roadways with traffic volumes greater than 31000 vehicles per day or posted speeds greater than 25 miles per hour. Appendix 2 includes a variety of bicycle lane treatments from a standard bike lane to buffered bike lanes and climbing lanes. The appendix also includes cross sections showing how bike lanes could be applied to existing City roadways. iii. Cycle Tracks - A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility separated from vehicle traffic and the sidewalk, and is intended to provide improved comfort and safety for the • bicyclist as compared to an on-street bike lane. The cycle track can be separated from vehicle traffic using a variety of treatments (curbs, planter strips, on-street parking, pavement markings, or other options). In addition, the cycle track should be clearly defined from sidewalks (grade separated, pavement markings, or an alternate clear indication) to prevent bicycle conflicts with pedestrians. A cycle track requires a wider cross section than a typical bike lane but should be considered on roadways where bicyclists may not fee!comfortable biking directly adjacent to vehicle traffic. iv. Shared Use Paths -- Shared use paths are physically separated from the roadway and are intended for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, runners and other non-motorized users. Shared use paths supplement bike lanes, bike-bicycle friendly routosI3ouleuard and sidewalks and connect to these other facilities at ends of the path as well as midway, depending on the length and location. The number of driveways and crossings should be minimized when designing a shared use path. Generally, if there Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 18 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan are more than eight crossings per mile, an on-street facility should be considered instead. v. Bicycle Intersection Treatments - Intersection treatments improve the safety of bicyclists through an intersection (typically a signalized intersection), Depending on the characteristics of the cross streets (traffic and bicycle volumes, traffic and bicycle speeds, type of bicycle facility, number of vehicles and/or bikes turning, visibility, surrounding land use, and other factors) a range of treatments may be applicable. Appendix 3 2._provides specific intersection treatment guidelines and criteria. vi. Mid-Block Crossing Treatments - Mid-block crossings can be dangerous for bicyclists because drivers are not typically expecting a crossing at a non-intersection location. The need for a mid-block crossing may arise if two bicycle facilities are off-set or if a trail intersects a roadway at mid-block. In these situations, mid-block crossing treatments can be applied to improve the safety. vii. Wayfinding - Wayfinding is meant to be used by bicyclists while en route to communicate directions, distance and sometimes expected travel time to a particular destination. Wayfinding is typically accomplished through the use of signs supplemented at times with pavement markings. Wayfinding should be applied to all types of bicycle facilities. viii. Prioritization Criteria— Bicycle Network The overall bicycle and pedestrian networks will be implemented over time. The criteria contained in :1 ial —11-4:1Acperrdix .1 has been used to determine where to focus available funding and staff time to implement bicycle facility projects. Priority is given to those projects anticipated to serve the most number of people and to contribute to overall safety. Dlcycie a-aaal P Lion Crir.eria N eft Re.aevnEn{} �1s�t 4Vriil�i}Ce Mobility-and-Anoearti-T-eGal-ei Polnts) Egilraatad- c rums-of-miatin -polential.iaioyale ;mss-that erve-9ha-m nueo o€ ueers paapia-s-houl racerive-pri$si#yr om�rletas•a�irissir segrr�e+al of blsysle pad 124 -03448 -11 nefi o-kir-a ealrat ProvidesooCess-lo-major-dea ilen6{gl prng7 Gatkisrg-p€pie-when their want-la-El-o-la Mhoe .lrartsitrisailer-ets} important. CeaRoota-exialiag-routes-li Fiplpa#es-gaps-andial Rrelcc'sthak-p{evlde-a-senkhiwe ike i e riers-�7,er!A#i�kte ok2+�e R+veF Fgllree ) — nal uark-as dersira la- t' Safety ITotr3I of 2 P h t€} iaorrac#a-kw imp€eVOa-epesik-Irrs€le.-a 8 slrYtJ3at dr e�oFelur� aale-are . - � ea�w�-haaaro�kl�rr�ue��larilyr. fieriies-whit-higher lrleolaF-lra#il 1-awe Irnprovela-mules-1Vith 9 ivilioolaF-4-2ifig gra-atar eiianliai-sanaly-con aiiista-that should-be-radtriad. Rtoktidea-an-artar a!lve-route-ta.a.hlglier-vak+ree Routeswit#i-lower-rehiewla-Pool nos-and - anther— het-spae€f-faelllity I epearka ava-iaas-safety-sarillIs4a, ,4biii# #e-in plameat taro o-Raiiits1 Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 19 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • W60011 eriaNlaFfurrdirrgrs iikeC, �^:a File[+I:Ae +xilrtigfeaila4es qulckeo • -- frxAded lmplemantaiian-r 0 Reaie to $e6!g�?.god-EinX+I me0.11-cgiViear:-s Projec s-furthlep-aio l arl-the-deBJgA-aniti 1rr11labild revi9 Fg ue-eaa-t39-iniFlomented-SSEenera Maximum-P9ssikila-Sser 4Pot+ilt5 ix. Prioritization Criteria --Pedestrian Network The criteria contained in Table 11.4.2Apgeticlix I was used to determine where to focus available funding and staff time to implement pedestrian facility projects. Priority is given to those projects anticipated to serve the most number of people and to contribute to overall safety. Tabte 1-1A 4-12adas#/daN-FaclIIIy-Pfdor1E3 le itoila Cilterla Reasord.ng f'c..idAtF1 PeeJeot-Settlna.} otat4Pal{:1e] Proje {s1#4a-orlabla-Jirer.rt as €o-I1arrsit I LesaI€ -wJ taln SC mile-eF-a-irrrnsit-routo N ees&-the-av$ltebll1ty-er41-ime-of-alternative+ modes-ef-WrisporioltoR €e #ay�uaFko gels C rests-mgclorr till-eioh erhoode,to- tIvily-cerlera �-pr1 I r �?rtse 1p� f a-pedesldarsalil— leelrr l#ra##roe+Idea soAllraue rreariarr f I get�arl�r�-�asir2�l� €ENFIAle ei ye-of-exlefleg-ar-pote ilal-pedeiriva+1-kgiERG P":1a"wi2l-Be13e-a-iipk+rar radestriarr popti laliopa-are-aiwin6ageat ; fs efal-eF nlrrts) Pert of art-idea-tiDe Sate-Reule-to-Sohaa+' _ij ling glmiltats4-0r-Inlprmv+: a}exi tlag--laar-riar #lexarol4AdJ r-Il3&t rot9d�a a shorter ta-ef ry- trayel hawJd.#rove-prl'ority. — — - .S+riee4iorry-r eslanat e?C are mast-aaaity acce860443yr-l48.F1l18;lFlSreasl+1g-pedesirlao Ir1u4rea safety-oral-slassIGA-read 5 [ 4y ar ill lra54 a1hs�s i�rr�er#afrt�p a Utter -marry-pe tiia lvahi -s€llis . Inerierrls-fir on I I1eae roriles wh1 ere-vahlcle vclJme-arc alehe3E Abllity-te-Implement-(10a1- I-- g-Polnth} I Frrsiask f�a aN er arklal Eurrd�n t,cr��ilkal #r3 oa`fbr�de�l I ea#iA ing feslNletee {dtkE r D-6 lraplemeralall9p= Projects tlNaralcrlg r-#a asigrard al v Route-Ma deelgn- nd-ersur-roAm aakeviews-lriti1ated 0- phase-sap-be-h:aptemertled-sGOraer-r - - - .. 14A 50:0 hat-d9ralor{strata-celiai32ra#lvH-enel RroJed-IRVOIYes-mkrlliple-bpor3tors roperaticrmi h-r ultlple-lrtitemeit F4apa3-b ti41 ooras rww ik}i-a fl d-snit t l ei m e ri f r 11.1.2 f-RosolWe.Soorei 60 Paiart i x. Network Improvements - Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 20 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan I Facility improvements, summarized in Tables-144,3 and 11 4 1 be4ewApDertdix 1, are categorized as short-term and long-term projects based on need and ease of implementation. [ aGefli-en a--pr }e0t-w Ihiu-the.tables4s.not•fneanI-to-guararitee-that projLcts .wii, be orepleted--in a sequenItal order. Exact k lE --af-i fp rea a e ill ', epei iiig on factors such as 1'+ lia-q-and-nev{dir ti i-vwtth--agar—privat rztt i}EJbli r 1ciprna Firgte R& Tabie-X2.44-C;FI .or-Spokane-VelJey H;wyclG o.w.:37:A Prolvcts # &Efeel Rem To PropesN.I E;o1a1Frpnis and r� tent'r; She Ft F -Rre o€r a I t- W k-Roullee a Valreway-AveFxae I Mom-Road Rark RAa4I I BikeJroulevar�l j -k 1asa k -- — - at 19A!& L 2 . A -Avenu arn e I eer-Road I Flare-Rood [3fke-be�-levafFi i 3 "-Avorwe WWII Road Up-IveR,II -€eacI Bake-be�FJeva� Enha+�oe osr ng krea{+ er�ESat lesaiioRr 4 4:3 1"1-Avea-Fe 16rp-Ivera4F ad >.^oodmlf-Road Mie•Inuievard N Enhanced-srossing.Ereaimer+t-at-1. 4 2. 6 -Avenue Sullivan-Read Idnive#slEy-I I Rika-beulevarfi a042011ap Oa Sprogue.Averwo U Qafs;tyFRead Pifles-R BIIce-la+-es e.d-ro le IaoAiot}s of _ -- e9nPaskerra�Fke 6i} ; gde-Ave€-ue RIRM-1 d €uergraarl-R 1a . S{F'.rgu9 Neius gveF een i-Rd lifvorr-Ro _ __ MissloF-Avenue Plnes-Road SuIIvofr-Reed Bike-lanes a . NMi a1aF�,4veArae r=loFer-Rod �l,ia3IIa El+ke.iar�es Design.I'Li ad I l eeRaGFe8 De9igF} e+iialrpfunded-Enlas naoti 9 Genre [o I-To .l l East it l; .lts Slio fed Use Path Path cressiF►g treatfneMs'aE f loeskle-Rr Adi eR#-to-Fa:IIFaaci lino rrhe erJ 40 MlJhvao•d-Path der c741e4-Road PAl esu Shooed-Use-Path a499fng tae -trneFlisei-3.40.111.2 11 4 i l atkway D65i F lUAd6d $ W9 4 le'.vay-Paikr 'I 6t oad Ammo/ Sharerp Us Rath �R3 iloT4a sFasalF�g Ff6 tFaea Taehlriay-Read I I f9sailaaa 1 Sprague-Ave Sr+lllvar►-Rd ; pfeguel orbin I fJace-lopes Ar000dj-deslla nod 1OR1i Sa4#h Aodrlea • Rfe ea-s-Read 24'11-Avenue Misaiopi-Av r 8 I 2114e-bANia ai.E1 -- .i 44 liia I H' f4veswaay Blke-houlevwrd 4-e Fier6e-Flood 32.'14-Avenue 0-Ammo iHe 131 a-beuievard _4619 41%Avenue e pwerm-pead Bkat_alova_ i relindicatespogion.s-vf 1-6o i ipwe Road i 4"-Avenue 1, Applevra Ih Bl e.bouleward cvnnecEed mule ken l A e lewaf Montgomery E ike-bourovard _ I Avenue Avenue • --7-e More ueFi a-Reed IQ1 lQFl F 1 ee err]n kol1 Rlke-bowrevard Avenue idarr glorF Riverside 1 #-okch[rrsoR-Road 9-1ko-hourevard ANernm Avenue 4b-ordlIndicat pvrtlone.of MarslueFite ilachInserk aennec[ed.route. idaFFIntito9Aveilue Bke utevar Road Riverside-A' iiuo td7lnsen Arger+neRraar3 0-ilce#roufeverd a ,d-Indioat s-pafkie ei 6nlrer& ReaI Sprague-Ave M[aslor+ wenue Dike-japes GE R-Fk erta.1-PE+JtiN IJ1b I UrilveFSity-Rd .18"-Akre_ I tuagtie Ave eikeaanea .- -- - .- 1-fis t k iveFs.ity-R€J ; 3i'"'-gve 71glh-Ave bike-lane:::. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 21 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Pablo- ,4,3- ty-arSpak€can•-lalRoy-liFsycfo-Naiwar-k-Prajusts ° 8lfael Flom To Frol}OSe<i Cemrnants-aflci-Petential Improvements �4-61a I Pk-Road 1 SH 'e g.�gve 1 celanes arb fFit 0rtre.9s- Auaau18 a nnested-rorrte 4-913 Pork R Rieadway Ave ' lediana- ve Bake-lames 4-90 laeg‘L-RO Indiana-Ave , Roller Ave Okla-lame _ _ �v9f8Reen-Read 4- 14-A_wa_nue 32".k/onus bike-larieG � RIM-Read MlseROrM Akver�ue t Appleway-Pakl3 I3ikde-r-snoe T 32 I Pines-Road ••ui',Ave 24*r,:,.8 I Bike-ranee Lorrg- rfl-Pr-Meats Eaea--West-liautes 33a Indiana�en�o I Cast City Ltmll1 Pars-$Ireei; BIk eialevafd a a e�rd lee Iao#lon�or 2-313 Feckley-8Irteet I IndlanaAvenue De-boulevard AvoRae e• rtaasRecl-KMo lac agtEtwin4.3.rspue Arc-S reat Pere-140W 2Ike-be l 24-a 4T Wenue Pa/r-Road Carnallari-F oa l Sil e-boulevard i46 j crerNehaa-Read 4"-Avenue ! 614•Aven"aa 8-Ikebo{rleward , b, c"IndkeaRe a{HOr+e-ef a3� l} a rent+ 4 6'4-Avenue Garrain Raa 1341•00-bevl v rd LF M[1 e 1-6 -- . u4uWan-Rood j"Rags ard-Dr e � hik-boulevar= - - . - - - - e A u L-P ad -E1114F-bGliisid •7a 3'i anus From Read • plr1e Read Bike-beWkvuf l tor4iTo-LkntlloAtee-panion of 41A-AYerilie T chlrFey-I d BarkeF-Read Bk1Ge-beuigYAfil Gonoe•eiec>-reuse: 28 37r'a138'",AveFiuE � 6owcll Road Rl+kee-Road - BFY.a-boulsver f ao I Misolbn-Aunsuo Rancher-Roo Vlsta-, a-a f Ckfl-baIJii-w i - — - ._ __ _i_ Iteriy,�4+wwu iata-Rea: F fk-Rsa oNle d j f alrta -:vel ; ea4 Fapahe- ead apis-I4orevaad 3..a Fne[,-ie e;u eta-Road ng n-t-Ro_ad ake ;dewaa —� — - — Mortwamea 'or b:441nrWcatee •por1Ione•or 3?h aaagaflRead one Ova e Anne lket dlstar cennesledRe; - 224 Marigornery-Awendo Sargepl-Roa# Awn. anr+aROrld fstike-toalavard 0-Avon-us as h9isa Ll wereRy-Read alke uleva Road w4 ragao-r+verwa gul•ikan-Rslacl• E al City i Nas hike-Iaria 'Ma Wellestev-Avenue Wlee ily Eire: re 6ike1ne ^,brO=-1r:drsaRes-pe(Rrorrs-ot raika Rear• I3--I 4 elrwtay- van a Pregresa-R•vad Rore`R ad Bike-lane sannee al-route- 20 211-Akietide ILy Pads-Road Bike-lane WU 37 13".•Averme Wa anger-1 cad Bike-rane ciedvay-wasiironnil Lisnits 28 Broadway-Avenue Fenzhet-Road Ity. Ol•ke-lane Limits _ i lor"t amepy-fwektie ' . cadge-Flew +laodsi(-Read Blue-lades I • 4A �y,Avonue su i-Head Mean--Rear1 Bllia lanes • • 44- Morr#gerx Awenuo 14-n4 teeny-Read Wllbe -Read Blke canes 42 141 s4aaAveaue ee erite WlII €lead 8ik€a-lanes 43 Bread 4yeae Flom-Read Eaek-Gilytl.Im It Blkce-lanes 44 :uetldAvenge &ulliva ead e y Limits_ 8lko.Jenee + ge-A renus a F eno teen 1 Bike nse 48 Mansfield-Manus lain a-Read Nediaload 7 Sike-r-es 1 Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 22 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan To ID lo-44,4,3.-G4-of.Sp 13%a ne-Vaa:oy-1:1.Gyoto-Noi.wafk-P= ;.;..:.?.! • Ir< Street From To fora rosa€I Impre eatit$ — 47 j Indiana Awe�aue SaNivarF+- and A 9+�� l ikaa;,3as - o 46 • T{onl-PaE i Padr oad ��et City Umita I Gfna{ed-flee-path Along-chat ide f dway� -- 1 rslrer -Fridges 4g 22o4-Avenue Gronn- a i alko-tanos. REI Marsfiard-Ave Manai-iold,awa Hoak-Rd Elko-fare a - • — — L&Alrru9 ..- -.._ •SPfaguo Path pp way " 1-Faro'R' th Aillaeenl•to-raltroad-lina I Retehfor §ri vec u "Weave 8tke I OuIevaYii Prive 64 Vista-Read ' MJealafl-Avonuo I Lihorty-Avonue : t3Itce-iroatevar4 Conidla Rood •SreadwayAveave Au ue alka-beureward A4u'Sprague-Avenue wohue hike-L-arre G. 19suaE-R64d , VaH ue Huson-Averfwe Bike 4 levard 88a Tr-afFRoad • Broadway-Avend9 84•Avonvii Td48-boirlovard 88b 1ij"`-4.rernie. flat-Road edivif 84e-tau-lovard "a,b, c"--i.no ieno-ef sate"8'-Av$Ree 6 ,Avenue Ike b rave{d Reed Malay HaNre l-Aveti e y Blko-be�ltoward Road Avonuo Unkiror-ilty IlolvereEty GVi Miaelori nue f edeatria.r. Bike-aeuravard 6icyde-l3rldie University Unlverolty Akashi-ark Monts-nmani iruilirates port+eraaa# 600 Road tdieyele8ricfge IAY9AU6 Milo oulavard n cte-d-routor 606 1 M6Rtgernorplwernio I :rnaht.Avontie Biko-1,oxio Read - Ma ' Prabeau 64 Read-Nora NI-laien Avenue Bike boulevard Padasilrlan- AV$RU6 j - �B -e - — ` Th6eFaa n Apploway "? 8144wornio Ike beuteva{d Sin i Avenue -- _. - 63 j Bark-F oad 'l-Aver:we r aerie-be4tevord UrvElto 64 Wane-Head Apieva_-path 3i0•Avenue Bike-if:lam- d -- ti wined+ uraoni-AweFruo Eden-Recd alke-heirrev2rl AValitle 0 R tld 9F Ruttsr-AVfll3Ue. 3",4venuo Bike-IaFle pines-R,4 12,"` +e 4 -Avo Elike-b.oulovag.1 eg caoari Rd e-Ave Sprague,Ave I Bike-tans 80 d Carnahan 64h-Avenue 1-4wV wenua Bike-Inns Posiers-slirnhing lane.only Roa Reard 10 fait Diabmari-Mica-Read Palen venue Sika-t3ne5 Road 1- Ra-dier-Read I CP./wen—tie- 1 wenu-a- l ik9-i&Aoe_ - 13 j Barker-Rood Spaicaae4ii+ver I fie#14v@Abo- . - Rlt e-Fa- es Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 23 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 5 Ti-")1"3-11,4.3-C4-1:1 no-Val foy-0Isyelo-F!$Iwo4s-Projleate Mosel Truiir 7a Proposed c,....,„,.mrd-Perterrii4l it peeve-meats. _ Ml�r621 rat t Wm-Avenue MESeiar uerrdre like lames -7--.4 Fidia-Road We yweii Ire EvelifkAva+ai.e r 91-14e-12ne15 7 rgFeap eel a4 .e+ a hforlrrC;ly I Bke-inane Read NFnita ew-tereen Mansfield 7 lacao4 U Aa 4 erms Avenue Blice-ianea Pin R a4 ' Mir-alasar fft ra *rer 4varure Bike-to nes $ x Apxleway A,eme Beath-City .Share -Js-Rath AMjsaant -rallmad-iino isa Ra � Lingo Oiellasley 79 rulHMarrAth Centennial rail $harod Ltes-Path Avenue 8}] FIes-Pa% Mlaa1Qn/l nue C ntenraial- II She red—Use—Path Alo,11-west-slde of roadway 8 G r a s s ing over-I-0 brlRad:as.t4arM-blcy.la • Bpidge- - MiFabeau Pedea148n41 yca9 Pathway G•assing-ovor-1-44 bridge 13 ridge ' Univac-silly Pede afl-Uoyera 83 Rand addge tnia-okear--1 bridge Xrdnt Path F edaelrian.trlcycie 6.4 0rfdge-t C+0551, evaHailreackar-MHlwoad Trail bridge 5+llltwoe+ Tfent-Pa## 3444.fre_al a ar; 44r_spoicana_kiw6r rd Pedesada,r�85 Spokane Centennlet-Trail bridge iiweF Tale 11 A A Ci"" leans-XFailey-Pectseiri�n-Ne4wes Fir leate II 4Ereet T-a Proposal vR i�ar�€l akenNal u improvements S'h -Torre-P ]EJ t8 I - Wistiaalay Mc9anild .i-argfeen both--aides - - Vialisaley SAIlivan hen[mit North-side I 8491.111}44-sf ewe -eidsia -- Buckeye Pa+k Vista Ono-o-r-both ldaa Sonani -I,- ran - • Meatterilany *► 9artmesith Cartiale Bata idea -- N1onigornary I €ast-of 2rI!ale Pfrle-s i Gfo yes-Failfead - Indiana Pines -4-{y;eg+ a Bate-des ' Indiana MFrabeau *1-Anarni hlert14-at4 Senth-aide-sldewallr:-e?dete Pfeadway Havana I aprbet Werth-&Jde Souih ilde bld6wallec9xitt6 - Foadv-ay Fe-nibs Heasook Seut#r$FIa . Westin-.aide-sldevrall�eilate Cirandwai +i-Maam kilo c-oth kre Nefli lde-skiewark- lets -1-1- 3madway #-gankli+ F North-aide Sooth-elda-alslewaN-axisls 42 1 Broadway Flo* Lorg both-stile-0 3 1 Avo SAlvan Relr,[ger Neriti-61d0 F rEt4- ide-aldewatk oxisis. I f Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 24 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 7-o lace-1-1 4,2-0ity VSpoliarae-VaIley-E loyafe-hetworh I 3rn}e.. s Cuomo/1t .and Potential # Street Ff6nt To Ffoy6sed Irapieverveirl5 14 24'11-Ave Adams i Sul,ivan N43 1-atda Crap eta xi lir+g gip skr eJ Desfgmand-conEtni tlon.funded Ent a[EvagAld9walk 1 3 ` +4s+e SR-27 Be61 eiroadli- xlete-afl-no€##-ef€e-of street 1 444hAve Crfyalmit 4./i-oedf it =I'A 4404"Ava gOwdish 3aKt& NR h alde Complele-gapa-lp-e.Idowalk-un north-slde-ors.treet N o r#kw--So rt lf41-R G u to a 1 Fepa#ret I- !Loop eaa bap-iirk f-s ept-esFlee! --I Fitroc Appkwaay gn-Ava Both-Odes sdstf .n.11, a' i lioales-portfone•ef a 6cwdleh i it-Ava 44.11:1Ava f1oth-BIies neater 4e e-pro4Me€ `., agso6‘40-r d41-84ra9l Bvtdfsfl i�u Ave j # Ave {aFfia8 Maly} Spfagde one-sktelh-Odes To-eomed-te'llbrery AdaJ 4 u� Gaps-eR-ene bell eshl 0109F eer # "Al a 22 AV6 both-sid96 1. iih-r+9a4.'sH o-R Sullivan 1 44w-Ave 46"-Awe - - Waet.ekfe t<2sr-sfda4id&realk-9sri 1-raadw y S-agli:e Be4lwsldes -. Long kMlftalow Boone Fuktire-G•ohool end-row—park—s-11.0 erg-T-g-m-Pf f—I 'r$Rt MoiDenale Barker One-9.r—both Bid$$ Cool ;;Iiiiii-iliy-Siiireti --9$e O I r^7 hAixaJan j F-aneftaF V+i Oil) fvGlasion WUI w Pia Fee ®.silo-sodas cenoects IQ Valley-Miss-lon-Park darmec.s Valla 4-isiKF- a-k-to Mission gewslie} Rrf akti Cd WerIesla}r - Sbflryyaie Git}41auKIM NOM Sail h.elde.cidOWeik•exlsta -- 1- "Ave. Bo dfs<a tinrae ao-ltksfdga .! 2.4'-Ave IJN.uva slti WJlt.tn Bet#-idas aohooig — - —f;2-4"-,eve Uolori t=tiPeS Soul II.elde School 141ee entiet.ihreugh-ai aeli 15 4'°-Nia i2lr�es Evergroarr 9aa slde v1+3++k' i° d(r°^lrriwit ".oI ditisoult-64:aeslr -at-SCI-2;r. oFtf3-- -06111-ffiiteG Aesees-Ie ar4c- ica once-cahoot, Bark S ,ragide-Awe Broadway-Ave Qr:e r a#ft-ar r:e 8rdodw200-lr+ilaR f Jf err for-deslgnr 2J Ilan w LAlm rn llanx�Avo #both sides 11 Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 25 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan I; - - ;CIS'9-11.4,3- IIy-of-Sp.oksne e1aey•13l yete i elwrork Prr sie Fs —� Streak From To a R o,rs�r�aa�E iKt-PoteotthI Improvement's Park Sharp IFaFl1#F 3[4Fa i Access 4o-seioalneec�sF I I feeFeac# ess ng aS Vista DaIROn ge#eel;-failreed 6.4.5.61R9 VI NIIssIBri Bro-adway W4114614108 0444- giciadway S r2 +1A O e-er-beI#a-s s COaAeol Sch o1 Ro+lianalfslf e 3 hi .(e{r43 Botivdial 3411'Ave DisI marl-Mica Boo -sldes prcJ6CC 4.3' g49{green+ gar-car Troll I Ret144des I - 11.4.2 Ancillary Facilities Ancillary facilities add to the safety and comfort of using walking and bicycling as modes of transportation. Ancillary facilities can include bicycle parking, showers and lockers, transit features and bicycle and pedestrian maps. Crosswalk design can aid in increasing visibility through the use of specific striping patterns and lights. The City of Spokane Valley will use the following methods to address ancillary features: a. Pedestrian Features: Encourage that pedestrian crossing facilities, including crosswalks and signage, alert both motorists and pedestrians to the presence of the facility. Enror and-wWork with developers and utilities to remove existing hazards such as light poles, utility boxes, etc., from the sidewalk. Combine existing driveway cuts when possible and limit the installation of new driveways. Where appropriate, constrain roadway width with bulb- outs and tighter right turns at intersections to slow vehicles as they approach areas with high pedestrian volumes. Provide sidewalks or pedestrian paths between neighborhoods and commercial or public destinations where appropriate. Encourage clearly identified safe walking paths between public sidewalks and commercial buildings. 1-ir.neirar:ie -•Ir+lll.r ImplemenYAtini, Ore Ysar Ongoiin- *--Metrla educesl nuffgercf—ved-e-striagwetii ie accids-F lnsrease nur er--of pedestrian-V-4s, . ReepeRSi le: Public Works, CommI-Rity-Devataolent-De} Rer;t b. Bicycle Parking: Continue to require bicycle racks with new development. Consider incentives to address lack of facilities at existing developments when proposed tenant improvements or expansions do not necessarily generate a requirement for new spaces. Consider developing standards for the size of bicycle parking spaces, clearance, aisles, signs, anchoring, non-interference with pedestrian circulation, and weather protection. Mat-ic ecel oerease-e isysle-palF4 in spae€ -t1 re 21-e-6114e-- gyT 4—Respoosibleerrimunity-Deveta-pmegt-Iglepactmeat c. Shower and Locker Facilities: Continue to C-qapc-I-illate-coofdinate with Spokane % ,:LzY County Commute Trip Reduction program to encourage shower and locker facilities as tenant benefits and to encourage employers to consider partnering with nearby gym facilities for use of existing shower facilities. n',efrarrFe-Rlltal lemefltation--Oue 1Year--Orngolrr{i Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 26 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan —Me u9g-est•i included-en-the. It 's-13F/ R-veb-page- • Rer,#er+sible emm pit +-Ievelepa3ent-1 e ri mute Trip-[ adu ti rrr p-r-Ggrarri b. Transit Features: Continue as an active partner with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and the Spokane Transit Authority to encourage the accommodation of bike lockers and bikes on transit vehicles. ■Tme ,ar�; -Irla�e-apd eRgea ;Sic: Incresedi �arl � #rays t-ueiaisl • Ree a sible: Ce ciAMIty-DvelaprEteilt Department 11.4.x3 Education and Encouragement Unfortunately, too many bicyclists in the United States lack the basic skills or knowledge to safely ride a bicycle in traffic. Many people are, quite simply, afraid of bicycling on streets. Bicycle education programs are designed to increase bicycle safety by improving the ability to ride with traffic as well as ileighteairnprove motorist awareness. The difficulties faced in helping people develop this skill and knowledge sterns from the wide range of age groups that require this training and the necessity to tailor the programs to each one. Bicycle education programs should be directed at children bicyclists, adult bicyclists and motorists. The City of Spokane Valley will use the following methods to address education and encouragement: a. Child Education and Encouragement: In conjunction with the Health District, school districts and other interested organizations, encourage development of bicycle education programs for several age groups, or, use existing programs that have demonstrated effectiveness. Programs could be incorporated into existing summer parks programming and existing school programming. Programs could include bicycle helmet safety information, maintenance and repair, safe riding habits, bicycle rides, etc. More specifically, students in grades K-3 could be taught basic pedestrian skills, stranger danger, crossing residential streets, using pedestrian push buttons, taking a school bus, etc. Older students in Grades 4 to 5 could learn bike safety and handling skills, including bike operation on streets with supervised bike rides on neighborhood streets. Later, in Grades 7-9, students could learn basic mobility skills of how to get around town including using transit for utilitarian and recreational trips (e.g., how to read a bus schedule, execute a transfer, take rapid transit), and more on safe bicycling practices. In tenth grade, many students take driver's education. The driver's education curriculum could include focused instruction on how motorists should interact with pedestrians and bicyclists, how to predict their movements, pass safely, learn when different modes have the right-of-way, etc. •Ta+ of e=-lfliEial-Impie er�ta#�en €one yea -Ar ual tipr atee-and-rsvlev,(s. 4--Metras -Currirulu leveloped: bicycle events) he l yllll atlon-a ex.oing-I;r cRs, 0.—Responsitle-----Joint-e €e between-Ccicm-Rtin-it Desretoprn ntrtk+e--larks Depa tm t1 the pak-ar RegiaRal lealth-1-iga th afe-Rout ta-SGheD4F ram, stl}e l ellstrIGt rwl--inter ted-er ar tier► such-as-bl a cl�+la -ete- b. Adult Education and Encouragement: agether Continue to partner with the Health District, Sherriff's Departmentl.SCOPE and ather-interested organizations, o.develop adult pedestrian and bicycle program(s) which could include a public awareness campaign focused on responsible road behavior. The campaign could be directed to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike and should make use of public service space from newspapers, television, radio, bus advertising, posters and flyers mailed in Adopted TBD Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 27 of 32 • City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan utility bills. In addition, promote community events such as Bike to Work Week, charity bike rides, costume rides, bike fairs and bicycle rodeos. Include bicycle safety checks and safety information. Incorporate "share the road" signs where appropriate on City streets and include "sharing the road" or other safety campaign information on the City's webpage. #--anef e`Ir itlaI pfsn er+laticn: one year. Annua fi ates-and4autews, a—M tric: inforFaat lor-developed-and- sted on-iiae;lisyeie-eveat{s}.heid e--Resperisitil feint effort-between-411044y, tale-Spokae--i egionat Heal-t#-DIstciati-ll h-efFiff'a-Depa€# axrt - +to=asted-or ilizraWn + -ate 141,e-dabs, eta 11.4.34 Enforcement While laws that address bicyclists' behavior and safety are in place, they are sometimes not fully enforced. Effective enforcement leads to a safer environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike. The following methods will address enforcement of this Bike and Pedestrian Master Program: a. Law Enforcement: Work with the Sherriff's Department to develop a policy to include the City's intent to enforce existing laws affecting pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist responsibilities, including parking in bike lanes but especially those relating to drunken driving, careless driving, speeding and failing to yield. .-1I a#ame-Fnitial lrnpiamer tazie-H merle-t .two-years. update -and reY.er, - f--Ret4G lty-#ollcy--do le ed ficl adopted • Respo slble;�lalnt-effe be ee: i}e-City ancilaw-enfafc necit- b. School Crossings: Continue assisting school districts to develop their Safe Routes to School programs to ensure safe crossing activity at school sites. Engage SCOPE as an additional presence where needed. ▪ Times:rar e--Initial-Imp er4atior:: One Wa ears—ArrrtuaI Jpdates--and ie Te plates-for-erff+ r=ceoe-ht piece of Safe Routes40-50eol-.pla -de-elepe -any# stea l--f ethed-for eordlriattng-wilh SCOPE Ide-pitified, ■ Resper te--ieiilt-#eft etweeR the City, the scIiooi districts, the-Safe-R otes-t ck}eei {grogram ands-iieterested-ergarzi tloris-such as bike cubs, etc. c. Facility Upkeep: Continue existing program of regular maintenance of street and sidewalk facilities. Ensure that asphalt pavement overlays are flush with the concrete gutter and that utility covers are flush with the pavement. :4 eframe: In+tie�I pleE;7e��tatl n- as lea --A t u dates ad revie�vb. Metric: Facilitpteef , as oneible: PLlhifc Works DepaFtments� Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 28 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.4.4 Implementation and Funding Various portions of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Program will be able to be implemented immediately (such as paint applied when a road is resurfaced, continuing existing requirements, coordination with other agencies, etc.). Other portions will require further study, possible neighborhood input and detailed engineering design. Table 11.4.1' summarizes potential steps involved with implementation: Table 14.4.7.1 EtPMP Implementation Summary Program or Possible Implementation Stop(s) Lead Department Improvement Further studies to determine exact facility Community Development; Public Works Improvements to be implemented Neighborhood Input Community Development Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Improvements Engineering design work Public Works Funding source identification Community Development; Public Works Environmental review Community Development; Public Works Application of requirements with development Community Development; Project Developers Ancillary Facilities - - _ - _- - __ -. Coordination with other agencies Community Development Education and �,_. .------- ----- ---— -- ' - - - - Encouragement Programs Program research and development Community Development;Parks Department Coordination with other agencies In developing Community Development programs Enforcement Programs -. - - - - - - - - Funding Source identification Community Development; Public Works As referenced in Table 11.4. -1 above, funding is required for implementing many portions of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. Table 11.4.6-2 summarizes potential funding sources. More detailed descriptions of these sources, including match requirements and application timing, are contained in Appendix 43. Review of several funding programs reveals that while each grant announcement details specific criteria for funding, certain common threads are present. When applying for funding, the following criteria should be addressed: a. Partnership Funding is limited. Therefore, grant sources encourage and support cooperative regional projects and planning efforts that integrate housing, transportation, environmental impact and economic development. Projects that pull together public and private entities and multiple stakeholders are favored. c. Risk Reduction Crash data quantifies dangerous stretches of pedestrian and bicycle commute routes. Increasing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists encourages the larger community to consider these alternative modes of transportation. Projects designed to address a clear and demonstrated safety hazard are therefore encouraged. d. Location Bike and pedestrian facilities that link residential areas with schools, recreation facilities, and shopping areas result in a large benefit to a community. Encouraging alternative Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 29 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan transportation to daily activities reduces car commutes and pollution. Well located projects also consider and provide for multi-generational users. e. Broad Project Scope Developing and encouraging use of an overall bike and pedestrian system is an on-going effort. Implementing a successful bike and pedestrian master program includes identification of facility improvements, provisions for education, encouragement and enforcement, and program follow-up that provides for evaluation and adjustments over time. 1 Table 11.4.21; BPMP Potential Funding Sources I Program Description Federal Funding Sources Enacted in August 2005;possible revisions 2011-2012 Authorizes Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety,and transit Programs within SAFETEA-LU relative to bicycle and pedestrian improvements: • Highway Safety Improvement Program Administered through WSDOT--may be Invitational. Funds can be used for improvements to address fatal and serious collisions. Eligible projects may Include pedestrian facilities, traffic signal improvements,and signage. • STP-Transportation Enhancements Project selection through SRTC;grant funds administered through WSDOT. Funds can be Federal Transportation used for projects which enhance the surface transportation experience and includes Funding: provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities,safety and education programs and conversion of abandoned railway corridors to trails. Safe,Accountable, Flexible,Efficient • Congestion MitigationlAlr Quality Program Transportation Equity Act— Project selection through SRTC.;grant funds administered through WSDOT Funds can be a Legacy for Users used for projects that reduce congestion and improve air quality,such as sidewalk Infill, (SAFETEA-LU) transit improvements,and bicycle facilities. • Recreational Trails Program (A new federal Administered through Washington's Recreation and Conservation Office and may be used nspoftation authorization for maintenance and restoration of existing trails,development of tralislde facilities, (r ba spl replace SAFETatio construction of new trails and acquisition of property for trails. LU in the near future. This • Safe Routes to School T new bill will likely change Administered through WSDOT. Funds can be used to improve walking routes to schools. the funding programs described here.) — • New Freedom Initiative Administered through WSDOT or STA. Funds can be used to enhance access to transit stops such as construction of sidewalks,ramps,and bus shelters. • Job Access and Reverse Commute Program(5316) Administered through STA. The program was established to address transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-Income persons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Could be used to install bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities near low-income housing or high density employment centers. e Surface Transportation Program(STP) Project selection through SRTC;grant funds administered through WSDOT. May be used on any federally classified arterial including bridge projects and transit capital projects. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 30 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.2$ BPMP Potential Funding Sources Program Description — I Eligible transportation related projects include streets,sidewalks,and recreational facilities Priority given to activities that benefit low-and moderate-income persons, prevent or eliminate slums Community Development or blight,and address community development needs Block Grants(CDBG) , Administered annually through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; administered locally through Spokane County's Community Services, Housing and Community Development Department Spokane Valley typically receives around$300,000 per year River Trails and National Parks Service program Conservation Assistance Provides planning assistance to establish and restore greenways, rivers,trails,watersheds and open Program(RICA) space Provides funding for planning,acquiring and constructing outdoor recreation areas and facilities Land and Water including trails, restrooms,parking areas and open spaces Conservation Fund (LWCF) Administered by the state's Recreation and Conservation Office Transportation, Community Funds projects that Improve transportation efficiency,reduce environmental impacts,reduce the need and System Preservation for costly Infrastructure Improvements,and ensure efficient access to jobs. Past funding included Program(TCSP) bicycle and pedestrian pathways,sidewalks,streetscapes,corridor improvements, pedestrian overpasses,and school safety projects Energy Efficiency and Funds projects that improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions in Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) their communities Funds highway,bridge, public transportation,passenger and freight rail projects TIGER II Discretionary Geared towards large scare,job creating projects Administered through USDOT i Funds the planning and design of TIGER II Discretionary improvements TIGER II Planning Emphasizes livable,sustainable communities. Administered through USDOT and HUD State Funding Sources Funds sidewalk projects on federally classified routes that improve pedestrian safety,access, TCB Urban Sidewalk connectivity,and address system continuity Program Administered through the Transportation Improvement Board Washington Wildlife and Funds a range of land protection and outdoor recreation,Including building regional trails Recreation Program- Recreation Administered through the state's Recreation and Conservation Office. ' Focused on reducing collisions Traffic Safety Grants Funds can be used for implementation of traffic safety strategies, public education campaigns, and equipment and materials Administered through the Washington Traffic Safety Commission office To address collisions resulting in fatalities and serious injuries Pedestrian and Bicycle Can be used for bicycle lanes,sidewalks,joint use paths,safe routes to transit,educational efforts Safely Grants Administered through the WSDOT's Highways and Local Programs office Provides up to$500 per school for training,equipment and supplies for school zone crossing guards Mini Grants for Schools Administered through the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 31 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11,4,26. BPMP Potential Funding Sources Program Description Provides up to$7500 per school zone for the installation of school zone flashing beacons at Flashing Lights for Schools elementary schools Administered through the Washington Traffic Safety Commission To encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicle trips Trip Reduction Provides up to$100,000 per year for reducing vehicle trips Performance Program Administered through the WSDOT Local Funding Sources Annually receives 0.42%of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax attributable Trails and Path Fund Funds are restricted for constructing new trails and paths throughout the City The City typically receives$8,000 annually for this fund Annual capital Real Estate Excise Tax(REET)funds have been used as match for leveraging other state and Improvement projects, federal funds. parks projects, Simple projects(painting,sweeping,vegetation removal)can be accomplished with scheduled public maintenance projects works projects and maintenance activities Builds on continued partnering and community Involvement Non-profit organizations, Works well for smaller pieces of overall projects Land Trusts,Businesses Good fit when applying for and leveraging federal or state funds Other Funding Sources Provides for bike paths,rail trails,bike parks,big-city cycling initiatives,and innovative,high-profile bicycling projects serving as national models Bikes Belong Program Maximum award is$10,000 Administered by The Conservation Fund Provides funds for planning and design of greenways, including unpaved trail development American Greenways Maximum award is$2,500;most awards range from$500 to$1,500 Program Administered by The Conservation Fund Foundations typically either donate funds and,support to other organization,or provide a source of Foundations funding for their own charitable purposes Further research available at Foundation Center website • 11.4.5 Monitoring and Modifications Monitoring the effectiveness of the overall BPMP w-.. car: be accomplished as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan review and update. Modifications to the Bicycle Map, the Pedestrian Map, the project implementation tables and other programs described in this Chapter can be accomplished as needed to achieve established goals. The City's web page w: be updated with notices of projects that are in the planning, design, build or maintenance phase. Education and enforcement activities will be highlighted on the web page. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 32 of 32 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Appendix 1: Prioritization Criteria and Network Improvements Introduction This appendix identifies the prioritization criteria used to determine where to focus available funding and staff time to implement bicycle and pedestrian projects. Priority is given to those projects anticipated to serve the most number of people and to contribute to overall safety. Facility improvements are categorized as short-term and long-term projects based on need and ease of implementation. Exact timing of improvements may vary depending on factors such as funding and coordination with other private and public development projects. Prioritization Criteria — Bicycle Network Bicycle Facility Prioritization Criteria • Criteria Reasoning Points Available I Mobility and Access(Total of 20 Points) Estimated volume of existing or potential Projects that serve the most number of bicycle users people should receive priority. 0-5 Completes a missing segment of a bicycle path Projects that provide a continuous 0-5 bicycle network are desirable. Provides access to major destinations Getting people where they want to go is (shopping,schools,transit,trails,etc.) Important. 0—5 Connects existing routes/eliminates gaps Projects that provide a continuous and/or barriers(i.e. 1-90,the Spokane River, 0—5 Bicycle network are desirable. railroad) Safety(Total of 20 Points) • Corrects or improves specific issue areas Projects that reduce or eliminate an 0-10 existing hazard should have priority. Routes with higher vehicular traffic have Improves routes with higher vehicular traffic greater potential safety conflicts that 0-5 should be reduced. Provides an alternative route to a higher volume Routes with lower vehicular volumes and/or higher speed facility and speeds have less safety conflicts. 0 5 Ability to Implement(Total of 10 Points) Project has all or partial funding,or is likely to Identified funding facilitates quicker be funded Implementation. 0 5 Route has design and environmental reviews Projects further along in the design and initiated review phase can be implemented 0-5 sooner, I Maximum Possible Score: 50 Points Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Network Improvements -- Bicycle City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements Short Term Projects East–West Routes 1 I Valleyway Avenue Flora Road Park Road Bicycle Friendly Enhanced crossing treatments at 6 Route locations. 2 Alki Avenue Barker Road Flora Road Bicycle Friendly Route 3 12th Avenue Sullivan Road University Road Bicycle Friendly Enhanced crossing treatments at 3 Route locations_. 4 13'"Avenue University Road Woodruff Road Bicycle Friendly Route 5 24th/25th Avenue Sullivan Road University Road Bicycle Friendly Enhanced crossing treatment at 1 I Route location • 6a Sprague Avenue • University Road Pines Rd- Bicycle lanes a,b,c"indicates portions of _ connected route. 6b Sprague Avenue Pines Rd Evergreen Rd. 6c _ Sprague Avenue j Evergreen Rd Sullivan Rd 7 Mission Avenue ' Pines Road Sullivan Road Bicycle lanes 8 Mission Avenue Flora Road East City Limits I Bicycle lanes Design funded 9 North Greenacres Centennial Trail East City Limits Shared Use Path Design partially funded Enhanced Path I crossing treatments at 1 location. Mirabeau Adjacent to railroad line Enhanced 10 Millwood Path Fancher Road Parkway Shared Use Path crossing treatments at 3 locations _ Design funded Sprague Enhanced crossing treatment at 3 11 1 Appleway Path University Road Avenue/ Shared Use Path locations Tschirley Road 12 f Sprague Ave Sullivan Rd Sprague/Corbin Bicycle lanes Already designed North–South Routes _ 13 Progress Road 24th Avenue Mission Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route 14 Blake Road Highway 27 Valleyway Bicycle Friendly Avenue Route 15a Pierce Road 32nd Avenue 4"'Avenue Bicycle Friendly _ Route 15b 4th Avenue Pierce Road Skipworth Road Bicycle Friendly "a,b, c"indicates portions of Route connected route. 15c Skipworth Road 4th Avenue Appleway Path Bicycle Friendly Route 16 Long Road Appleway Montgomery Bicycle Friendly Avenue Avenue Route • 17a Marguerite Road Mission Avenue Harrington Bicycle Friendly Avenue Route 17b Hutchinson Road Harrington Riverside Bicycle Friendly Avenue Avenue Route "a,b,c,d"Indicates portions of 17c Harrington Avenue Marguerite Hutchinson Bicycle Friendly connected route. Road Road Route 17d Riverside Avenue Hutchinson Argonne Road Bicycle Friendly _ Road Route 18a University Road Sprague Ave Mission Avenue Bicycle lanes a,b,c°indicates portions of connected route. _ _ - — 18b University Rd 16"'Ave j Sprague Ave Bicycle lanes 18c University Rd i 32nd Ave I 16'"Ave I Bicycle lanes Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements • 19a I Park Road Sprague Broadway Ave Bicycle lanes a, b,c°Indicates portions of Avenue connected route. i9b ' Park Rd 1 Broadway Ave I Indiana Ave Bicycle lanes 19c . Park Rd i Indiana Ave Rutter Ave Bicycle lanes 20 I Evergreen Road 1 16th Avenue 32"d Avenue Bicycle lanes 21 1 Flora Road Mission Avenue I Appleway Path I Bicycle lanes 22 I Pines Road 16th Ave 1 24th Ave , J Bicycle lanes Long Term Projects East-West Routes Bicycle Friendly 23a Indiana Avenue East City Limits Arc Street Route 23b Tschirley Street Indiana Avenue Baldwin , Bicycle Friendly "a,b,c"Indicates portions of Avenue _ _ Route connected route. 23c I Baldwin Avenue Arc Street Flora Road _ Bicycle Friendly Route 24a 4th Avenue Park Road Carnahan Road Bicycle Friendly Route 24b Carnahan Road 4th Avenue 6th Avenue Bicycle Friendly "a,b,c"Indicates portions of Route connected route. 24c 6w Avenue Carnahan Road West City Bicycle Friendly Limns Route - -- Bicycle Friendly - -' — -- -- ------ -- 25 16 v,Avenue Sullivan Road i Ratchford Drive 26 1 Boone Avenue University Road Pines Road Bicycle Friendly Route 27a 1 3`d Avenue Flora Road Tschirley Road Bicycle Friendly Route "a,b,c°indicates portions of 27b 4th Avenue Tschlrley Road Barker Road Bicycle Friendly connected route. Route 28 137L138tAvenue Bowdish Road Pines Road Bicycle Friendly Route 29 Mission Avenue Fancher Road Vista Road Bicycle Friendly Route _ _ _ Bicycle Friendly 30 Liberty Avenue Vista Road Park Road Route 31 • Railroad Avenue Stanley Road Fancher Road Bicycle Friendly i Route I Knox Avenue Vista Road Sargent Road Route Friendly 32a � _ f Route 32b ; Sargent Road Knox Avenue Montgomery Bicycle Friendly °a, b,c°indicates portions of __ Avenue Route connected route. 32c ` Montgomery Avenue Sargent Road Argonne Road Bicycle Friendly Route 33 4'"Avenue Ro an Mica University Road I Bicycle Friendly Route 34 I - — __ Sprague Avenue Sullivan Road East City Limits 1 Bicycle cle lane { West City Evergreen 35a Wellesley Avenue Limits Road Bicycle lane "a,b,c"indicates portions of 35b , Wellesley Avenue Progress Road Flora Road Bicycle lane connected route. 36 8th Avenue West City Park Road I I Bicycle lane Limits ' 37 3rd Avenue Wet City Fancher Road Bicycle lane One-way westbound West City 38 Broadway Avenue Fancher Road j Bicycle lane 1 Limits 39 Montgomery Avenue 1 Argonne Road I Woodruff Road I Bicycle lanes I Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # $(feel From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements - 40 Broadway Avenue Sullivan Road Moore Road Bicycle lanes 41 Montgomery Avenue University Road Wilber Road Bicycle lanes 42 Mission Avenue Marguerite Willow Road Bicycle lanes Road 43 Broadway Avenue Flora Road East City Limits Bicycle lanes 44 Euclid Avenue I Sullivan Road East City Limits Bicycle lanes Eve 45 32nd Avenue Highway 27 Road reen Bicycle lanes 46 ' Mansfield Avenue Pines Road Houk Road Bicycle lanes 47 Indiana Avenue Sullivan Road Avvenue enue Bicycle lanes 48 Trent Path Park Road East City Limits Shared Use Path Along south side of roadway on Railroad ROW,requires 2 bridges • 49 32"dAvenue Rdhman-Mica Glenn Road Bicycle lanes 50 Mansfield Ave Houk Rd Mansfield Ave Bicycle lanes terminus 51 Sprague Path I Appleway West City Shared Use Path I Adjacent to railroad line Avenue Limits • North—South Routes 52 Rotchford 18—Avenue 4th Avenue Bicycle Friendly Drive Route 53 I Park Road Liberty Avenue Rutter Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route 54 Vista Road Mission Avenue Liberty Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route Conklin Sprague Bicycle Friendly 55 Road Broadway Avenue Avenue Route 56 I Road Sprague Avenue 4th Avenue Bicycle Lane 57 Locust Road Valleyway Avenue Mission Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route 58a Farr Road Broadway Avenue 8u"Avenue Bicycle Friendly Route • 58b 8th Avenue Farr Road Woodruff Road Bicycle Friendly "a,b,c"Indicates portions of _Route connected route, 58c Woodruff e Avenue 16th Avenue Bicycle Friendly Road Route - Stanley Broadway t Bicycle Friendly 59 Railroad Avenue Road Avenue Route University University I Bicycle Friendly 60a Mission Avenue Pedestrian- Road Route Bicycle Bridge University University Pedestrian- Montgomery Bicycle Friendly °a, b,c'Indicates portions of 60b connected route. Road Bicycle Bridge Avenue Route 60c University Montgomery Avenue Trent Avenue Bicycle Lane Road Mamer Mlrabeau tai Road-Nora Mission Avenue Parkway Bicycle Friendly Avenue Pedestrian- Route Bicycle Bridge _ Thierman m Appleway Bicycle Friendly 62 Street 8th Avenue Avenue Route South City Bicycle Friendly 63 I Park Road 8th Avenue Limits Route Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements d Bicycle Friendly 64 Flora Road Appleway Path 3 Avenue Route • 65 Rlvernay Montgomery Avenue Eden Road Bicycle Friendly Avenue 66 Road Rutter Avenue 3`d Avenue Bicycle lane 67 Pines Rd 32nd Ave 40r"Ave Bicycle Friendly Route 68 Conklin Rd . 4th Ave Sprague Ave Bicycle lane 69 Road Carnahan 6th Avenue 141'Avenue Bicycle lane Possible climbing lane only 70 Roadish Dishman Mica Road Mission Avenue Bicycle lanes 71 Barker Road i 8'"Avenue Boone Avenue ' Bicycle lanes - 72 Barker Road_ Spokane River Trent Avenue Bicycle lanes 73 RoDdOnald 16-Avenue Mission Avenue Bicycle lanes 74 Flora Road , Wellesley Avenue Euclid Avenue Bicycle lanes i 75 Evergreen 1 Trent Avenue North City Bicycle lanes Road i limits Evergreen I Mansfield 76 Road Indiana Avenue Avenue Bicycle lanes Extension 77 I Pines Road Mirabeau Parkway Trent Avenue Bicycle lanes Requires WSDOT approval 78 Dishman Appleway Avenue j South City Shared Use Path Adjacent to railroad line _ Mica Path limits , 79 Sullivan Path Centennial Trail Wellesley Shared Use Path Avenue 80 Flora Path Mission Avenue Centennial Trail Shared Use Path Along west side of roadway 81 long Road Crossing over 190 Pedestrian-bicycle Bridge l bridge Mirabeau I Pedestrian-bicycle 82 Parkway Crossing over 1-90 bridge Bridge 83 University Crossing over 190 Pedestrian-bicycle Road Bridge bridge Trent Path Pedestrian bicycle 84 Bridge at Crossing over railroad and Millwood Trail bridge Millwood - -Trent Path -- — - - 85 Bridge at Crossing over Spokane River and Pedestrian bicycle Spokane Centennial Trail bridge River Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Prioritization Criteria — Pedestrian Network Pedestrian Facility Prioritization Criteria Criteria Reasoning Points Available Project Setting(Total of 20 Points) Projects that enable direct access to transit Located within%a-mile of a transit route increase the availability and use of alternative 0-5 modes of transportation. Connects residential neighborhoods to activity centers Gelling people where they want to go Is 0 5 important. Completes a missing segment of a pedestrian path Projects that provide a continuous pedestrian 0-5 network are desirable. Estimated volume of existing or potential pedestrian traffic Projects that will serve a higher pedestrian 0-5 population are advantageous. Safety(Total of 15 Points) Part of an Identified'Safe Route to School' Improving safety for children is top priority. 0-5 Projects that reduce or eliminate an existing Eliminates or Improves an existing barrier hazard andlor that provide a shorter path of 0-5 travel should have priority. Since many destinations are most easily accessed by arterials, Increasing pedestrian Increases safety on a classified road safety on these direct paths is important. In D-5 addition,many pedestrian/vehicle collision incidents occur on these routes where vehicle speed and volume are highest. • � Ability to Implement(Total of 15 Points) Project has all or partial funding, or Is likely to be funded Identified funding facilitates quicker 0-5 implementation. Route has design and environmental reviews initiated Projects further along In the design and review 0-5 phase can be implemented sooner. Projects that demonstrate collaboration and Project involves multiple sponsors cooperation with multiple interest groups build 0-5 community and entitlement. Maximum Possible Score: 50 Points Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Network Improvements —Pedestrian City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements Short Term Projects East—West Routes 1 Wellesley McDonald Evergreen Both sides 2 Wellesley Sullivan Isenhart North side South side sidewalk exists 3 Buckeye Park Vista One or both sides Schools in area 4 Montgomery +1-Dartmouth Carlisle Both sides 5 Montgomery East of Carlisle Pines Crosses railroad 6 Indiana Pines +1-McDonald Both sides 7 Indiana 1 Mirabeau +1-Adams North side South side sidewalk exists 8 Broadway Havana rancher North side South side sidewalk exists 9 Broadway Fancher Heacock South Side North side sidewalk exists 10 Broadway +1-Moore Conklin South Side North side sidewalk exists 11 Broadway +1-Conklin Flora North side South side sidewalk exists 12 Broadway Flora Long Both sides 13 16tAve Sullivan Rotchford North side South side sidewalk exists 24th Complete existing gaps;school 14 24 Ave Adams Sullivan North side Design and construction funded East of Evergreen,sidewalk 15 32ntlAve SR-27 Best already exists on north side of street 16 44th Ave City limit Woodruff 17 44`^Ave Bowdish Sands North side Complete gaps In sidewalk on I north side of street Nort h—South Routes 18 Fancher +1-Cataldo Boone Gap In front of school 19 Farr Appleway 8°i Ave Both sides Funded for desig and construction to 4th Ave a,b,c°indicates portions of 20a Bowdish 8°i Ave 16th Ave Both sides connected route.To provide safe access to middle school 20b Bowdish 1 6th Ave 24t Ave 21 Perrine Main Sprague One or both sides To connect to library 22 Adams 4° Ave 24° Ave Gaps on one or both sides; 3 schools on segment 23 Evergreen 116 32°°Ave Both sides With road construction 24 Sullivan ( 4T Ave 16`"Ave West side East side sidewalk exists 25 Conklin II Broadway Sprague Both sides 26 Long Mission ' Boone Future school and new park site Long Term Projects • East—West Routes Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements 27 Trent McDonald Barker One or both sides Could be replaced by Shared Use Path (see Bicycle network) • 28 Mission Fancher Vista Both sides 29 Mission Willow Pierce Both sides Connects to Valley Mission Park 30 Mission I Bowdish +1-Union Both sides Connects Valley Mission Park to commercial area on Pines 31 ' Wellesley Sunnyvale I City Boundary North side South side sidewalk exists 32 121hAve Bowdish Union Both sides 33 24`h Ave University Wilbur Both sides Two schools 34 241h Ave ! Union _ Pines f South side School , Nice residential through street; 35 24`h Ave Pines Evergreen One side r would need treatment to solve 1 i difficult crossing at SR-27 I . North—South Routes Access to park area and school, 36a Park Sprague Ave Broadway Ave One or both sides Broadway to Indiana is funded for design. 36b Park Broadway Ave I Indiana Ave Both sides - -- - - I — - 37 Park Sharp Dalton Both sides Access to schools;need safe railroad crossing 38 Vista Dalton t-90 I Both sides School;railroad crossing ' 39 Vista Mission Broadway Both sides 40 Farr Broadway Sprague One or both sides Connects school 41 Bowdish 24u1 Ave Dlshman-Mica Both sides Portions included as short-term project 42 Evergreen Forker I Trent Both sides Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 8 Appendix 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Appendix Facility Design Guidelines Introduction This appendix is intended to be used as a resource to determine appropriate treatments for bicycle facilities in the City of Spokane Valley. It is organized in two sections: 1. Toolbox. The toolbox describes treatment options and criteria that should be applied to determine whether the treatment is best suited for a particular facility. 2. Cross Sections. The second section illustrates several existing cross sections of roadways in the City recommended as bicycle facilities, and shows how those cross sections could be adjusted to accommodate different bicycle facilities. Toolbox The toolbox provides design guidelines and criteria for seven general types of bicycle treatments: o 845061e-Betitev:4;elsBicycle Friendly Routes (Table 1) o Bicycle Lanes (Table 2) o Cycle Tracks (Table 3) e Bicycle Intersection Treatments (Table 4) e Mid-Block Crossing Treatments (Table 5) o Wayfinding (Table 6) • Shared Use Bicycle Paths (Table 7) These treatments are not exclusive of one another, and are generally used in combination. For example, a isoutev.arklbgsle friendlv,_rc or bicycle lane should also include wayfinding and intersection treatments. Resources: The following resources are referenced in the toolbox developed for the City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Master P--IarwPraorrn fBPMP]and can be accessed for additional information: o National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Website: http://nacto.orglcities-for-cycling/design-guidet o Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design. Prepared by Alta Planning and Design, IBPI, and Portland State University. July 2009. e American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bicycle Guide, 1999 (a draft 2010 update is currently under review and waiting adoption) e Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 e National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. 2006 e Minneapolis Bicycle Facility Manual. May 2010. e Safety Effects of Marked vs Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncrontrolled Locations. November 2000. Zegeer, Charles, et al. I' Photos used in this toolbox ace-sarpIIled l -ASS.aI teswere provided by a contract d encinearirp consultant unless otherwise noted. Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11-- Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 33 Appendix-.y?: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 1:: Bi:sy-e e- ral lIsBlcvcle Ft gangly Routes Bicycle Friendly Boti1eva-rd Roll e . _ I Deseription1: Roadways with low speed and low volume that have been optimized for cycling.The treatments recommended for i;6 .;:; .ulayar.dsbcycfe friendly-routes improve through movements for bicyclists and other non-motorized modes,while Cil£couraging through movements by vehicles. _ _ Criteria: • Streets where traffic volumes less than 3,000 per day, although less than 1,500 Is preferred • Streets where the posted traffic speed is 25 mph or less • Two lane roadways(centerline is optional) Typical Applications • a. Shared Lane Markings(or"Sharrows") Shared lane markings are used to indicate that a facility Is intended for shared bicycle and vehicle use.The markings raise awareness of the presence of bicyclist on a facility to motor vehicle drivers, and also indicate the proper location for bicyclists in the lane(for example,the sharrows should be placed with adequate space for bicyclist to avoid being doored by on-street parking). .l.`,i 'i-...-''''' f- ' ' a fa • Estimated Cost Range:$100 to$250 per marking depending on materials b. Traffic Calming Traffic calming techniques are used to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on roadways.Techniques may Include: traffic Islands (pictured on the left and right respectively),curb extensions,lower speed limit,painted or patterned pavement ': ; I.. : L 4, ,fir • . 4 I '1 ... .-1. 'V •.. l r..' {5 1li4irai.4' L - Cost Range:$2,000 to$15,000 plus landscaping for traffic islands I 1 Fundamentals of caicyGle-Beu;c..ardBioycle Friendly kp411n Planning and Design. Published by IBPI,Alta Planning and Design, and Portland State University.July 2009, Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 33 1 Appendix 32: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Friendly $^"' Routes#es c. Traffic Reduction/Diverters Traffic reduction is used to maintain or reduce motor vehicle volumes on designated kl•Oy•.ra.brWIW aidalkc Js tissstidNsouies. Typical applications include restricted entry at Intersections to bicyclists only by means of diverters,barriers,or signed/marked restrictions.(Also see diverters In the Intersection treatments table). I.1 . 11.'jel..1441 LI` .�; ' ONLY �s - I'f ! _ } '�r :. icy, .,l' .' "•i l LLLL �� b�1- *1 • [rdri rgs,lf5 }{ 1 Ri, i .1 1 ... ' 1 �r. ti} I' Estimated Cost Range:$1,000 to$20,000(depends on design and materials) d. Prioritized Bicycle Movement Prioritizing the bicycle movement can be accomplished by turning stop signs and allowing the through bicycle movement to proceed without stopping, and Instead stopping motor vehicles on the approaches to the bicycle friendly route. I- '\tel i Source: Fundamentals of Bicycle,BoulevardECNCIO FrlendiV Route Planning and Design,page 22. Estimated Cost Range:$200 to$1,500 per intersection(depending whether an engineering study is required) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 33 1 Appendix .'. : Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 2: Bicycle Lanes Bicycle Lanes Description: Bicycle lanes designate an exclusive part of the roadway(typically on the right side of the roadway)to be used by bicyclists only.A Bicycle lane is typically located between the right most traffic lane and the curb or on street parking area. Criteria: • Streets where traffic volumes are more than 3,000 per day • Streets where the posted traffic speed Is 25 mph or greater • On streets with higher speeds, high truck volumes, higher traffic volumes, or high parking turnover,bicycle lane treatments that offer additional separation between bicycles and vehicles should be considered. Typical Applications—Bicycle Lane Types a. Standard Bicycle Lane Recommended bicycle lane width is 5 feet,although 6 feet is preferred.2 A standard bicycle lane is placed to the right of vehicular traffic in the same direction.From left to right,the pictures below show a bicycle lane offset from the curb,a bicycle lane adjacent to on-street parking,and a bicycle lane adjacent to the curb. • • • • . i, t • • Estimated Cost Range:4,000 to$6,000 per mile • 2 National Association of City Transportation Officials.http://nacto.orglcities-for-cycling/design-guldelbike-lanes/ Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 33 Appendix 32: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes b. Climbing Lane Climbing lanes can be used on bicycle facilities with uphill grades,The climbing lane provides separation between bicyclists and vehicles for uphill roadway sections that are otherwise designated as shared roadways.On uphill sections in particular,the speed differential between bicyclists and motor vehicles increases,which Increases the safety risk.There are no standard criteria for when to install a bicycle climbing lane.Some cities recommend climbing lanes on bicycle facilities with grades as low as 1.5%depending on the roadway characteristics and potential conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists,while others might not install a climbing lane unless a facility exceeds a 5%grade.The characleristics of the facility should be considered along with vehicle speeds,volumes, and bicycle volumes. By providing an uphill bicycle lane,separation is maintained between the two modes and safety is improved. In the downhill direction a bicyclist can likely travel at the speed of traffic,so a shared lane is adequate for the downhill bicyclist. In the picture below the right lane Is traveling uphill with a bicycle climbing lane,and left lane is traveling downhill with a shared bicycle/vehicle lane. l..r • • Lr. J�a. r . . I. : •I{ s .�s . rYfi� F '5 . j7t } + F ! -- ''- •''Z- • —116A _. ! i I iikel g Estimated Cost Range:$4,000 to$6,000 per mile(the cost may Increase if existing pavement marking removal Is required) c, Buffered Bicycle Lane — --- A buffered bicycle lane provides additional separation between the bicycle lane and vehicle travel lane(or in some cases between the bicycle lane and on-street parking).Depending on the existing lane widths,creating a buffered bicycle lane either reduces the width of a vehicle travel lane or removes a vehicle travel lane.A buffered zone between the bicycle lane and vehicle travel lane is recommended when traffic speeds are above 35 mph. Another alternative Is to place the buffered zone between the bicycle lane and on-street parking,which is better suited for locations with high parking turnover rates. \ 1 . ,.:1 4• •\,i c I . • ; • • . t� ? � s ' Estimated Cost Range: $5,000 to$10,000 per mile Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 33 Appendix 32: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes - d. Left Side Lane - l A left side bicycle lane can be used on one-way streets or on median divided two way streets,This Treatment should be considered if there are heavy transit activities,deliveries,or parking turnover on the right side of the street. i 4 i Ir 5 I 5 i f I1 } ~ 9: -- • Estimated Cost Range:$4,000 to$6,000 per mile(same as a typical bicycle lane) e. Paved Shoulder — _._ _ _____ This treatment Is typically used in rural areas on roadways with higher speeds.On roadways with over 2,000 ADT and speeds that exceed 35 mph the paved shoulder should be at least 4 feet wide,or 5 feet from the face of guardrail. If the roadway speed exceeds 50 mph or there Is a high percentage of heavy vehicles,the paved shoulder should be S feet wide.As long as the paved shoulder meets the width requirements based on roadway speed,the shoulder may be signed as a bicycle facility. -,.1.., Estimated Cost Range:Varies depending on the existing roadway conditions. Typical Applications--Bicycle Lanes at Intersections 1. Right Turn Restrictions or Warnings To improve the safety of bicyclists using bicycle lanes, right turns across the bicycle lane by vehicles could eilher be restricted or warning signs used to raise awareness of the bicycle lane and potential conflict with bicyclists. 11 '} t_Ita4 tit _______!--- NO f' TURN k.i If., ON RED b.\, EXCEPT BICYCLES i YIELD TO x).. . :. .,„ •. BIKES Estimated Cost Range:$75 to$200 per sign(plus installation) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 33 Appendix •ti2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes g. Transitioning a Through Bicycle Lane Transitioning a through bicycle lane to the left side of a vehicle right turn lane prior to an intersection reduces the potential for right hook collisions by correctly positioning both the bicyclist and vehicle at the Intersection.A"Begin right turn lane,yield to bicycle"sign should be placed at the beginning of the transition zone.One option to increase visibility of the transition zone is to use colored pavement marking through the transition area(shown in Image on right). Note-this treatment Is NOT recommended for intersections with double right turn vehicle lanes. \ I ! . I. '‘ • r. • 1.-44.: b !. _ ter' `--'. U .E 4 . !: I , --:.... .-. ----- , - • :„ ' :. V.. t 7.., . , r v l ! 4 y. i^ • �M1 t ii o!. AI t �' H Source of Image on right: NACTO website(http:llnacto.orglcities-for-cyclingldeslgn-guidef intersection-treatmentsf)Estimated Cost Range:$500 to$4,000 per intersection approach(depending whether green pavement markings are chosen) h. Combined Bicycle Lane/Turn Lane With a combined bicycle lanelturn lane,the bicycle lane drops prior to the intersection and the right most lane becomes a shared right turn vehicle lane and through bicycle lane. '1- I I y 4! 1111161141. i .., , • ��, 5d k 1 . :N ■ Source: NACTO(htlp:llnacto.orglcitles-for-cycling!design-guldel intersection-treatmentsfcombined-bike-laneturn-lanel) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 33 1 Appendix :-;2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes I. Colored Bicycle Lane Coloring a bicycle lane as It approaches an Intersection draws attention to the correct and expected location of bicyclists.The treatment is Ideal for Intersections with high bicycle and vehicle volumes, or at locations where the position of the bicycle lane changed from the previous block.The FHWA has issued an Interim Approval for the use of green coloring in bicycle lanes. Citing multiple experiments that demonstrated positive operational effects for both bicycle riders and other road users,with no notable negative effects,this approval allows states to apply for approval to use coloring In bicycle lanes and bicycle lane extensions,and States may request approval for all Jurisdictions in that State.This Interim Approval does not make the use of green colored pavement mandatory.' 4...,,, •!.j. +1 .... . ' . �_.' ,•f .I Estimated Cost Range:$5 to$15 per square foot depending on material. Depending on wear maintenance costs could include reapplying color every 2 to 10 years. 3 Interim Approval for Optional Use o'Green Colored Pavement for Bicycle Lanes(IA-14), Federal Highway Administration website: htto:Emutcd.litmn r..at.uoviresciArcesiirier:m ap.)rovalagleti005e,him,Accessed May 9,2011. Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 33 Appendix U2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 3: Cycle Tracks Cycle Tracks r Description: A cycle track Is an exclusive bicycle facility separated from vehicle traffic and the sidewalk,and is intended to provide improved comfort and safety for the bicyclist as compared to an on-street bicycle lane.The cycle track can be separated from vehicle traffic using a variety of treatments(curbs,planter strips, on-street parking,pavement markings,or other options). In addition the cycle track should be clearly defined from the sidewalk(grade separated,pavement markings, or an alternate clear Indication)to prevent bicycle conflicts with pedestrians. Criteria: ----------------- — — While the US does not have established standards that define what conditions warrant a cycle track,International documents do provide some guidance. However, in most cases,the criteria are more qualitative than quantitative and each facility should be evaluated independently based on roadway and user characteristics. For one-way cycle tracks • Streets with high motor vehicle volumes and/or speeds(factors that would make on-street biking feel uncomfortable). International documents suggest a cycle track may be appropriate where traffic speeds are 40 mph or greater'and total two-way traffic volumes are 9,000 vehicles per day or greater.' • Streets with few driveways(there Is no specific number;engineering judgment should be used for each facility in question) • Streets where intersection conflicts can be effectively managed(since cycle tracks are often on the right side of on-street parking,visibility of cyclists approaching Intersections can be compromised,parking set backs and other mitigation measures need to be considered at Intersections and driveways) For two-way cycle tracks(in addition to the criteria listed above) • Streets with destinations mostly on one side • Streets with less driveways or Intersection conflicts on one side • On one-way streets to reduce the out of direction travel for bicyclists • On streets where there is not enough room for a one-way cycle track on each side of the roadway Typical Applications—One Way Cycle Track • 4 Cycling Design Guide. Nottinghamshire County Council.October 2006.Accessed via: illtgoL 4f9 wp, ;,df. May 9, 2011 ' Sustrans Cycling Guidelines and Practical Details.Accessed via: htlp://n tr.creAvp,ccr font/uploads 12011/03ISustrark;-0.2.ciinq- GuiCe:;ncs-and•Pcactical.9etiils.od'.May 9,2011. Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 9 of 33 Appendix 32: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks a. Cross Section and Pavement Markings A one-way cycle track should be 5 to 7 feet wide with a minimum 3 foot buffer.The buffer can be a variety of treatments including planters,raised curb,on-street parking,pavement markings,bollards,landscaping,or other treatments.Cycle tracks can be at either roadway level or sidewalk level; however, roadway level is typically preferred to help prevent bicycle and pedestrian conflicts. bicycle markings should be placed In the cycle track(at the beginning of each block and at periodic intervals If necessary)indicating the facility is Intended for bicycle use(and not motor vehicle or pedestrian use). -r -- d. . IF • INN" ''. . F _ k . .. ... r, Source:NACTO I. I = ,',fir"f 1 1 ' i • • ,01.7 ,....-r . • . _.,.-- • `¢. ii I , 1 -t \ / Estimated Cost Range:$100,000 to 1,000,000 per mile(cost varies significantly depending on chosen treatments). • Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 10 of 33 1 Appendix ;"R: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks b, Driveway and Side Street Treatments Vehicles turning Into driveways or side streets across cycle tracks present a unique challenge because drivers may not anticipate a bicyclist approaching since the cycle track is separated from the vehicle lanes.The following treatments can be used to improve the safety of a bicyclist through driveway on a cycle track: • Installing pavement markings through the driveway to draw attention to entering motorists.Yield signs and pavement markings can also be applied. • Restrict parking for 30 feet on each side of the driveway to improve visibility. • Ensure a sight triangle of 20 feet from a minor street to the cycle track,and 10 feet from a driveway to the cycle track. The picture below shows a recommended clear zone and sight triangle for a cycle track at a driveway. From a driveway there should be a horizontal clear zone of 10 feet from the driveway,and for a minor street there should be a horizontal clear zone of 20 feet from the minor street. In addition,if on-street parking is allowed along the cycle track,it should be prohibited within 30 feet of the driveway or minor street. Ai drk aha)'s aMm]r I,:crs?c!Gll, It,:sity r� Ceor,1;e3Inls.an!'YrVto B0�e i yl'i1 $ .I ati3'Op ehav'd to ultd la fdzrsy I For rr.loi stlictaa altz.nTIng la ao.r t.p Ue cor,,cl 0:01 a/doll's'Wm. 1 cyc<trek remff.,a''en 11000 M drirlhaf. V,El no cycla 4acR Oaf pnxfi/o.' Yf TO T ux el ah11I1eoa7r furrshagl CM0.orar E Mer'ng and ev`Alg Fa°.c fra:u,es ltc:r'd osc nn;da!e a eghl Va+yN ti.'s,J svic0 0.1.11 112010.113 In[-fee(lack tmm n.fu OM 0011.141 aM ICJ loel from drIveo fuost'n7-•tool 1 If[mfycred of ar_'lad cyc'r lradL lne uaras,g Feza -(� shay to r_1-.td,01 nhi11 lOe ire an and ve?,vaa h'p In3��tar tl'[',0 1101 LYP.yh 111uo-ein].Sharps. rent dons M e=.01 r%oe hon 10 50)sIdoonia 0.200rca 81 aaphd 1...nlp no:or lehleel f - cam . �. _ — .— 1 I• f }7 Frs1 �1 . —/ Llew se),cle tre'"!erosl4,g Tree de l,eIahcWa to conu'a'red CI cha:?K3lci',mule 0)013 a1 ah3-p 11 PA trie Uaci 1 p14iq pvN-1,pat'*9 a1,5005 Ia 106:0013100 3p3ed pr 011 The oresi.J lha)[1 be Fce1.2'eS rev clOrnala and rrnar ilvnlcftra la',wore vs-a:ty tta defeats nprcoOm ere.Is 30 leel Pdm 1101 sda of Use 0301.1.0.0 Source:NATCO(showing a two-way cycle track at a driveway) Also see picture in the two-way cycle track section Estimated Cost Range:See section a(cost of driveway treatments included in overall length of a cycle track) c, Intersection Treatments At intersections cycle tracks present a unique challenge since the bicyclist may be less visible to drivers due to the cycle track being slightly separated from the roadway.Similar treatments used at driveways can also be applied to intersections such as restricting parking to Improve visibility,and warning signs for drivers. In addition the following treatments may be applied to improve the safety of the cycle track for bicyclists: • Cycle track signal phase • Prohibit right turns • Install warning signs for right turning motorists to yield to bicyclists. • Option to bring bicyclists Into a wide outside traffic lane just prior to intersection to Improve visibility. • Clearly indicate to turning vehicles the Intended path,so drivers do not mistakenly enter the cycle track. I \I - 111r 116 I Example right turn warning sign for vehicles(also see Image in section g) Estimated Cost Range:See section a(cost of intersection treatments included In overall length of a cycle track) Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 11 of 33 I Appendix. 2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks i d. Two Stage Left Turns For cyclists who need to turn left at an intersection,a two stage left turn should be provided.Since the cycle track is to the right of the vehicle lanes, a bicyclist wanting to turn left at an Intersection needs a way to safety cross the traffic lanes,A two stage left turn bicycle box allows a cycle track user to do exactly that. Using the green phase the bicyclist proceeds through the intersection with the flow of vehicles,but then pulls into a left turn bicycle box at the far end of the intersection.The bicyclist then waits in the box until the perpendicular direction of traffic receives a green indication,and then proceeds with traffic. w `'} r— _ - } • .. t : l 3< • ...,..„ . ,. .._. -... .. . .. ,_.. ..,...,,+ / i t - 5 i / • 110 _ Source: NACTO 4r • r, .. r .t }_ tic . ir— ..._-4 .. •17.—•-•".''' .,1110A-- _ t-.7.0 — r '"fi Pictures of one-way cycle tracks with two-stage left turn boxes. Estimated Cost Range:See section a(cost of two stage left turns Included In overall length of a cycle track) Typical Applications—Two Way Cycle Track Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 12 of 33 Appendix .{ : Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks e. Cross Section A two way cycle track should be a minimum of 10 to 12 feet wide with a dashed yellow line to indicate proper direction. Vehicle cC Streetcar Traffic —Is- : i -IPlanters `" `T7` I r 0 Cycle Track ,Q, `I. .. o ., , I i ._ r- __ .: 1 fl ... { Siaervallc iF t 5derraLk Cyc Track Planter (Optional) Street Car Dec Estimated Cost Range:$150,000 to$1,500,000 per mile(cost varies significantly depending on chosen treatments). f. Driveway and Side Street Treatments in addition to the driveway treatments discussed for one-way cycle tracks,a two-way cycle track needs to provide warning indications to motor vehicle drivers(both entering and exiting)to expect bicyclists in the contra flow direction.Yield signs,and markings through the driveways should be used to alert drivers. Prohibiting left turns Into driveways across two-way cycle tracks should also be considered. The Image below shows a proposed treatment for a two-way cycle track across a driveway. In this Image it is assumed that the left turn Into the driveway is prohibited. If the left turn movement Into the driveway is allowed,a sign to warn drivers of the two-way cycle track traffic should be considered. Whether the vehicle or bicycle has the right of way is dependent on city or state policies. Typically at driveways,motor vehicle drivers are required to stop and yield to bicyclists(and pedestrians). --- - - - — I Streetcar 1111 Vehicle Traffic ; 1- - --- -- - - — -- -- —____ - -- --_._---_- Vehicle Traffic Streetcar• Raise('Driveway Flfl'Arivurrcellgjrrren i Wlrere Sprrce.411orns •L---'— Lam' Cycle Traefk•;-••any°} • ;.=- , .., t -Threrii. ' 1}irerrruu . . .. .- • • _{. •..__ • j F Bicycle Mai•kings' may be Placed here • Through Longer Driveway Driveways \+,2 W Modified Estimated Cost Range:See section e(cost Included In overall length of a cycle track) Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11- Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 13 of 33 Appendix 32; Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks g. Intersection Treatments In addition to Intersection treatments discussed for one-way cycle tracks, intersections with two-way cycle tracks present unique challenges due to the contra flow bicycle lane.Treatment options include: • Prohibit right turns on red for right turning vehicles from the side street across the cycle track. • Install bicycle signals with a leading bicycle and pedestrian phase so bicyclists enter the intersection before vehicles to improve visibility. • Install yield signs for right turning drivers on the main street(with the cycle track) • Install candle sticks or safe hits at the cycle track entrance to discourage vehicles from turning into the cycle track area. The Image below shows a proposed intersection for a two-way cycle track. kOSCALE . , - • ] 1 1 � r Option to Place t�Q' ► Candle Stick Second Northbound S Leff Turn Bike Box Right Turn Yield Sign r l I at Select Intersections �t on h-Insrnrnr 'f y S� Street (- �,,I,���fi, �fllF l Ci_ 1 ..�• ,(r. ,. Sn i 11! 1 II L • - ' !�! n11 sy I -r • 11111 ;(.i)l I, 1 - n 2 "! ;y sir' JS . 1 ;a} II 1 }{ IrO li �Il Active Static I !� _ ' . Signals - 12" Signs Signs rz' dr~ g" r r2n A EA $" SAKE AL R3-IOOR R 10•If O \1odlfia]© © 0 0 LED Estimated Cost Range:See section e(cost included in overall length of a cycle track) • Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 14 of 33 Appendix 3 , Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 4: Bicycle Intersection Treatments I Bicycle Intersection Treatments Description: Intersection treatments improve the safely of bicyclists through an intersection. Depending on the characteristics of the cross streets (traffic and bicycle volumes,traffic and bicycle speeds,type of bicycle facility, number of vehicles andfor bikes turning,visibility, surrounding land use and other factors)a range of treatments may be applicable. Criteria: -- — —• Locations where a bicycle facility crosses a roadway that may cause bicyclists to feel unsafe without intersection Improvements. • Level of treatment depends on cross street traffic volumes,cross section,and traffic speeds. Typical Applications a. Bicycle Boxes Bicycle boxes provide a designated area at the intersection for bicyclists to get ahead of vehicles during a red traffic signal phase, This Improves the visibility of bicyclists and helps prevent right-hook conflicts. Ideal for intersections with high right turning vehicle conflicts,or high bicycle volumes to reduce bicycle signal delay and queues.At intersections where the bicycle box extends across all lanes In the travel direction, left turning bicyclists can position themselves ideally during the red signal phase.This treatment also improves driver compliance at crosswalks,so high pedestrian activity(with high bicycle volumes)is another typical application. �,i . i` .1 I. .,'� 4 d.... '�' , —•? ..iii,e,,, :•'i .. {9i _ .. ' ..... .7'°://iir. L • ..••.. . Ad'ffij L._.. .. ii. A ,....?:... Nit, . Estimated Cost Range:$5,000 to$6,000(not Including annual maintenance), Markings may need to be replaced every 1 to 10 years depending on wear patterns. Replacement costs would be$5,000 to$6,000(same as initial installation). b. Colored/Marked Bicycle Lane through the Intersection Bicycle lanes marked through intersections help guide bicyclists along the intended travel path and alert drivers to the presence of a bicycle lane (and bicyclists).Typical applications Include:areas where vehicles may encroach on the bicycle lane such as ramp style exits,across signalized Intersections that are wide or complex,across driveways and stop or yield controlled approaches. --;,� l • , • - .1-dr0 r-. -:",r~ y . _-. 1. - 1.i!, •• - I:,..I s ,`i '1' ty'., r 41 1 I..II I I I GYM I•I I 1 ' .`A.• SI 1 11' 'i 1 .-k w y,i. ■■ iii ir..l. lSll�i5tfl,iFl Iii' 1 I ��' _• i'"-. _y:lift ill. iii ki,. ,S;yy' �Y � i . ..)3.1 !k 1713!1 Ill i �`� ,.. �4.2 Fie lily ! 11;.:•• . .- . {:: r'}1 • Estimated Cost Range:$5 to$15 per square foot depending on material Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 15 of 33 Appendix=.2,: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Intersection Treatments c. Bicycle Signals Bicycle signals may be used for the following purposes: • To reduce conflict at intersections where a bicycle movement conflicts with a major vehicle movement • To Improve safety at Intersections near schools or parks • To make it legal for bicycles to enter an Intersection during an al!-pedestrian phase • To employ an advance green phase at Intersections for bicyclists that reduce conflict and delay • To allow bicyclists to cross an Intersection diagonally at unique locations I . 1 l ` { Jy., r .• .1i ti ' •1} - ' g'...14• 1. •7 .. 1 r-;V ,, BIKE .. -- ''-_ti . .'.02, ;I-. OHO pF BIKE • :' '' SIGNAL Estimated Cost Range:$10,000 to$50,000 per intersection. d. Two Stage Left Turn Queue Boxes In addition to using this treatment along cycle track facilities,the two stage left turn queue box may be appropriate along facilities with blcycle lanes.A two stage left turn queue box may be used at intersections with high volumes of left turning bicyclists, especially along multi-lane facilities with high traffic speeds and volumes.This treatment can also be used to assist bicyclists across streetcar or rail tracks. r f ,_ //i/i l• 1 • ,./' / I a - i 1•�` - it -..1 ZP 44• rs / - - _--.- Source:NACTO Estimated Cost Range:$5,000 to$6,000 Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 16 of 33 I Appendix=�.•• : Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Intersection Treatments • e. Traffic Reduction/Diverters(also in the Bicycle Friendly Route section) Dlverters are often used at intersections along bicyclebouleverda fcl oil It to reduce vehicle volumes on a roadway.The dlverters allow bicycle through movements but prohibit vehicle through movements. r +` I ' r4 •• ! r:-:-d 11 j '; ; • . • �f }��I�Fi + LI }: • '>'', '��� ONLY l_ 1 j �.. - ban E•Y11$ _ _ .c 7 45 • • . r-... L. __ .. ......... ....7.r.,.... ,,mi.svp Vin9 ..7i 4,...1:7K:...! N.:-Y:N: .7..:.:76:ii.,..:0:4w:Agqi;Vt. ; -114..1qp .t.97s.N. WTI .14. , ... ,, -1 : 01;,' ,.! ..0., ._.L.,„ 1, .:q.,.. [ Ili::.'!. F. r T�'- _ .J fir, r• I ..k.. 1' ....? (sign stating 'DO NOT ENTER,except bicycles") Estimated Cost Range:$1,000 to$20,000(depends on design and materials) • Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan . Page 17 of 33 1 Appendix .::2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 5: Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Mid-Block Crossing Treatments escription: T D Mid-block crossings can be dangerous bicyclists because drivers are not typically expecting a crossing at a non-intersection location.The need for a mid-block crossing may arise if two bicycle facilities are off-set or if a trail junctions with a roadway mld- block, in these situations,mid-block crossing treatments can be applied to improve the safety of a bicyclist. Criteria: Depending on the characteristics of the facility being crossed,different treatments may apply.Criteria to consider includes:vehicle speed,width of the roadway,vehicle volumes,sight distance,and typical driver compliance in the region. Typical.Applications a. Bicycle Crossing Markings Bicycle crossing markings can be similar to pedestrian style crossings. However,a bicycle crossing typically has two parallel sets of markings,one for each direction of bicycle travel to help reduce head on bicycle conflicts.Pedestrians can also use the bicycle crossing area. The picture below shows bicycle/pedestrian crossing markings at a signalized intersection. 91 5 • .,, . L I 50 . ' .. - '- - i-=-c. -,3 l - +rA, f t . Estimated Cost Range:$1,000 to$3,000(depending on width of crossing).Maintenance Is not Included In the cost. b. Median Refuge Island A median refuge island allows a bicyclist to cross a street in two phases,while waiting in a comfortable space.The treatment is ideal for multilane facilities with two-way traffic where waiting for an acceptable gap in traffic for a single phase crossing would cause undue delay.The desired width for median is 10 feet,although 6 feet Is the absolute minimum,and a median should be a minimum of 30 feet long. • I -,- ,j l - .A=MOMMi i . 1. , i -. . / j • Estimated Cost Range:$15,000 to$30,000 per 100 feet Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 18 of 33 I Appendix '.:' ; Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Mid-Block Crossing Treatments c. Rapid Flashing Beacon A rapid flashing beacon is used in conjunction with a marked crossing. It is typically activated using a push button and Indicates that vehicles need to stop and yield to bicyclists or pedestrians using the designated crossing.A flashing beacon is typically placed on a post on the side of the roadway, but can also be Installed over a lane.These examples all show pedestrian crossings, however,the warning sign can be modified to show a bicycle or both a bicycle and pedestrian. Based on the NCHRP Report 562 and the studies by Charles Zeeger(see resources listed on the last page)the following criteria applies to Installing flashing beacons at unsignalized crossing locations: • When ADT is less than 9,000—activated flashing beacons are recommended if vehicle speeds exceed 40 mph,or if the facility is 4 lanes with speeds of 35 mph. • When ADT is between 9,000 to 12,000--activated flashing beacons are recommended for 3 or more lanes if speeds exceed 35 mph. • When ADT Is greater than 12,000--activated flashing beacons are recommended for 3 or more lanes if speeds exceed 30 mph. The pictures below show a few different types of rapid flashing beacon displays.The two on the/eft use school signs, but could be used for a non-school locations with a pedestrian or bicycle warning sign instead of the school crossing sign. I . If - irje.-1..ii! 1 ,.1. .t., , --13 Ili II IILIA t - ' - ---- -• - - . _ r i }-' ,}* c Estimated Cost Range:$10,000 to$20,000 per crossing(Includes two to three rapid flashing beacon signs,depending whether there is a median) • • Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 19 of 33 • I Appendix::2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Mid-Block Crossing Treatments d. Off-Set Intersections At some locations a bicycle friendly routes may continue at an offset across a busier street.One treatment options to safely connect the offset bicycle friendly route is shown below. In this treatment,a two way cycle track is Incorporated on one side of the roadway. The cycle track guides bicyclists to cross at a particular location,which may include activated beacons or a signal depending on the roadway characteristics. Below are two different types of offset intersection crossings.The top Image uses a path to the side of the main roadway and the picture on the bottom shows an Intersection with center bicycle lanes connecting the off-set Intersections. _ � - - - i 'X,2%...Nr. i____ _, . ,{ Bike s% —2.1 I • Sic(on Activated .Flashing .. 1 6111 Beacons ' ( 1 if .I Bike. I I.1 F I I I I C `f 4t 1 i I I --,J Push Button I- Activated Flashing I I P Flashing 1 Beacons I }iUi II . I . . 11 , r P.6 tom- II II II I I 1.1 II { I ;• - L. .. ' LL - ry / . .. iI ...a' _; J Estimated Cost Range:Varies based on right of way impact$1,000 and up depending on chosen treatment Adopted XX-XX-XX-DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 20 of 33 I Appendix 32: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 6: Wayfinding Wayfinding Description: Wayfinding is meant to be used by bicyclist while enroute to communicate directions,distance,and sometimes expected travel time to a particular destination.Wayfinding Is typically accomplished through the use of signs, however, pavement markings can supplement the signs.Wayfinding should be applied to all types of bicycle facilities. Criteria: Wayfinding should be used to help bicyclists(and vehicle drivers)identify which facilities are designated as bicycle facilities while enroute.The wayfinding may convey several factors including: • Which roadways are designated as bicycle facilities • Directions to key areas or connections • Expected travel time by bicycle to key areas or connections In particular,wayfinding is necessary at junctions and Intersections with other bicycle facilities, Typical Applications a. Standard signs to indicate bicycle facilities Part 9 of the MUTCD(2009 Edition)includes"Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities'. In this section there are several standard wayfinding signs that can be used along bicycle facilities.Some signs simply Indicate the presence of a bicycle facility,while other signs provide additional information such as destinations and distances.The pictures below show a sampling of signs from the MUTCD and their respective sign numbers. r - c Library 3 (.251;;;41,$) 6pa Beech 15 BIKE LANE Kingston 10 BITE ROUTE R3-17 D1_ D11-1 cr:(D ' 641 IBEGINI TO Downtown \ - D n D11-10 Mi-B • M4-14 M4-6 MB-3 Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 21 of 33 Appendix 3 : Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Wayfinding b. Signs with destinations and expected travel times Below are two examples of wayfinding signs unique to different cities.The sign on the left Indicates direction,distance,and expected travel time by bicycle.The sign on the right indicates direction and distance. • ' l.a i -, IL r4' . --P-7171mhzerwinom . , 1.-4, .. ii, ii d- 'F,, ° Oro Brow t ,, way 1�`' `) ;�(Mr r,Lrl4RINf� r • r Estimated Cost Range:$30 to$75 per sign(plus Installation) c. Pavement markings Pavement markings can be used to supplement signs, Below Is an example of a pavement marking used to Indicate the direction of the continued bicycle facility. • f, • I ) � 1 ..� A.s Sharrows and bicycle lane symbols can also be considered wayfinding treatments in the sense that they help identify a facility as a bicycle facility, I. . - 1' " . v. VI 1 • / x 1 / �1 I ! 5I •.. t 1` J / • • • Estimated Cost Range:$50 to$250 per marking depending on size and material(plus installation) Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11— hike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 22 of 33 I Appendix •2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Wayfinding d. Maps Portable maps indicating bicycle and pedestrian around the City could be provided to assist bicyclists and pedestrians in wayfinding. Maps could be provided at public facilities such as City Hall and libraries as well as bicycle shops or other interested vendors. In addition,the map should be available electronically through the City's webslte. Estimated Cost Range:$0 to$5 for a paper map(In some cities a private vendor sponsors the map which could make It free or low cost to the City of Spokane Valley). e. Mobile Applications As technology continues to advance,private Industries will likely develop apps that can be used on mobile devices to assist bicyclists navigating around the City of Spokane Valley. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 23 of 33 Appendix :12: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 7: Shared Use Bicycle Paths Shared Use Bicycle Paths Description: Shared use paths are physically separated from the roadway, and are Intended to be used by pedestrians, bicyclists,runners,and other non-motorized users.A shared use path should supplement a thorough system of on street facilities In a city,and connect to the on-street system at end points of the trail as well as midpoints depending on the length and location. Criteria: The following characteristics should be used when considering which facilities could serve as appropriate shared use path: • A shared use path should be provided when on-street facilities are not an option and when separate right of way is available(such as a former railroad line). • The number of driveways and crossings should be minimized. According to the Idaho Department of Transportation, if there are more than 8 crossings per mile,an on-street facility should be considered instead. • Where crossings cannot be avoided,special design treatments should be used to treat potential conflicts. Typical Applications a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Shared Use Path The following design criteria should be considered: • Minimum paved width of a shared use path is 10 feet,although 12 to 14 feet(or more)Is preferred especially if the use is expected to be moderate to heavy(AASHTO). • Two feet of additional clearance should be provided on either side of the path. • An 8 foot path may be appropriate under some circumstances(bicycle and pedestrian use is expected to be consistently low,the alignment allows for safe and frequent passing opportunities, and maintenance vehicles are not expected to drive on the path which would could subject the pavement edges to damage). • Markings to separate bicyclists from pedestrians on a shared use path are not necessary,but a centerline marking to separate two-way traffic is appropriate on pathways with heavy peak or seasonal volumes. • The surface should be asphalt to accommodate all types of bicycles, Below are pictures of a two-way shared use path. On the left,the path runs along an active railroad line on the left and an industrial facility on the right,both separated by a fence. In the photo on the right,the path runs along a neighborhood (left side)and a freeway and light rail line(right side). • I r -r �' - • • . • • • • .7 4 Estimated Cost Range:$250,000 to$500,000 per mile(includes asphalt surface,signing,striping,wayfinding,drainage,and limited crossings,does not include design costs), Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 24 of 33 Appendix;,2.: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Shared Use Bicycle Paths b. Crossings on Shared Use Paths At locations where the shared use path crosses other roadways or driveways, appropriate Indications and warnings need to be provided for both the path user and roadway user to prevent conflict.The design team needs to consider the characteristics of the path and roadway at the crossing and determine whether the path user or the roadway user should have the right of way. In the picture below,path users are required to stop at the roadway crossing. • f :• f+ff , fpip r III i A '1 I • l'-"- i 'r V•1 4 ,' _1. '? . 1. �= 4' . • • • • • Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 25 of 33 1 Appendix Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cross Sections The following tables illustrate how to convert roadways with specific paved widths into ••. . . iiodta;'a dblcycJe friendly route and different types of bicycle lanes. Each cross section identifies which facilities within the City of Spokane Valley meet the cross section requirements and are recommended as bicycle facilities in the Master Plan (see map 11.5). Table 8: Cross Sections—B-icyci•e-1 +le dPlfyele Friendly Route i tie ode-BouIeva.r-dBiavele Friendly Route Cross Sections 18 to 24 feet Paved Roadway Width ' Roadways: • 12th Ave(sections) (t 1 • Progress Rd(sections) • 4th Ave(sections) Ave • `�Ave(sections) • Pierce Ave(sections) 18'--24' I Long Rd(Centennial Trail to Appleway) .-— Marguerite Rd(sections) • Railroad Ave(Mission Ave to Stanley Rd) • Stanley Rd(Railroad Ave to Broadway Ave) Boone Ave(University Rd to Pines Rd) • Flora Rd(Maxwell Ave to 400 ft north of Sprague Ave) • Alkt Ave(currently less than 18 feet in parts,widening) — — Design: • No center line markings • Sharrow markings • Depending on the characteristics of the particular roadway,parking could be allowed if traffic volumes are low and there is ample visibility around parked vehicles.Otherwise on-street parking should be prohibited on the paved roadway. • Some roadways may have a gravel shoulder where parking could be permitted. • 24 to 36 feet Paved Roadway Width Roadways: • 12th Ave(sections) Option:Allow • Valleyway Ave ,g;, 1 On-Sfreer • Adams Rd f_' Parking On One Sid • Progress Rd(sections) Side • Mission Ave(Francher Rd to Vista Rd) I 18'-28' l 8' I • Vista Rd(1-90 to Bridgeport Ave) • Locust Rd(Mission Ave to Valleyway Ave) • Farr Rd(Valleyway Ave to Sprague Ave) ~ • Woodruff Rd(8th Ave to 16th Ave) • University Rd(Mission Ave to 1-90) . P • 38th Ave(37th Ave to Pines Rd) — .. iit • Mamer Rd(Mission Ave to 1-90) J • 16th Ave(Sullivan Rd to Rotchford Dr) • Rotchford Dr(16th Ave to 4th Ave) • Conklin Rd(Broadway Ave to Sprague Ave) • Flora Rd(Mission Ave to Maxwell Ave,400 ft north of Sprague Ave to 3rd Ave) • 6tn Ave,4'"Ave(west of Park Ave) Design: • Center line marking optional • Sharrow pavement markings • Option to designate on-street parking on one side of the roadway. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 26 of 33 1 Appendix 3 : Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan — 7 la ore-BetilevardBicycle Friendly Route Cross Sections I 36 to 46 feet Paved Roadway Width ' Roadways: • Pierce Ave(sections) - 24'h Ave(sections) k i •• Blake Rd(north(sections) `�•:� • Park Rd(north of Rutter Ave and south of Bd'Ave) I e8' I 20'-30' ___1 8' _I • Farr Rd(Sprage Ave to 8) • University Rd(railroad tracks to Montgomery Dr) _ • • 37th Ave(Bowdish Rd to 38th Ave) / • Conklin Rd(Sprague Ave to 4'h Ave) • Pines Rd(south of 32nd) L f I . Design: • Center line marking optional(depends on roadway On-Street On•Street characteristics) Parking Parking • Sharrow pavement markings • Parking could be allowed on both sides of the roadway. ---__ . Table 9: Cross Sections-- Bicycle Lanes (No On-Street Parking) Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) - 30 to 40 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section:2 lanes (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bicycle lanes:2 lanes ti Roadways: 1 t -.d__ �I _ — I., • Bowdish Rd(sections) 15'-6'1 10'-14' 1 10'-14' 15'-6'I • Evergreen Rd(sections) 1 • Flora Rd(sections) • Barker Rd(sections) •i ii -•j • Broadway Ave(sections) • 32nd Ave(sections) • 44'h Ave • McDonald Rd(sections) • i 30'-40'— I • 3fd Ave(Francher Rd to west City Limits) • Montgomery Ave(University Rd to Jackson Ave) • 8`^Ave(west of Park Rd)currently less than 30 feet,widening necessary • Carnahan Rd(consider climbing lane only) . Design: • 5 to 6 foot bicycle lanes • For roadways less than 30 feet,widening will be necessary. • Depending on the characteristics of each roadway, a centerline stripe may not be necessary In some cases. Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 27 of 33 1 Appendix 22: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) 42 to 55 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section:4 lanes(or 3 lanes with TWLTL) (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bicycle lanes: 3 lanes with TWLTL Roadways: f •*-.C.:- i;it • University Rd(sections) Mc • McDonald Rd(sections) ' - - V ' • Fancher Rd(sections) 5'-6'1 _10.5'-14' f 11'-15' 3 10.5'-14' j 5'-6'1 • Mission Ave(sections) 1 Broadway Ave(sections) • Montgomery Ave(Argonne Rd to Woodruff Rd) 0 'imi - *—fa ineS.Rd{lIner�roft-Wf-t9-ti) lm3. I 4 I :7..e.. ,,-.. • Nines Rd(16-to 32nd Ave) • iL {R. • Park Rd(sections) 4.v_•1 • Montgomery Ave(Jackson Ave to Bowdish Rd) �{ ',t_- M$ • Evergreen Rd(sections) 1- • Barker Rd(sections) i 42'-55' I I • Mission Ave(sections) • 32"'Ave(sections) • McDonald Rd(sections) Design' • Convert a 4 lane cross section to 3 lanes Including a center two-way left turn lane • Vehicle lanes range from 10.5'to 14' • Bicycle lanes range from 5'to 6' 48 to 54 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section:4 lanes (One-Way Traffic) Cross section with bicycle lanes: 3 lanes Roadways: • Appieway Blvd(currently striped with bicycle lanes approximately 4 feet wide,6 feel recommended) I Amax.13'-15' t Approx.13'-15' 1 Approx.13'-15' 1 3' 6' I Design: lig Bicycle lane with 3 foot buffer • No on-street parking n� A i l Note: In areas where the cross section Is 54 feet,4 vehicle { i travel lanes could be maintained at an 11 foot width while 1� Including the buffered bicycle lane as shown. �_ ' 4 �P d ..- 3q'-45'48'-54' I I • Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 28 of 33 1 Appendix :',2: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) 54 to 60 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section: 5 lanes with TWLTL (Two.Way Traffic) Cross section with bicycle lanes: 3 lanes with TWLTL - =' , - Roadways: -, Euclid Ave(Sullivan Rd to Flora Rd) 15-6 t 3'1_ 12'_14 I .14' 12'-14' X 3' 5'-6'I i _ T• Design; I , t • A buffer zone next to the bicycle lane would make Al+ the bicycle lane more comfortable to riders. I1 ��� L! 1-flc k -, I -- 54'-60' / 68 to 80 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section: 5 lanes with TWLTL (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bicycle lanes: 5 lanes with TWLTL Roadways: Faucher Rd(sections) • University Rd(Sprague to 4th) .@'•T1 1.1.43' I __V A ._i`-i9' I 1Y_9a_k_? I • Indiana Ave(Sullivan Rd to Desmet) I * I- — I ' Design: J. ii I r • This option narrows existing lanes to maintain the ON '1k • .4?) 8i ll existing cross section while adding bicycle lanes. - I 68'-50' a Sections for Sprague Sprague-92 Foot Cross Section: Sprague from University Rd to 300'east of Houk Rd Original cross section: 7 lanes with TWLTL Cross section with bicycle lanes: 7 lanes with TWLTL 8. --- -&ter - I 6' I -11... l , ' i 111' l 11' I 1., ; 11' '—I 0i0 Lji..II ' Illi 1 . 1 [ •iL L � 0.L _t � __ ' 1 1 zoo, MAI) Jur,' , .'1. : I 92' .. . .. . I Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 29 of 33 I Appendix -12: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) Sprague-86 Foot Cross Section: Sprague from 300'east of Houk Rd to about 1,100 feet east of Sullivan Rd Original cross section: 7 lanes with TWLTL Cross section with bicycle lanes: see options#1 and#2 below. Note that with option#1 the bicycle lane narrows to 4.6 feet at Intersections and mid-block locations where left turns are allowed.Due to the narrow bicycle lanes,a maximum of one mid-block left turn median opening is recommended between signalized intersections. Option#1 -7 lanes with raised median(mid-block) VT�_ w u-3 *� 'w spa 1 I 6' i ... 11' i. 11' 1 11' i 8' , 11' ! —17 1 11' 1 6' 1 J) 11 ll +;i-� it ; - II f `' 1 i I Raised 15111 f i — r If,c_ly. If - 4, II r_V__t Median f1 G �� �I If-gto vow(El I� 4 IN I Il II Option#1 -7 lanes with left turn lane(at signalized intersections and mid-block where left turns are allowed): LI-j.A j&m,Tac .-Ialeilik . 14 I . 11 11' 1 11' — 11. 1 11' 1 11' -. _ 11'_ -1..5'I _ . i 7 ,; ..:''' CI' 1160.1_ 11111101:1- , ' t ‘81 I i . ' .. :. -I .1 -. . E ' '—1 :- I ra.0 1 : , - - I '.4;77:---::: 11. .1 671: DIL:) Note:a maximum of one mid-block left turn median opening Is recommended between signalized Intersections. Option#2-Reducing to 5 lanes with buffered bicycle lanes 1 6' 4' 1 13' i 13' 1 14' I 13' 1 13` 1 4' 1 6 eir0 tip:4 :.,. A f,„... , (i...., . TAN A PP!. kl [I i '.iq1 Ii sr l -j i Pil k il I 86' Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 30 of 33 1 Appendix ._,: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lane Cross Sections (No On-Street Parking) Sprague-71 Foot Cross Section: Sprague from 1,100 feet east of Sullivan Rd to Appleway Ave Original cross section: 5 lanes with TWLTL Cross section with bicycle lanes: 5 lanes with median or left turn lane r T . ._ ,_.. A 71.-±,, rn } 6' , 115 1 11' , 14' i 11' t 11.5' � 6' I „'H � I J . x,- f 1.1 I I 1:' i I , 411 Imi_ f Sprague-66 Foot One-Way Cross Section: Sprague east of University Road(westbound only) Original cross section: 5 lanes Cross section with bicycle lanes: Option#1 -5 lanes with buffered bicycle lane ,, _ 11' 1 11.5' I 11.5' 1 11.5' I 11.5' 13'1 6' I I 1 I ! ri a I. TA II rAN ram----- kkji-'1,-:.'.... .. ,mci. 1 .18 [ 181 I fAi-i, . , I 181 44 at Option#2-4 lanes with buffered bicycle lane ,..!,...0,1. ... _ i .4. 1 _ a , ' 14' I - 14' I 14 — I 14' 1 4' 6' 1 1 - - I - I r 1 , • .g.. it..., :i. 1 r : • 1. I , 1 g. ttl. 1 , . 1 _ 1 _.__ • 1 . ,J No.. _ ._, 66 I Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 31 of 33 I Appendix;32; Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 10: Cross Sections —Bicycle Lanes with On-Street Parking Bicycle Lanes with On-Street Parking 48 to 56 feet Paved Roadway Width (Two-Way Traffic with Parking) Original cross section: 1 lane each direction with a center TWLTL and on-street parking on one side f 15 ' ,..-_ , Cross section with bicycle lanes: 1 lane each direction with on-street parking(both sides) f 8' 1 6' 1 10'-14' 10'-14' 1 6' 1 8' I Roadways: ' _ • Mission Ave(Evergreen Rd to Sullivan Rd) I 11•4 1; i f Design: I i5lig'i-1 p 1} �,{ I I / • 6 foot bicycle lanes adjacent to 8 feet wide on-street }.' parking allows bicyclist to maneuver around open car doors while remaining In the bicycle lane. _ • If the roadway is widened to 62 feet, a 12 foot center On- frees _ On-Sfreei i 48'-56' l Parkilg TWLTL could be maintained with a 10 foot lane in l Parking each direction. • 60 to 70 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section: varies (Two-Way Traffic with Parking) Cross section with bicycle lanes: varies • la -Wii-, " Roadways: • If on-street parking Is desired on roadways in the I 8' 1 6' 1 10.5'-14' I 11'-14' 10.5114' 1 6' 1 8' I future,these cross sections could be applied to • 1 '•. _.. accommodate both on-street parking and bicycle q}q f .i� • tit facilities. II ;�� l Design: .`.-.-_ 1� 41.. `1 ' ': • 6 foot bicycle lanes adjacent to 8 feet wide on-street _ 1. ' r parking allows bicyclist to maneuver around open car flr,-sere•f I 32'-42' I fln.suxl doors while remaining in the bicycle lane. FParking 60'-70' Parking! • A 2 to 3 foot buffer zone between on-street parking and the bicycle lane could be considered in areas with ' high parking turnover rates to help prevent dooring 70 to 84 feet Paved Roadway Width accidents(when people open car doors into a bicycle lane causing the bicyclist crash either by hitting the (Two-Way Traffic with Parking) open car door or swerving abruptly). 4 For the 84 foot cross section,a five lane cross section would also fit(four 11 foot lanes,and a center 12 foot '—` TWLTL), 1_11:__1_8L011-1:3 __1.9A i3.' ! -i•o.6 g 1 3' , 5,1 3'11 +.6 1 a' I A MC 1 It 7 I IF T 4r-aa' n-Sweet Pang �..._.--_—.. 70-84 _._ Parking! Adopted XX-XX-XX- DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 32 of 33 1 Appendix .432: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11: Cross Section — Shared Use Paths Shared Use Path Cross Sections Original cross section: varies Shared Use Path Cross section.with bicycle lanes: Roadway cross section likely remains the same with the addition of Physically separated from roadway � a shared use path. (Could include a fence,or other barrier Roadwa s Iandscaoing strip,or grade separation) L. y • Miliwood Path 2'I 10'-94' i 2 • Trent Path aliro fI,f i� Shared Use Palh • Sprague Path Roadway Varies Varies • Appleway Path • North Greenacres Path • _Dishman Mica Path • Pines Rd,(Pi n ecroft Wy to Trent Avg) • Sullivan Rd, north of the River • Flora Rd, north of Mission Ave Design: • see toolbox section for design recommendations. • Adopted XX-XX-XX - DRAFT Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 33 of 33 Appendix '1: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Appendix 4 : Funding Source Ideas Public Sector Funding Sources Federal: Transportation Highlights of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or "SAFETEA-LU" bill include: • Six-year funding bill signed into law on August 10, 2005 • Authorizes $244.1 billion in Federal gas-tax revenue and other federal funds for all modes of surface transportation. • Includes highways, bus and rail transit, bicycling, and walking • Pedestrian and bicycle programs can be included in programs eligible for over half the funds • None of the funds are dedicated solely for bicycle or pedestrian facilities or programs Federal: Non-transportation There is a wide range of other federal funds that can be used for bicycling and walking facilities. The most common include: • Funds through federal land agencies such as the National Forest Service, National Park Service or Bureau of Land Management. These funds are primarily for trails and must be on federal lands. • Community Development Block Grants through HUD — the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funds for community-based projects. Examples of the types of projects they fund are: o Commercial district streetscape improvements o Sidewalk improvements o Safe routes to school o Neighborhood-based bicycling and walking facilities that improve local transportation options or help revitalize neighborhoods The National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse has prepared a useful Technical Brief: Financing and Funding for Trails that cites over thirty federal and national funding sources that could be used to help fund bicycling and walking facilities and/or programs, especially trails. Private Sector funding Sources Local There are many examples of local communities creating revenue streams to improve conditions for bicycling and walking. Three common approaches include: special bond issues, dedications of a portion of local sales taxes or a voter-approved sales tax increase, and use of the annual capital improvement budgets of Public Works and/or Parks agencies. Some examples follow: • The City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Bernalillo County, have a 5 percent set-aside of street bond funds which go to trails and bikeways. For the City, this has amounted to approximately $1.2 million every two years. City voters last year passed a 1/4 cent gross receipts tax for transportation which includes approximately $1 million per year for the next ten years for trail development. Many on-street facilities are developed as a part of other road projects. Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 9 Appendix :Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan ® Pinellas County, Florida built much of the Pinellas Trail system with a portion of a one cent sales tax increase voted for by county residents. • Seattle, Washington approved a nine year levy (property tax) in the fall of 2006 that provides five million dollars a year for pedestrian and bicycle projects. 6 Denver, Colorado invested $5 million in its emerging trail network with a bond issue, which also funded the city's bike planner for a number of years. ® Eagle County, Colorado (which includes Vail) voters passed a transportation tax that earmarks 10 percent for trails, about$300,000 a year. ® In Colorado Springs, Colorado, 20 percent of the new open space sales tax is designated for trail acquisition and development; about$5-6 million per year. Local Organizations Shared-use trails have spawned a widespread movement of local non-profit organizations. Many of them have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to plan and construct trails. Land Trusts The environmental land trust movement has mushroomed in the past twenty years. Many of these organizations have raised funds to purchase land where trails are built, especially rail-trails. Businesses There is increasing corporate and business involvement in trail and conservation projects. Employers recognize that creating places to bike and walk is one way to build community and attract a quality work force. Bicycling and outdoor recreation businesses often support local projects and programs. ® In Evansville, Indiana, a boardwalk is being built with corporate donations from Indiana Power and Light Co. and the Wal-Mart Foundation. • In Arizona, trail directional and interpretive signs are being provided by the Salt River Project— a local utility. Other corporate sponsors of the Arizona Trail are the Hughes Missile Systems, BHP Cooper, and Pace American, Inc. 9 Recreational Equipment, Inc. has long been a financial supporter of local trail and conservation projects. O The Kodak Company now supports the American Greenways Awards program of The Conservation Fund, which was started in partnership with the Dupont company. This annual awards program provides grants of up to $2500 to local greenway projects for any activities related to greenway advocacy, planning, design or development. For further details and tips for accessing the corporate and business community contact the Trails and Greenways Clearinghouse at the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy: 1-877-GRNWAYS (476-9297). Community Fundraising & Partnering Community fundraising and creative partnerships are plentiful. A common approach is to find creative ways to break a large project into small pieces that can be "purchased" by the public. Some examples: e In Ashtabula, Ohio the local trail organization raised one-third of the money they needed to buy the land for the trail, by forming a "300 Club." Three hundred acres were needed for the trail and they set a goal of finding 300 folks who would finance one acre each. The land price was $400 an acre, and they found Just over 100 people to buy an honorary acre, raising over $40,000. • In Jackson County, Oregon they had a"Yard Sale." The Bear Creek Greenway Foundation sold symbolic "yards" of the trail and placed donor's names on permanent markers that are located at each trailhead. At $40 a yard, they raised enough in private cash donations to help match Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 9 Appendix 43: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan their $690,000 Transportation Enhancements program award for the 18-mile Bear Creek trail linking Medford, Talent, Phoenix and Ashland. • Selling bricks for local sidewalk projects, especially those in historic areas or on downtown Main Streets, is increasingly common. Donor names are engraved in each brick, and a tremendous amount of publicity and community support is purchased along with basic construction materials. Portland, Oregon's downtown Pioneer Square is a good example of such a project. • In Colorado Springs, the Rock Island Rail-Trail is being partly funded by the Rustic Hills Improvement Association, a group of local home-owners living adjacent to the trail. Also, ten miles of the trail was cleared of railroad ties by a local boy scout troop.. • A pivotal 40-acre section of the Ice Age Trail between the cities of Madison and Verona, Wisconsin, was acquired with the help of the Madison Area Youth Soccer Association. The soccer association agreed to a fifty year lease of 30 acres of the parcel for a soccer complex, providing a substantial part of the $600,000 acquisition price. Foundations A wide range of foundations have provided funding for bicycling and walking. A few national and large regional foundations have supported the national organizations involved in pedestrian and bicycle policy advocacy. However it is usually regional and local foundations that get involved in funding particular bicycle, pedestrian or trail projects. These same foundations may also fund statewide and local advocacy efforts as well. The best way to find such foundations is through the research and information services • provided by the national Foundation Center. They maintain a huge store of information including the guidelines and application procedures for most foundations, and their past funding records. Grant Writing Tips The following are some helpful tips for successful grant writing (e.g., for government grants and private foundations): 1. Read the directions and applications thoroughly. 2. Find out what projects were previously funded. 3. Obtain a copy of a successful application. 4. Find out who reviews the applications and talk to him or her; it may be an individual or a larger group. 5. Always include a picture and graphic that quickly conveys what is being asked for in the proposal. 6. Identify key words and concepts in the grant application and then use them in your narrative. 7. Convey a sense of urgency—for example, if funding is not obtained, something of value such as a rail corridor, will be lost. 8. Provide a timeline—demonstrate that the project is ready to go once funding is secured. 9. Focus on a tangible product -- e.g., construct something, purchase some property, etc.; minimize the amount that goes for overhead and design. 10. Demonstrate that you are leveraging funds and that this is not the only funding source; no one wants to be a sole source of funds for a project or program. 11. Demonstrate community support through letters from neighborhood associations, advocacy groups, and local businesses. Adopted XX-XX-xX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 9 Appendix 43: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Federal Highway Administration Recreational Trails Program The RTP funds come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and represent a portion of the motor fuel excise tax collected from non-highway recreational fuel use: fuel used for off-highway recreation by snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles, and off-highway light trucks. The RTP funds are distributed to the States by legislative formula: half of the funds are distributed equally among all States, and half are distributed in proportion to the estimated amount of non-highway recreational fuel use in each State. See the Funding Levels by State. The distribution model is based on a report for FHWA by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in July 1999 (Fuel Used for Off-Road Recreation: A Reassessment of the Fuel Use Model). Transportation Enhancements TE investments benefit communities through rehabilitation of historic facilities related to transportation, renovated streetscapes, rail-trails and other transportation trails, transportation museums, and scenic and historic highway program visitor centers. This website is a resource to States providing official legislation and guidance documents. The National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse (NTEC) also has a website where you can get an introduction to TE, find out about the TE program in your State, see project examples, access a database of TE projects, see how States use TE funds, and order TE related documents. State of Washington-WSDOT WSDOT-- Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants Program Purpose The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants were established to address the nearly 400 statewide fatal and injury collisions Involving pedestrians and bicycles each year. These safety focused projects may also support increased mobility and encourage more people to bicycle and walk, Eligible Applicants Only agencies that have been contacted with an invitation to apply for funding are eligible apply. Projects submitted by agencies who have not been contacted will not be considered. Invitations to submit applications will be sent to public agencies where WSDOT has identified known pedestrian and bicycle risk locations. Please see the invitational methodology to learn more on how the process took place. Examples of Eligible Projects Engineering improvements — based on recent state and national research, arterial streets in urban areas with higher speeds and volumes are the locations with the most collisions and risk. The research also indicates that several treatments may effectively reduce pedestrian and bicycle collisions at these locations. Projects may include items such as; • Intersection improvements such as: curb extensions, lighting, raised median, crosswalk enhancements, signs, signals and mid-block crossing treatments; • Completing bicycle lanes and sidewalks; • Constructing bicycle and pedestrian paths; • Providing safe routes to transit; • Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements for at risk groups (children, elderly and people with disabilities). Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 9 Appendix 43: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Education efforts — inform the public about project and how it improves safety, educate the public about biking and walking safety in general, and include the broad range of transportation choices and events and activities that promote walking and biking safely. Projects may include items such as: • Implementation of educational curricula. • • Distribution of educational materials. • Walk or bike promotional programs. • Pedestrian sting operations. Other WSDOT Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities WSDOT works closely with local, county and regional organizations to balance transportation needs with community values and environmental goals. There are several state and federal funding sources that may be available to support these efforts: • Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program: Acquisition and development of local and state parks, water access sites, trails, critical wildlife habitat, natural areas, and urban wildlife habitat. • Small City Sidewalk Program: Improve safety, provide access, and address system continuity and connectivity. The program is on an annual cycle. • Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle Program: Develop and manage recreation opportunities for those who use off-road vehicles and facilities for those who pursue non-motorized trail activities. • Traffic Safety Grants: Reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that result from traffic crashes. • Transportation Enhancement Grants: Strengthen the cultural, aesthetic and environmental aspects of the intermodal transportation system. • National Recreational Trails Program: Rehabilitate and maintain recreational trails and facilities that provide a backcountry experience. • Intersection and Corridor Safety Program: Eliminate or reduce fatal or injury accidents by identifying and correcting hazardous locations, sections and/or elements that constitute a danger to motorists, pedestrians, and/or bicyclists. • Washington Scenic Byways Program: WSDOT provides federal funding to projects on highways designated as National Scenic Byways, All-American Roads, or as State scenic byways. • Public Lands Highways Program: Improve access to and within federal lands "served by the public lands highway." • Surface Transportation Program - Regional Funds: Metropolitan Planning Organizations provide federal funding for projects on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. • Trip Reduction Performance Program: Get people out of their cars and onto buses, trains, van pools, and other commute options. • Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program: Metropolitan Planning Organizations provide federal funds to projects and programs that reduce transportation related emissions in four air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas in the state. Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 9 Appendix x:s! Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan State of Washington m Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) TIB Funding Programs for Urban Customers - Urban Sidewalk Program TIB typically issues a Call for Projects each summer with applications due at the end of August. Overview The Sidewalk Program was established by the Legislature in 1995 to Urban Programs provide funding for pedestrian projects. The program is available to both small city and urban agencies. Urban and small city projects compete Urban Arterial Program separately. (UAP) To be eligible for the program: Urban Corridor Program (UCP) e The intent of the project must be transportation and not recreation. Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) a The project must be on a federally classified route (principal, minor, or collector). More Information Projects improve pedestrian safety, access, connectivity, and address system continuity. Completed projects must be consistent with the Urban Program Overview Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). Urban Program Criteria Projects are usually large in scale with multiple funding sources ranging from local contribution to private developer fees. These projects are Program Guidelines selected annually on a competitive basis. Each program has distinct (WACs) characteristics for the best suited project. Qualification and criteria are Process Map different within each program. Funding Applications Once selected, TIB staff provides grant oversight, participates in Value Engineering (VE) studies, and acts as facilitators to bring projects to completion. • Program Specific Information The intent of the Urban Sidewalk Program is to provide funding for projects that address safety, access to generators, and system connectivity. All projects must be transportation related on a federally classified route and be consistent with the American with Disabilities Act(ADA). General criteria include: ❑ A minimum 20 percent match is required on all urban SP projects. ❑ Funds are distributed across five regions based on arterial lane miles and population. WAC 479-12-421 What projects are eligible for sidewalk program funding. Minimum project requirements for each subprogram are as follows: 1. Urban sidewalk program project eligibility: a. Must be on or related to a functionally classified route; and b. Primary purpose of the project is transportation and not recreation. 2. Small city sidewalk program project eligibility: a. The project must be located on or related to a street within the TIB designated arterial system; and b. Primary purpose of the project is transportation and not recreation. Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6of9 Appendix 43: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan For both of the subprograms, TIB does not participate in the cost for right of way acquisitions. For the urban sidewalk program, TIB does not provide funding increases. WAC 479-12-431 Award criteria for the sidewalk program. The board establishes the following criteria for use in evaluating sidewalk program grant applications for both urban and small city sidewalk projects: 1. Safety improvement- projects that address hazard mitigation and accident reduction. 2. Pedestrian access -projects that improve or provide access to facilities including: a. Schools; b. Public buildings; c. Central business districts; d. Medical facilities; e. Activity centers; f. High density housing (including senior housing); g. Transit facilities; h. Completes or extends existing sidewalks. 3. Local support- addresses local needs and is supported by the local community. WAC 479-12-121 What projects are eligible for urban arterial program funding. Eligible projects are improvements located on a route with an urban federal functional classification. Any urban street that is not functionally classified at the time of award must obtain functional classification prior to approval to expend board funds. For the urban arterial program, sidewalks are required on both sides of the roadway unless a sidewalk deviation is granted by the executive director or board through WAC 479-12-500. WAC 479-12-131 Award criteria for the urban arterial program. The board establishes the following criteria for use in evaluating urban arterial program grant applications: 1. Safety improvements - addresses accident reduction, eliminates roadway hazards, and corrects roadway deficiencies. 2. Mobility improvements - improves level of service, improves access to generators, and connects urban street networks. 3. Pavement condition - replaces or rehabilitates street surfaces and structural deficiencies. 4. Mode accessibility - provides additional high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus volume, or non- motorized facilities. 5. Local support-demonstrates initiative to achieve full funding and project completion. Safe Routes to School Mini-grants About Safe Routes to School Mini-grants The goal of Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs is to enable and encourage children to safely walk and bicycle to school. SRTS programs are implemented nationwide by parents, schools, community leaders, and local, state, and tribal governments. The aim of the mini-grants is to use student creativity and leadership skills to increase safe walking and bicycling to school. Successful applications will include one or a combination of the following: student-led Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 9 Appendix 42:Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan activities, concern for the environment, and/or promotion of physical activity. Activities funded by the mini- grants must be part of a new or existing Safe Routes to School program. Application Process The National Center is not currently accepting applications for SRTS mini-grants. The next application cycle will open late spring 2010 for projects implemented in the fall 2010 semester. Applicant Eligibility Eligible applicants include; • Faculty, staff, or parent volunteers at elementary or middle schools; • Adult-supervised elementary or middle school groups or clubs; • Adult-supervised high school groups/clubs that wish to partner with a nearby elementary or middle school; • Local governments; • Tribal governments; and/or • • Community-based or private non-profit organizations engaged in improving safety for and increasing the number of children who safely walk or ride a bicycle to school. Eligible Activities The schools at which mini-grant activities will occur must be elementary or middle schools. Also, these schools must be either starting new SRTS program activities or events, or currently conducting SRTS activities and want to expand them. The National Center is providing mini-grants for creative ideas that are youth-focused and that may explore related issues such as: How do students encourage their peers and the adults in their lives to walk and bicycle safely to school? How do students and others make the connection between safe routes to school and environmental or physical activity issues? Example eligible activities include, but are not limited to, the following: • Students encouraging peers/parents to find opportunities to walk or bicycle, starting with the trip to school. • Students connecting the choice to walk or bicycle with helping the environment. • Students connecting the choice to walk or bicycle with better health. • Students developing messages for parents/other drivers to drive safely, especially in school zones and neighborhoods. From carbon calculators to social marketing campaigns, from audits of school environments to communicating with local politicians and/or government officials, submit a proposal for a project that can make a difference at your school or community. Activities funded by the mini-grants must have the potential to have long-term impacts. Although it is not required, applicants may want to collect student travel data as part of their application in order to have more information about current rates of walking and bicycling to school. This information may help applicants decide on appropriate activities, For more information about data collection, and for student travel tally forms, please see www.saferoutesinfo,org/data. Selection Criteria All applications that meet the eligibility requirements above will be reviewed by a committee that will aim to make awards to: • • A broad geographic distribution of recipients; Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 9 Appendix 43: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 9 Applicants representing a variety of program types; ® Applicants who provide a clear description of how funding will be used to begin new programs or advance current projects or programs with activities that fit with eligibility requirements outlined above; and e Projects or programs that align with SRTS goals of encouraging more children to walk and bicycle to school safely. Funding Restrictions Mini-grant funds may not be used for staff salaries, fundraising, food or refreshments, or cash prizes. The mini-grant funds are Federal funds, and there are Federal restrictions on how the funds are spent. If you have questions about funding eligibility for specific activities, please email infosaferoutesinfo.orq. Reporting Requirements Mini-grant recipients will be required to submit an informal written report on activities midway through the implementation period. Recipients will also be required to submit a formal report at the end of the implementation period (June/July 2010) that provides information about the project. The formal report will include the following: O Budget report of actual expenditures e Description of the project's activities, challenges, successes, and participation rates ® At least three digital pictures that show one or more activities of the funded project Mini-grant recipients may be required to complete a brief questionnaire after the grant period. Application Deadline The National Center is not currently accepting applications for SRTS mini-grants. The next application cycle will open late spring 2010 for projects implemented in the fall 2010 semester. Adopted XX-XX-XX Draft Chapter 11—Blke and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 9 of 9 Appendix -3,:Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 11- BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT. • 11.0 Introduction 11.0.1 Why Plan for Bicycling and Walking? • Bicycling in urban areas has grown dramatically in the last decade due to factors such as healthier lifestyles, rising fuel costs and a desire to lessen impacts on the environment. By creating safe places to ride, the development of new facility types such as bike lanes, bicycle friendly routes, and shared use paths have enabled more people to use bike transportation. In addition, as the importance of a healthy lifestyle has grown, the desire to incorporate exercise through walking has also grown. As a basic form of mobility, virtually all trips--regardless of mode—start and end with walking. The City of Spokane Valley has the essential elements to create a great place to bike and walk. Most streets connect, congestion is minimal, the terrain is flat, and weather is suitable many months of the year. For these reasons, biking and walking is a great way to get around the City. Where there are close links between home and destinations (such as school, work, and shops) walking and cycling can be the preferred and efficient way to move from place to place. Promoting walking and bicycling can help ease congestion, add ress weight and health issues and enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. They help to promote interaction between neighbors, strengthen connection to the community, provide 'eyes-on-the-street' security, and support local retail activity. By comparison, streets and places where people are not present often feel uncomfortable and barren. Cities around the nation with the most positive economic growth and solid resources from tourism, general retail and other sources are places where all people can come and feel comfortable. 11.0.2 Overview As an element of the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan, this chapter is organized to present background data concerning bike and pedestrian facilities (Section 11.1), applicable federal, state and local codes relating to the topic (section 11.2), and a set of goals and objectives (section 11.3). Section 11.4, contains city-wide bike and pedestrian facility improvements, potential education, enforcement and evaluation tools. As a policy document, this chapter will guide decisions regarding multi-modal transportation facilities. As an implementation tool, it will detail priorities and standards for development. 11.0.3 Vision Statements To increase opportunities for non-motorized transportation that Improve the connectivity, safety, convenience and attractiveness of the pedestrian and bicycle network in the City of Spokane Valley. To identify and prioritize facility recommendations based on thorough data collection and analysis, community visioning, regional collaboration, engineering assessment and preliminary cost estimates. 11.0.4 Process Several steps were involved in creating the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. a. Data Collection A comprehensive field inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities was conducted, identifying constraints and opportunities for improvements. The City coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions as well as bike, pedestrian and health advocates, property owners and other stakeholders. This step incorporated a thorough review of the existing adopted Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, including a review of the bike facility map, goals and Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 1 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan policies related to bike and walking activity, as well as a review of recently approved similar plans in the region. Accident data and funding sources for potential future projects were also gathered. A sidewalk inventory completed by students at Washington State University (WSU)was added to the City's GIS system. b. Public Outreach This Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) was created over a year and a half period with participation from a diverse group of citizens, residents and interested parties. A contact database was created to ensure interested parties were notified throughout the development of the plan. Over 900 contacts were included within five months of initiation. The first in a series of BPMP workshops was held on June 16, 2010. A diverse group voiced opinions and concerns on bicycling and walking in the City. Through an interactive exercise, the participants identified destinations, obstacles, and preferred routes for bike and pedestrian facilities. An on-line survey was made available through the City's web page. Over 350 responses were received from the online survey, indicating a significant level of interest. The short, non-statistical survey gathered additional insight into the biking and walking experience in Spokane Valley and into desired routes and destinations. c. Connectivity Assessment and Route Recommendations From the gathered data, a preliminary connection assessment and potential route recommendations were developed. Details of existing rights-of-way, pavement width, driveway approaches and traffic counts were gathered. d. Continued Public Outreach A second community workshop was held on September 19, 2010 to present preliminary bike and pedestrian routes and connections based on the information gathered at the first workshop and through the on-line survey. The Spokane Regional Health District presented information on health impacts associated with alternative modes of transportation. By prioritizing potential projects, participants helped create a vision of a comprehensive bike and pedestrian network. The workshops were publicized online, at schools, bike shops and community facilities throughout the City. In addition, staff prepared newsletters and maintained a BPMP page on the City of Spokane Valley website. Quarterly updates were presented to the City Council as part of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) status reports. e. Safety Analysis and Prioritization of Improvements A portion of money from the City's EECBG funded an engineering consultant to review the proposed routes for safety, cost and prioritizations. This engineering assessment provides technical guidance to help ensure that proposed bike.and pedestrian facilities, such as bike lanes on arterials br shared use paths in neighborhoods, are safe, functional, and appropriate for the set route. f. Plan Refinement, Review and Adoption Desired routes were refined based on technical input from the consultant. Classifications for both bicycle and pedestrian facilities were reviewed based on the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines and industry standards. Comprehensive Plan text, maps and exhibits were prepared. Priorities and preliminary implementation schedules were included, Additional workshops were held to gather input on the draft BPMP document. Finally, the BPMP was presented to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. 11.0.5 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Technical Advisory Group Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 2 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Developing the BPMP resulted in partnerships and collaboration between the City, adjoining jurisdictions and many other interested agencies and individuals. Representatives from many of these groups served on the Bike and Pedestrian Technical Advisory Group (BPTAG). The BPTAG met several times to review and make recommendations on potential routes, facilities and implementation strategies. 11.0.6 Partnerships Preparation of the BPMP has involved a wide range of people and agencies. Partnerships and collaboration contributes to the quality and integrity of the program. Maintaining these partnerships will contribute toward successful implementation and realization of shared goals. a. Spokane Regional Health District The Spokane Regional Health District (SRHD) serves as the area's public health leader and partner in protecting and improving the health of the community. The Health District's Physical Activity program works with community coalitions, elected officials, citizen groups and other organizations to encourage policies that make it easier for people to be physically active. An analysis of existing social, economic and health statistics of the residents of the City of Spokane Valley was prepared by the SRHD epidemiologist.. The role of SRHD was to bring awareness of the positive health impact bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure can have on a community. b. School Districts and Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School is a national program aimed at enabling community leaders, schools and parents across the country to improve safety and encourage more children to be active by safely walking and bicycling to school. In the process, work associated with Safe Routes to School contributes to reducing traffic congestion, improving physical health, and making communities more livable overall. The SRHD along with the City, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, Central Valley School District, East Valley School District, and West Valley School District worked diligently through the 2010/2011 school year to prepare walking audits of all elementary and middle schools. Walking audits are detailed surveys of streets and sidewalks within a one-mile radius surrounding a school using the Safe Walk and Bike Routes: A Guide for Planning and Improving Walk and Bike to School Options for Students (site: WSDOT and WTSC 2010). Results of the audits are used to prepare preferred walking routes for students and to identify and prioritize street and sidewalk safety projects. Continued coordinated efforts between school districts, SRHD and the City will aid in the successful implementation of safe routes for pedestrians of all ages. c. Spokane Transit Authority The Spokane Transit Authority(STA) is a regional public transportation agency providing a variety of transportation options, including bus service to the City of Spokane Valley. The transit system effectively expands the area that pedestrians are able to access for daily services and activities. STA's database of pedestrian paths throughout its service area was used as base data for the City's sidewalk inventory, gap analysis and recommended pedestrian network. The data identified barriers to people using the sidewalk network to access the bus system. d. Bicycle Alliance of Washington The Bicycle Alliance of Washington is a non-profit organization advocating for bicyclists and bike-friendly communities throughout Washington. The Alliance works toward increasing the percentage of all types of bicycle riders and increasing funding available for inclusive, non-motorized transportation facilities. The Alliance works closely with Safe Routes to School programs and serves as a clearinghouse for bicycle education and advocacy. e. Washington State University Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 3 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan In 2007, Washington State University Interdisciplinary Design Institute (WSU) created a pedestrian model by mapping pedestrian networks throughout Spokane Transit Authority's service area, identifying barriers such as the absence of sidewalks and curb ramps, and non-ADA compliant variations in the surface condition, height, width, and slope of pedestrian facilities. The data has been used to identify existing routes and to determine sidewalk infill priorities. By partnering with the City, data developed through the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program will be used to update the WSU pedestrian network model. In turn, the model will be useful in prioritizing pedestrian improvements in an effort to increase safety throughout the City. f. Spokane Regional Transportation Council The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Is the local metropolitan planning organization encouraging coordination and collaboration between planning and transportation departments throughout the region. SRTC maintains the Transportation Improvement Program, a three-year list of state and federally-funded transportation projects, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan in Spokane County, a document addressing transportation needs for the next 20 years. SRTC recognizes that walking and bicycling are simple and efficient modes of travel that can Increase public transit ridership. Coordination between the City and SRTC will create opportunities to implement effective non-motorized projects and programs. 11.1 Pianninq Context The Bike and Pedestrian Element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expands on the Transportation Element to focus on non-motorized transportation. Also referred to as the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program, this element is consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use, Transportation, Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. 11.1.1 GMA The Washington Growth Management Act(GMA), the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provide for the inclusion of non-motorized transportation elements in comprehensive plans. Bike and pedestrian planning is sometimes included in the land use, transportation or recreation elements. Using a separate element to address opportunities and constraints specific to these non-motorized forms of transportation allows the City of Spokane Valley to focus on Improvements that enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. 11.1.2 County-Wide Planning Policies County Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) provide a policy framework for the County and its respective cities. Specifically items 10 and 16 under Policy Topic 5—Transportation, state: 10. Each jurisdiction should coordinate its housing and transportation strategies to support existing, or develop new, public multimodal transportation systems. 16. Each jurisdiction shall address energy consumption/conservation by: a. Designing transportation improvements for alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle; b. Locating and adopting design standards for new development to support pedestrian or non-motorized travel; c. Providing regulatory and financial incentives to promote efforts of the public and private sector to conserve energy; and d. Reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled and number of vehicle trips. As described in Section 11.0,6 above, the SRTC is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Spokane region. SRTC maintains the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), a 20-year strategy to meet the transportation needs of the region. MTP goals related to non-motorized transportation include: Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 4 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Establishing a bicycle and pedestrian program that will increase the mode-share of people walking and bicycling as a means of transportation over the next 20 years; • Eliminating barriers that discourage or prohibit pedestrian or bicycle access; • Identifying the needs and gaps in the regional bicycle and pedestrian system; and • Encouraging connections between residential areas and adjacent land uses to enhance awareness and cooperation between all roadway users. The MTP facilitated the creation of three complementary products: the Spokane Regional Bike Plan (adopted in 2008); the Spokane Regional Pedestrian Plan (adopted in 2009) and the Smart Routes program. All of these were collaborative efforts with SRTC, the Spokane Regional Health District, the Active Transportation Technical Committee (including representatives from the City of Spokane Valley and other cities and towns) and a citizen-based steering committee. Each of these documents encourages jurisdictions to tailor the regional plans to their own needs and to use them for guidance to develop appropriate bicycle and pedestrian projects that traverse jurisdictional lines. 11.2 Existing Setting 11.2.1 Comprehensive Plan The City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies to guide development within the City. All elements within the Comprehensive Plan must be internally consistent. Goals found within other elements encourage the development and implementation of a bike and pedestrian system within the City. The following are from the Land Use, Transportation, Natural Environment and the Parks and Recreation elements: Land Use -Goal LUG-7 Provide a balanced transportation network that accommodates public transportation, high occupancy vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles and integrated parking. Transportation- Goal TG-9 Enhance community livability and transportation by encouraging a connected system of pedestrian and bicycle ways that is integrated into a coordinated regional network, Natural Environment-Goal NEG-20 Support regional efforts to improve air quality. Parks and Recreation -Goal PRG-4 Based upon budgetary resources, promote, develop, operate and maintain a comprehensive trail/bicycle system within Spokane Valley that provides non-motorized travel (walking, bicycling, skating, and horseback riding)to meet city residents recreation, fitness and commuting needs. 11.2.2 Current Activity a. Collision Data The Washington State Department of Transportation maintains records of pedestrian and bicycle collision data. Between 2003 (incorporation) and 2010, there were six fatalities and 295 serious or disabling injuries in Spokane Valley associated with pedestrian and bicycle collisions. On average, there are 41 pedestrian and bicycle collisions per year. The majority of the collisions occurred on major arterials including Argonne, Pines and Sullivan Roads. It is estimated that many bicycle and pedestrian collisions have happened but have not been reported. b. Citizen Input Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 5 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan To ensure the bike and pedestrian system reflects the community's desires, an extensive outreach component was built into the process. As described in the previous section, this process included workshops and an on-line survey. The results showed that a majority of respondents walk or bicycle for exercise/health, enjoyment, or to commute to work/school. When asked what prevents a person from biking or walking, an overwhelming 70% of the respondents said it was due to the lack of facilities. The results showed the community's desire to see improved bike and pedestrian facilities in or around the following six routes: 1. Sprague Avenue 2. Pines Road 3. 32' Ave / Dishman Mica 4. Argonne/ Mullan corridor 5. Valleyway Avenue (as a bicycle friendly route) 6. Sullivan Road Many mentioned the need for more north/south connections to the Centennial trail. The preferred facilities were bike lanes and shared use paths. The graphs below illustrate the respondent's views. Why do you bike or walk? Note:Respondents were asked to check all that apply 94% 89% i. 1l 58% !I s 55% l 35% 1! /' Il _ � �_ i . l 9% 3% 4%0_ y , \`r mac` cy ay oo` c . \� �i, rya o�F e�yo e � y°r `ao o{yaa Or o Cor Jim 0o Go J • _ �__r • Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 6 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan What prevents you from biking or walking? Note:Respondents were asked to check all that apply 70% ' 57% k i' 43% • 1{ 28% I Vd i 26% .I 26% 'I .p ! 1 � 14% 13% 17%i I 6% i ;I -i .: . -- : -- - - - •. 1`< J`,, aco ,•o \I:3 C`ae Ee tJe pyre a°moo c`�i� ae0z aka o`\y�5 G\,��5 eeea c34 \cQ cic' y \c 0 \ \ F._\ --a. .._......--.. Where would you like to be able to bicyle or walk? Note:Responses were tallied from qualitative data • 23% 21% 21% 1, I{ 1 5% 4% 5% 5% 4% .I 2% 2% 2% 2% � i 1% 1% V/ •z<7 Gd3 ■06 �a� ,(5'' -\"o°a any c�00 oozy �J° G�� ,,,,* cy- cc\a\ G�� mt`� v \p\ ��, Q yor 54�m \Y A -l� cp- .y. lea\o2 oey Ja yr Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 7 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Which roadways are difficult for bicyclists or pedestrians? Note:Responses were tallied from qualitative data 24% 17% • ; 16% II , 5% 6% 2% $% 3% 3%. 3% 3°/a 3% 1% I , 1% .f 1% .! 1% PQe7%.42" ��0 0��e�o4,46\ 6.1> ,,r�a�`Gaee c opm��\oc Qa� Q`ce�4J �c �J� J\e at What bicycle and pedestrian facilities do you prefer? Note: Respondents were asked to check all that apply 78% 62% 51% 36% Bike Lanes Shared Use Paths Signed,Shared Bicycle Boulevard Roadways • Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 8 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Which of the following programs would you like to see implemented? Note: Respondents were asked to check all that apply 87% 66% 55% li 47% 46% 36% I 34% • j 28% 1 i I L I--- n'' OCP ecti 4e 0y m° 0y a �� ��G CJ <2' •,,e wbJ°a `� sec \wc,`,s ��Gti� ���e a�`co \.�v o Ica 4•J O2, oC0 Q�ac ,�o �oce c Jae \c aye �' CV'' c. Health Data As part of the initial community workshops, the SRHD prepared information correlating active lifestyles, including bicycle and pedestrian commutes, to improved health. Sedentary lifestyles can contribute to obesity. Obesity can be defined as a person with a body mass index of 30 or greater. Obesity can contribute to illnesses including heart disease and strokes, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, diabetes and some forms of cancer. Less than % of all adults and children are getting the recommended levels of moderate physical activity. In the City of Spokane Valley SRHD data also shows that only 52.7 percent of the City's population met the recommended physical activity level. Their data also show that from 2004 to 2008, 26.8 percent of the population was obese and an additional 37.7 percent was overweight. Lack of physical activity increases health risks, resulting in increased costs for medical care, worker compensation and lost productivity. Obesity and lack of activity contribute to chronic diseases including cancer, heart and respiratory disease. The top five causes of death in Spokane Valley are shown below: Table 11.1 Top Five Causes of Death,Spokane Valley 2004-2008 Cause of Death Rate per 100,000 Rank Cancer 184.0 1 Diseases of the Heart 159.7 2 Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 50.5 3 Cerebrovascular Diseases—Stroke 48.2 4 Injuries 45.8 5 Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 9 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Source: Spokane Regional Health District Literature reviews have shown that urban design and land use policies creating opportunities for physical activity within communities have been effective and are considered best practices for increasing a community's health and reducing obesity. The relationship between the presence of sidewalks and the amount of physical activity are illustrated below: Presence of Sidewalks Encourages Walking°° • 25 • '11: 20 . • J II. is 0 10 20 20 40 50 60 70 BO 90 1C0 . Percent of route with a sidewalk Source: Rodriguez D,et al., 151-173 Approximately 65 percent of Spokane County's carbon monoxide emissions are from vehicle sources. Reducing vehicle trips by accommodating and encouraging active transportation positively impacts health by Improving air quality. SRHD also considers socio-economic factors as they relate to health. A link exists between education, poverty, and mobility choices. In Spokane Valley, between 2004 and 2008, 37.4 percent of the population had less than a high school diploma or GED. The amount of education a person achieves influences their ability to earn a certain standard of living. Between 2004 and 2008, 43.9 percent of the City's population was at or below the 200 percent federal poverty level, That is more than twice the national average. A substantial percentage of the population either cannot afford automobile transportation, or affording it is a financial hardship. For these people, in addition to the young in age and the older population, getting around by other alternatives such as walking, bicycling or transit is a necessity. 11.2.3 Existing Bicycle System Though developed as a compilation of rural townships over time, the City of Spokane Valley has a strong grid pattern of streets. The placement of principal and minor arterials, collectors and local access streets overlaid on the relatively flat topography provides an excellent base for non- motorized transportation. a. Types of Bicycle Users There are many types of bicyclists with varying skills and levels of comfort in terms of riding in traffic. While bicyclists can be loosely categorized as experienced adult, casual adult and Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 10 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan child cyclists, there are many levels of cycling competency and just as many opinions as to what makes an ideal bike route. Some experienced cyclists ride on busy arterial streets regardless of bicycle facilities. Some cyclists will ride on busy roads only if bike lanes are provided. Some will use the lanes only if parallel residential roads are unavailable. Children are at times encouraged to use sidewalks if available. b. Existing Bicycle Facilities A combination of striped bike lanes, posted bicycle friendly routes and separated bike facilities are found throughout the City. In addition, other streets act as informal routes, favored by bicycle commuters as safe and convenient alternatives to bike ways with heavy automobile traffic. The following different types of bicycle facilities, as defined by the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) are found throughout Spokane Valley: i. Shared Use Path: Facilities on separated right-of-way and with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. Minimum width is six feet; optimal width is ten feet. Shared use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and other non-motorized users. • The Centennial Trail is an example of a shared use path in the City. With connections through adjacent jurisdictions, it is an important regional recreational and commuting facility. Other shared use paths exist along the south side of Appleway Avenue from Sprague Avenue to the eastern City boundary and on Sullivan Road, from Centennial Trail to just south of Trent Road. ii. Bike Lanes: A portion of a roadway designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. The required width of a bike lane on a given street varies based on several factors, such as existence of a gutter and curb. Parking and traffic volume must be considered as well. AASHTO and SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) guidelines recommend that for a street without gutter or curb, the minimum width of the bike lane should be four feet. If the street Includes curb and gutter, the minimum width should be five feet. In situations where parking is permitted without any striping or stalls, AASHTO guidelines recommend an 11-foot bike lane width. Bicycle lanes improve conditions for cyclists of all abilities within a given corridor and encourage increased bicycle use by providing a greater degree of comfort and perceived safety for less skilled cyclists. • Striped bicycle lanes are located along several arterials, including 32nd Avenue, portions of Broadway, Evergreen Road, Mission Road, Sprague Avenue and 16th Avenue. Mirabeau Parkway from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue and Indiana Avenue from Mirabeau to Evergreen Road are also improved with bike lanes. iii. Signed Shared Roadway: Signed lane allowing both vehicular and bicycle traffic. Minimum width is 14 feet. Signed shared roadways indicate to cyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes compared to alternate routes. • In the City of Spokane Valley, signed shared roadways exist on 41" Avenue from University to Conklin, and on Trent from Flora to the eastern city boundary. iv. Shared Roadway: Lane allowing both vehicular and bicycle traffic. No signing is involved. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 1 1 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • All public streets in the City of Spokane Valley can be defined as shared roadways. Existing bike facilities in the City of Spokane Valley are shown in Map 11.1. Other bicycle facilities found throughout the City include bicycle parking facilities at some commercial, public and office facilities and bicycle racks on transit vehicles. c. System Deficiencies Barriers surrounding both recreation and commuting bicycle activity throughout the City include crossing Interstate 90, railroad tracks, and the Spokane River. Currently, principal arterials cross these barriers. However, the limited space for bike facilities on these arterials plus the traffic volume hinders the safety and comfort for many riders. This impacts those trying to access commercial and employment centers in the north part of the City as well as those trying to access the Centenhial Trail. Other factors impacting bicycle activity include impaired sight distances, limited street connectivity, cyclist and motorist behaviors, lack of way-finding signs, and maintenance issues. 11.2.5 Existing Pedestrian System a. Types of Pedestrians For trips of a certain length, walking is the simplest, most affordable way to get around. Spokane Valley, with relatively flat terrain and a predominately grid street pattern, has great opportunities for pedestrians of all kinds. People choose to walk for many of reasons including recreation and necessity. Pedestrians include adults, children, seniors, people without cars and people with disabilities. Those with higher levels of transportation choice, i.e. those specifically able to afford cars and of driving age, make use of autos for most trips. This situation is not so much a reflection of popular transportation preferences but of the many auto-dominated land use and transportation decisions that created present day Spokane Valley. All citizens, including those driving cars as well as seniors, youth and people with disabilities, need safety, connectivity and accessibility. b. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalk inventories were performed by City staff as part of the analyses conducted for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program and the American with Disabilities Act transition plan. Also, in association with the Safe Routes to School program, volunteers from all elementary and middle schools In the City conducted walking audits to determine potential routes to their schools and to identify missing sidewalk segments, potential pedestrian conflicts and existing safe haven areas for students. The existing pedestrian system in Spokane Valley includes sidewalks, shared use paths, wide shoulders on rural roads and residential streets. Generally, sidewalks exist on most of the existing arterials and range in width from three to six feet. In addition, most streets surrounding elementary, middle and high school facilities are improved with sidewalks. Several shared-use paths, intended for all types of non-motorized transportation, are located throughout the City (see section on existing bicycle facilities above). Map 11.3 shows locations of existing sidewalk facilities. Other infrastructure associated with pedestrian activity includes curb ramps, intersection markings, cross walks with and without associated signals, benches and shelters for transit facilities, and street trees. c. System Deficiencies: For the most part, sidewalks on arterials are constructed adjacent to the curb and lanes where cars are traveling in excess of 30 and 40 miles per hour, impacting pedestrian comfort and safety. In addition, while current development standards require separated sidewalks, there are portions where sidewalks were not built with initial street construction. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 12 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Other factors making walking difficult include crosswalk issues on high-volume streets, obstructions such as power poles and utility boxes in the sidewalk, outdated or non-existent curb ramps, poor lighting, limited facilities at transit stops, and maintenance issues. 11.3 Goals and Policies Spokane Valley is intended to become a bicycle and pedestrian friendly City, where bicycling and waking are encouraged and promoted as safe and convenient forms of transportation and . recreation. Goals help guide actions towards fulfilling this vision. Policies are more specific statements relating to implementing measures that will achieve the goals. As with many cities, Spokane Valley will have limited funds with which to pursue its bike and pedestrian goals. The City will have to use its resources in a focused and prioritized manner to have a positive impact on non-motorized transportation infrastructure. It will be imperative that Spokane Valley make strategic investments of the limited resources available and where possible, leverage resources in cooperation with other governmental and private agencies. The following goals and policies are consistent with the goals and policies of other chapters of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, with the Countywide Planning Policies and the Growth Management Act. Network and Facilities Goal & Policies Goal BP-1 Provide a comprehensive bikeway and pedestrian system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, trails, and employment areas within the City and to adjacent jurisdictions. Policies • BP-1.1 Encourage bike lanes, shared use paths and sidewalks throughout the City where applicable and appropriate. BP-1.2 Encourage bicycle parking facilities at commercial and public facilities as well as places of employment. BP-1.3 Work with Spokane Transit Authority to develop safe, comfortable and secure pedestrian amenities and bicycle parking facilities at transit stops as well as bike racks on transit vehicles. BP-1.4 Encourage sidewalks, bicycle facilities and shared use paths as part of development where applicable. BP-1.5 Encourage landscaping, bollards and other treatments with new streets, parking lots and other pedestrian activity zones to create an effective safety and visual buffer between the sidewalk and the street. BP-1.6 Coordinate on regional non-motorized efforts in partnership with adjoining jurisdictions and with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. BP-1.7 Pursue joint funding applications for implementation that will expand the regional bikeway and pedestrian network. BP-1.8 Strive to maintain pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle and emergency response access rights when street closure or vacation requests are processed. BP-1,9 Encourage the use of technological advances to provide a safe, user friendly bicycle and pedestrian network. BP-1.10 When considering alternative modes of transportation priority should be placed on providing sidewalks for children particularly in areas near parks and schools. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 -- Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 13 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Safety and Accessibility Goal and Policies Goal BP-2 Reduce the number of bicycle and pedestrian injuries through development of safe and accessible routes for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Policies BP-2.1 Encourage bicycle and pedestrian facilities to meet nationally recognized design standards for safety and accessibility such as AASHTO. BP-2.2 Encourage bicycle routes and shared use paths to be properly signed and marked to address personal safety. BP-2.3 Encourage safe bicycle and pedestrian crossings of major arterials, railroads, I- 90 and the Spokane River through use of innovative treatments where appropriate. BP-2.4 Encourage the enforcement of pedestrian and bicycle safety rules on City streets and bikeways. Promotion and Education Goal and Policies Goal BP-3 Implement comprehensive education and encouragement programs targeted at all populations in the City. Policies BP-3.1 Continue coordinating with existing agencies and programs, including the Spokane Regional Health District, the Safe Routes to Schools program, the Police Department, SCOPE, the Commute Trip Reduction program and other entities concerned with bicycle and pedestrian safety, to create education programs focused on safe bicycle riding, walking and motorist activity. BP-3.2 Provide current and easily accessible information about the bicycle and pedestrian networks, programs and facilities. Implementation, Funding and Maintenance Goal and Policies Goal BP- 4 Seek funding from all available sources to implement and maintain bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as ongoing education and enforcement. Policies BP-4,1 Maintain a prioritized and phased implementation plan that takes into consideration the scope, cost and benefits of a facility, and available funding opportunities. BP-4.2 include facilities as described in this Bike and Pedestrian Element as part of the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)where feasible. BP-4.3 Review and monitor opportunities for multi-modal grant funding as they become available. BP-4.4 City should strive to maintain quality street surfaces that provide a safe environment for both vehicles and cyclists. BP-4.5 Ensure internal coordination between departments prior to developing street projects that include bike and/or pedestrian facilities. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 —Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 14 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.4 Bike and Pedestrian Master Program 11.4.1 Engineering Improvements a Overall Bicycle and Pedestrian Network The City of Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Program is based on field data, citizen input and engineering analysis of constraints and opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. it should be noted that this is a master program, not a detailed feasibility analysis. As such, exact routing and designations could be modified during the course of more detailed studies of specific projects. The recommended bikeway network is shown in Map 11.2 and recommended pedestrian network is shown in Map 11.4. Map 11.5 shows the recommended travel ways for the schools that participated in the safe routes to school exercise. b. Possible Engineering Solutions The specific types of bike and pedestrian treatments that are applied to roads vary depending on factors such as existing right-of-way, traffic counts, traffic speeds, roadway cross section, number of approaches or driveways on the street, topography, etc. A summary of bicycle treatments are described below. More specific design guidelines including the complete toolbox and typical cross section layouts are found in Appendix 2: Facility Design Guidelines. i. Bicycle Friendly Routes— Bicycle friendly routes are roadways with low speeds and low volumes optimized for bicycling. The treatments recommended for bicycle routes should strive to improve through movements for bicyclists and other non-motorized modes. Bicycle route treatments are ideal on two-lane roadways where traffic volume is less than 3,000 vehicles per day (although less than 1,500 vehicles per day is preferred) and posted speeds of 25 miles per hour or less. See Appendix 2 for specific bicycle boulevard treatments and cross sections. ii. Bicycle Lanes - Bicycle lanes designate an exclusive part of the roadway (typically on the right side of the roadway) to be used by bicyclists only. A bike lane is typically located between the right most traffic lane and the curb or on street parking area. A bicycle lane should be considered on roadways with traffic volumes greater than 3,000 vehicles per day or posted speeds greater than 25 miles per hour. Appendix 2 includes a variety of bicycle lane treatments from a standard bike lane to buffered bike lanes and climbing lanes. The appendix also includes cross sections showing how bike lanes could be applied to existing City roadways. iii. Cycle Tracks -A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility separated from vehicle traffic and the sidewalk, and is intended to provide improved comfort and safety for the bicyclist as compared to an on-street bike lane. The cycle track can be separated from vehicle traffic using a variety of treatments (curbs, planter strips, on-street parking, pavement markings, or other options). In addition, the cycle track should be clearly defined from sidewalks (grade separated, pavement markings, or an alternate clear indication) to prevent bicycle conflicts with pedestrians. A cycle track requires a wider cross section than a typical bike lane but should be considered on roadways where bicyclists may not feel comfortable biking directly adjacent to vehicle traffic. iv. Shared Use Paths — Shared use paths are physically separated from the roadway and are intended for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, runners and other non-motorized users. Shared use paths supplement bike lanes, bicycle friendly routes and sidewalks and connect to these other facilities at ends of the path as well as midway, depending on the length and location. The number of driveways and crossings should be minimized when designing a shared use path. Generally, if there are more than eight crossings per mile, an on-street facility should be considered instead. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 15 of 22 • City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan v. Bicycle Intersection Treatments - Intersection treatments improve the safety of bicyclists through an intersection (typically a signalized intersection). Depending on the characteristics of the cross streets (traffic and bicycle volumes, traffic and bicycle speeds, type of bicycle facility, number of vehicles and/or bikes turning, visibility, surrounding land use, and other factors) a range of treatments may be applicable. Appendix 2 provides specific intersection treatment guidelines and criteria. vi. Mid-Block Crossing Treatments - Mid-block crossings can be dangerous for bicyclists because drivers are not typically expecting a crossing at a non-intersection location. The need for a mid-block crossing may arise if two bicycle facilities are off-set or if a trail intersects a roadway at mid-block. In these situations, mid-block crossing treatments can be applied to improve the safety. vii. Wayfinding - Wayfinding is meant to be used by bicyclists while en route to communicate directions, distance and sometimes expected travel time to a particular destination. Wayfinding is typically accomplished through the use of signs supplemented at times with pavement markings. Wayfinding should be applied to all types of bicycle facilities. viii. Prioritization Criteria— Bicycle Network The overall bicycle and pedestrian networks will be implemented over time. The criteria contained in Appendix 1 has been used to determine where to focus available funding and staff time to implement bicycle facility projects. Priority is given to those projects anticipated to serve the most number of people and to contribute to overall safety. ix. Prioritization Criteria— Pedestrian Network The criteria contained in Appendix 1 was used to determine where to focus available funding and staff time to implement pedestrian facility projects. Priority is given to those projects anticipated to serve the most number of people and to contribute to overall safety. x. Network Improvements Facility improvements, summarized in Appendix 1, are categorized as short-term and long-term projects based on need and ease of implementation. 11.4.2 Ancillary Facilities Ancillary facilities add to the safety and comfort of using walking and bicycling as modes of transportation. Ancillary facilities can include bicycle parking, showers and lockers, transit features and bicycle and pedestrian maps. Crosswalk design can aid in increasing visibility through the use of specific striping patterns and lights. The City of Spokane Valley will use the following methods to address ancillary features: a. Pedestrian Features: Encourage that pedestrian crossing facilities, including crosswalks and signage, alert both motorists and pedestrians to the presence of the facility. Work with developers and utilities to remove existing hazards such as light poles, utility boxes, etc., from the sidewalk. Combine existing driveway cuts when possible and limit the installation of new driveways. Where appropriate, constrain roadway width with bulb-outs and tighter right turns at intersections to slow vehicles as they approach areas with high pedestrian volumes. Provide sidewalks or pedestrian paths between neighborhoods and commercial or public destinations where Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 16 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan appropriate. Encourage clearly identified safe walking paths between public sidewalks and commercial buildings. b. Bicycle Parking: Continue to require bicycle racks with new development. Consider incentives to address lack of facilities at existing developments when proposed tenant improvements or expansions do not necessarily generate a requirement for new spaces. Consider developing standards for the size of bicycle parking spaces, clearance, aisles, signs, anchoring, non-interference with pedestrian circulation, and weather protection. c. Shower and Locker Facilities: Continue to coordinate with Spokane County Commute Trip Reduction program to encourage shower and locker facilities as tenant benefits and to encourage employers to consider partnering with nearby gym facilities for use of existing shower facilities. b. Transit Features: Continue as an active partner with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and the Spokane Transit Authority to encourage the accommodation of bike lockers and bikes on transit vehicles. 11.4.3 Education and Encouragement Unfortunately, too many bicyclists in the United States lack the basic skills or knowledge to safely ride a bicycle in traffic. Many people are, quite simply, afraid of bicycling on streets. Bicycle education programs are designed to increase bicycle safety by improving the ability to ride with traffic as well as improve motorist awareness. The difficulties faced in helping people develop this skill and knowledge stems from the wide range of age groups that require this training and the necessity to tailor the programs to each one. Bicycle education programs should be directed at children bicyclists, adult bicyclists and motorists. The City of Spokane Valley will use the following methods to address education and encouragement: a. Child Education and Encouragement: In conjunction with the Health District, school districts and other interested organizations, encourage development of bicycle education programs for several age groups, or, use existing programs that have demonstrated effectiveness. Programs could be incorporated into existing summer parks programming and existing school programming. Programs could include bicycle helmet safety information, maintenance and repair, safe riding habits, bicycle rides, etc. More specifically, students in grades K-3 could be taught basic pedestrian skills, stranger danger, crossing residential streets, using pedestrian push buttons, taking a school bus, etc. Older students in Grades 4 to 5 could learn bike safety and handling skills, including bike operation on streets with supervised bike rides on neighborhood streets. Later, in Grades 7-9, students could learn basic mobility skills of how to get around town including using transit for utilitarian and recreational trips (e.g., how to read a bus schedule, execute a transfer, take rapid transit), and more on safe bicycling practices. In tenth grade, many students take driver's education. The driver's education curriculum could include focused instruction on how motorists should interact with pedestrians and bicyclists, how to predict their movements, pass safely, learn when different modes have the right-of-way, etc. b. Adult Education and Encouragement: Continue to partner with the Health District, Sherriff's Department, SCOPE and other interested organizations, to develop adult .Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 17 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan pedestrian and bicycie program(s) which could include a public awareness campaign focused on responsible road behavior. The campaign could be directed to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike and should make use of public service space from newspapers, television, radio, bus advertising, posters and flyers mailed in utility bills. In addition, promote community events such as Bike to Work Week, charity bike rides, costume rides, bike fairs and bicycle rodeos. Include bicycle safety checks and safety information. Incorporate "share the road" signs where appropriate on City streets and include "sharing the road" or other safety campaign information on the City's webpage. 11.4.4 Enforcement While laws that address bicyclists' behavior and safety are in place, they are sometimes not fully enforced. Effective enforcement leads to a safer environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike. The following methods will address enforcement of this Bike and Pedestrian Master Program: a. Law Enforcement: Work with the Sherriffs Department to develop a policy to include the City's intent to enforce existing laws affecting pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist responsibilities, including parking in bike lanes but especially those relating to drunken driving, careless driving, speeding and failing to yield. b. School Crossings: Continue assisting school districts to develop their Safe Routes to School programs to ensure safe crossing activity at school sites. Engage SCOPE as an additional presence where needed. c. Facility Upkeep: Continue existing program of regular maintenance of street and sidewalk facilities. Ensure that asphalt pavement overlays are flush with the concrete gutter and that utility covers are flush with the pavement. • Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 18 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.4.4 Implementation and Funding Various portions of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Program will be able to be implemented immediately (such as paint applied when a road is resurfaced, continuing existing requirements, coordination with other agencies, etc.). Other portions will require further study, possible neighborhood input and detailed engineering design. Table 11.4.1 summarizes potential steps involved with implementation: Table 11.4.1 BPMP Implementation Summary Program or Possible Implementation Step(s) Lead Department Improvement Further studies to determine exact facility Community Development;Public Works improvements to be implemented Neighborhood input Community Development Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Improvements Engineering design work Public Works Funding source identification Community Development; Public Works I _ Environmental review Community Development;Public Works Application of requirements with development I Community Development;Project Developers Ancillary Facilities _ __ _ _ Coordination with other agencies Community Development Education and Program research and development Community Development;Parks Department Encouragement Programs Coordination with other agencies in developing Community Development programs Enforcement Programs • - Funding Source identification Community Development;Public Works As referenced In Table 11.4.1 above, funding is required for implementing many portions of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. Table 11.4.2 summarizes potential funding sources. More detailed descriptions of these sources, including match requirements and application timing, are contained in Appendix 3. Review of several funding programs reveals that while each grant announcement details specific criteria for funding, certain common threads are present. When applying for funding, the following criteria should be addressed: a. Partnership Funding is limited. Therefore, grant sources encourage and support cooperative regional projects and planning efforts that integrate housing, transportation, environmental impact and economic development. Projects that pull together public and private entities and multiple stakeholders are favored. c. Risk Reduction Crash data quantifies dangerous stretches of pedestrian and bicycle commute routes. Increasing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists encourages the larger community to consider these alternative modes of transportation. Projects designed to address a clear and demonstrated safety hazard are therefore encouraged. d. Location Bike and pedestrian facilities that link residential areas with schools, recreation facilities, and shopping areas result in a large benefit to a community. Encouraging alternative Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 19 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan transportation to daily activities reduces car commutes and pollution. Well located projects also consider and provide for multi-generational users. e. Broad Project Scope Developing and encouraging use of an overall bike and pedestrian system is an on-going effort. Implementing a successful bike and pedestrian master program includes identification of facility improvements, provisions for education, encouragement and enforcement, and program follow-up that provides for evaluation and adjustments over time. Table 11.4.2 BPMP Potential Funding Sources Program Description Federal Funding Sources Enacted in August 2005;possible revisions 2011-2012 Authorizes Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety,and transit Programs within SAFETEA-LU relative to bicycle and pedestrian improvements: • Highway Safety Improvement Program Administered through WSDOT—may be invitational. Funds can be used for improvements to address fatal and serious collisions. Eligible projects may Include pedestrian facilities, traffic signal improvements, and signage. e STP-Transportation Enhancements Project selection through SRTC;grant funds administered through WSDOT. Funds can be Federal Transportation used for projects which enhance the surface transportation experience and Includes Funding: provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities,safety and education programs and conversion of abandoned railway corridors to trails. Safe,Accountable, Flexible, Efficient • Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program Transportation Equity Act-- Project selection through SRTC. ;grant funds administered through WSDOT Funds can be a Legacy for Users I used for projects that reduce congestion and improve air quality,such as sidewalk infill, (SAFETEA-LU) ` transit Improvements,and bicycle facilities. • Recreational Trails Program (A new federal Administered through Washington's Recreation and Conservation Office and may be used transportation authorization for maintenance and restoration of existing trails,development of trailslde facilities, bill will replace SAFETEA- construction of new trails and acquisition of property for trails. LU in the near future. This • Safe Routes to School new bill will likely change Administered through WSDOT. Funds can be used to improve walking routes to schools. the funding programs described here.) • New Freedom Initiative Administered through WSDOT or STA. Funds can be used to enhance access to transit stops such as construction of sidewalks, ramps,and bus shelters. • Job Access and Reverse Commute Program(5316) Administered through STA. The program was established to address transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income persons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Could be used to install bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities near low-Income housing or high density employment centers. e Surface Transportation Program(STP) Project selection through SRTC;grant funds administered through WSDOT, May be used on any federally classified arterial including bridge projects and transit capital projects. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 20 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.2 BPMP Potential Funding Sources Program Description Eligible transportation related projects include streets,sidewalks,and recreational facilities Priority given to activities that benefit low-and moderate-income persons,prevent or eliminate slums Community Development or blight,and address community development needs Block Grants(CDBG) Administered annually through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; administered locally through Spokane County's Community Services,Housing and Community Development Department Spokane Valley typically receives around$300,000 per year River Trails and National Parks Service program Conservation Assistance Provides planning assistance to establish and restore greenways, rivers,trails,watersheds and open Program(RICA) space Provides funding for planning, acquiring and constructing outdoor recreation areas and facilities Land and Water including trails,restrooms,parking areas and open spaces Conservation Fund (LWCF) Administered by the state's Recreation and Conservation Office Transportation, Community Funds projects that improve transportation efficiency,reduce environmental impacts, reduce the need and System Preservation for costly infrastructure Improvements, and ensure efficient access to jobs. Past funding Included Program(TCSP) bicycle and pedestrian pathways,sidewalks,streetscapes,corridor improvements, pedestrian overpasses,and school safety projects Energy Efficiency and Funds projects that improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions in Conservation Block Grants their communities (EECBG) Funds highway,bridge,public transportation,passenger and freight rail projects TIGER II Discretionary Geared towards large scale,Job creating projects Administered through USDOT Funds the planning and design of TIGER II Discretionary Improvements TIGER II Planning Emphasizes livable,sustainable communities Administered through USDOT and HUD State Funding Sources Funds sidewalk projects on federally classified routes that improve pedestrian safety, access, TIB Urban Sidewalk , connectivity,and address system continuity Program Administered through the Transportation improvement Board Washington Wildlife and Funds a range of land protection and outdoor recreation, Including building regional trails Recreation Program- Recreation ' Administered through the state's Recreation and Conservation Office. Focused on reducing collisions Traffic Safety Grants Funds can be used for implementation of traffic safety strategies,public education campaigns, and equipment and materials Administered through the Washington Traffic Safety Commission office To address collisions resulting in fatalities and serious injuries Pedestrian and Bicycle Can be used for bicycle lanes,sidewalks,joint use paths,safe routes to transit,educational efforts Safety Grants Administered through the WSDOT's Highways and Local Programs office Provides up to$500 per school for training,equipment and supplies for school zone crossing guards Mini Grants for Schools Administered through the Washington Traffic Safety Commission Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 21 of 22 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.2 BPMP Potential Funding Sources Program Description Provides up to$7500 per school zone for the Installation of school zone flashing beacons at • Flashing Lights for Schools elementary schools Administered through the Washington Traffic Safety Commission To encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicle trips Trip Reduction Provides up to$100,000 per year for reducing vehicle trips Performance Program Administered through the WSDOT Local Funding Sources Annually receives 0.42%of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax attributable Trails and Path Fund Funds are restricted for constructing new trails and paths throughout the City The City typically receives$8,000 annually for this fund Annual capital Real Estate Excise Tax(REST)funds have been used as match for leveraging other state and Improvement projects, federal funds. parks projects, Simple projects(painting,sweeping,vegetation removal)can be accomplished with scheduled public maintenance projects works projects and maintenance activities Builds on continued partnering and community involvement Non-profit organizations, Works well for smaller pieces of overall projects Land Trusts,Businesses Good fit when applying for and leveraging federal or state funds Other Funding Sources Provides for bike paths,rail trails,bike parks,big-city cycling initiatives,and innovative,high-profile bicycling projects serving as national models Bikes Belong Program Maximum award is$10,000 Administered by The Conservation Fund Provides funds for planning and design of greenways, including unpaved trail development American Greenways Maximum award is$2,500;most awards range from$500 to$1,500 Program Administered by The Conservation Fund Foundations typically either donate funds and support to other organization,or provide a source of Foundations funding for their own charitable purposes Further research available at Foundation Center website 11.4.5 Monitoring and Modifications Monitoring the effectiveness of the overall BPMP can be accomplished as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan review and update. Modifications to the Bicycle Map, the Pedestrian Map, the project implementation tables and other programs described in this Chapter can be accomplished as needed to achieve established goals. The City's web page can be updated with notices of projects that are in the planning, design, build or maintenance phase. Education and enforcement activities will be highlighted on the web page. Adopted TBD Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Page 22 of 22 IV/ City of J Spokane L x //� wuaooRf m: fib' I 711 lr1l�� ,ti °�T,�Qeeloy ti Orch hard Av'e � "' lawb Park -- =�.+ �r•• of ASil�wood-- r�� Fgtlorlch,_,}1. ,�Yf — nanson • r/ Mirnetnu Map 11.1 Existing Bike Facilities Lp1.rt $rn;IivaN Pun-k Creenacres L I ��CnHinn-,a_ uo Legend beirtLtg Facilities �. Existing Bike Lame —— Fasting Shared Use Path v '. vow wet I'nrk-� a •P, W.. t � fiz aaN _J� ,,. ---%rphgry• ¶ ��L. , , �t pA,tJy `� r ci.,1 I S 1-` , 1 j ITearh Lith geese) L TMy � y't.4. Obit'k;`.yglw a !fi.• n ,f.• o,' ?rnyr'ry -. 32 �'12Ih I' Ca+tennialTrad Tnilheads Schools Railroad Other Municipalities Carry of Spokane Volley Pavia Water Bodies Effective Date:X.DafVOC.X Ordinance No !tom-!XX4; Map Location a 0.5 2 Miles y 1 1 1 1 01 turn ;rw..,h1,01en n7 rq w Lim any n gmThliaileimr war.Yr E :aw..xvrnptwt nY C14' e.oftdam, ..,r�r,N..r A,r.I wr,.wr.d.4.76.11,40-1544.1...p.,.t r,WVra-},Wrf.anr hrJ,1W,g, rrca.,orrrqu.nw a,u.armrr. +t++K4rN rrrvawl,.r.rwwratr{'t Nyv+ir,.r f'r14rr.Cw.,o.,rn 11rwi,�,wlr G>grvarrrr.Min.rn no Ern,+ MAIf1-ean. 1%r1—t pee,r�M PC Recommended Draft .�.,�, ,.,,,; Mr v - r , crf f .der... ,kop .•r A a .-..nN1n..i 9; .''.—r. City of j Spokane llrrbnrd Ave 47 Wx� • eta • C. • .7 iii' Y �y -.zr � ur . '�er�5�■■I 7— � T�� NO(Roil.S uary a y -9 \Pull ....-F� I + I - .►. __-., ice/ I. 1 w�v�1l7,.t ni. (�ypII r„,- . }I ° . J yi ll ,Lute- �^ •' orturi'4...ow. id ■ r..r� 1'o�tL a `1M t- SilE _tr- ir,.,. qtr ai `. a III= d 1 -T— =r1 4r ■ 'trk / N -- lrr.L 1 g• ,. rs: f Jw--J Mcc,..t j J i Map 11.2 Recommended Bikeway Network Legend Bicycle System Pads'dtsE Sika Lone Existing Shared Use Path Proposed Bike Blvd Proposed Bike Lane " ' Proposed Shoed Use Path Proposed Pee/Bike Bridge Potential Crossing Treatments Centennial Trail Trailhe:ds Schools "+'••-••Railroad Other Mrmicipehncs I City of Spokane Valley Parlm Water Bodies Effective.Dore:XfKC1X.^CCC A Ordinance No.: \.V.C. Sp61an 0,5 I Map Location a P 2 Milos 11 I r +\w.r ..;r..wa...w.r+r.1 a&u..w 1.r•rv':1Fwr.,.t... m.nrrr..1...,..gv,m o.,lraa m,To-n Tx Cs', Orr w ekl.l M Jle+,U1.14.Y+'nA 1'YrrFrrMy.rf Kok'npant rr,.rarly.Lrda ,1.s ulrhre,rrr an.—•.----la b aw,l..0 Ter rarireerrdero.q*eamno.Mr C .1y+.wda.r f Jhrr C,a.�rrh lhelgwtwbrpar'rc c.Aru,cv•,rl'•• •114 6954 521,7AP0. rnAPTadeCln rliermwr V,4l 0■•■••■ O."trpr.rfrrrr.r City of pokano =;-61-•■•_ r- rrt nelMi • +••• kr, -,.-71';'9v7 -;;Z-- / „.,•,•:••• •••. 4 r - 4.1 - • — Map 11.3 '- Existing Sidewalk Network f.•;_ ,• L— — Legend Si ele-pwr,I7d.inventory - Sidewalks 4 Curb Ramps Thawed Curb Ramps Park R 1-vvvvvv.. Lan , .A=1.... _ !"1 ih•dgeeltff Pork I:t_••r• •.] ar, p liter 40.00l - tJ- I J1 f. 11._• , • ‘37/ s.1._•9 • • • 1 ta Lee 3Gth I ..771 '1 5 ' ‘I-'........„_ ''L., '1 :'7 i'• •--- 'e,,,, _..• • mot Centensual Trail Traillteods Schools Railroad Other Municipalities City of Spoione Valley Parks Water Bodies Effective Date:VXCP......"......"0: Ordinance No.: C(-2LX.X p5;•-a 'vanes- Map Lanai'on 2 Miles 444• RH,riia-walam arra J1na apy+..4:whyu Lr JAN..vpop.v.r .ponseri aorlti.ichbrirlpowsrese rp.psrft ns. 41.1 lieltirlEy LW 17 nr.ny Itar f41.1.War direkamm eunkr r pp Awl bLeild...m....•ix mole ids. ronfarm aaarroty RATNAML rrabs Crecsnm. 1.414”Nee acounn est'# .y 1J •NOV. fo-Pvr epr 1...14P.■WlirprArmi Map 11.4 C Recommended Pedestrian Network 2tR��1 _h �J! MV a fir. �1::Ltn�rT ,� roc u,t� Q Ary ' 'fir RAZ ` f r.44 IT-- i . . .m`"ic / , mL I�O„ /,..,ado 11M0 -f ?..__„/_!3 ■ ., {, I snr'- 2 X . i. '•, r '-, CYI.0 !1' 4ath� / -w I/ z) w It ;: -4� rya ,,t• 1••• Ck.l ▪ LI a sion Lr inn��7•' Pedestrian Ncnrarh - Sidewalks - Proposed Sidcwails Failing Shared Usc Path --•r•Proposed Shared Usc Path - }'rd/Bike Bridge Centennial Trail Trailheads Schools - Railroad Othor Munici pal ipcs City ofSpokaneValley Parks lip Water,Bodies Effective Date:xrk. Ordinance No.7 C.-1CC I Map Location 1 2 Mlles t I 4�vr. ]i.•rAin�+�a14.�.••r sr.Am arra'rf scll+kd la.rara`r.t rxrerr mat u a. rr}m wp LPN' /aM Nis CM'wotlrc.rSwu ytinroi.tro dna rev am.rpry Grow ,Qf.Vru utqu U i r,/vrd.frdum. r.`t"MJ;`.rota wtttr,tr..r...to-r arr.ara K....4r.La,Let'7• a.r4r C.74,l meae Jim• •Ca.44444a4 4 Or.hy.rra 4-+r vtyr^ti iMs1J 9N-4M tbYO.fdr6•44,µar 4'rYr.{++ IMl�trrt>✓ttror... S PC Recommended Draft ,roe co. City of Spokane ZreAro++••••+4r MM. ITME=Ir WAN.. 4.4 wa4,4, 4.4..,NPogme:.•-••PanEr,nereary F -•-• , • •;;•;,- 1.■,...14 Cam •• .r:it-58iFr:zr'. • Tilce • a 't . 1 • Z,7,:r.:11: „..C.W•14. --..n -;•-..j0^9 triZOSF; .L"--,;,t ,e.6 poneaorL• _._._ _ _ 1 .417i,A. ....... : i, . . 6P.4.6 . I 16.0.44 • , • ' ' • ••■77.1171117• • NA. 0," !-'..r•Y•0" '• 7- 1--112•13't'Er• . ,c .• --a 7' ;;;j kr4 .• - 2 I ._ ••• .p.11. ▪•r -- •••-- • 17•1717,61 1111.,11717/1.7y .7 • • 1.1•-•"'MO • -33.•■.L. • p7:6-4., Prope.e.dl•fere,1•1•17 Z•1,1■17 - Map 11.5 Safe Routes to Schools .3nia4,6 6''''''''' - .',,,,1■1 .e . T.f:-.T --- • ' • 4'1 ...; - wo.P.}....1, • .j-. ,,,„ ,,. . , • e 1-'7- .16;,___ .... -4. ..°''' • ''...or., "......it-7 ..;LZn, -, _-.;..i._..,.... • -7. 7.--- - ;-;-14211.2,7-2.-• - - ..''... Vall.p.,3.-.r. ,D , :•;"r--, --- ,_....,aorc.-•--."''''' ' .,• -, 7-10.':'.‘n..---• .-. . - ..,- ......t.r... g.. .•••Cd■L'W i .---j",_--,..10f471 y'r- - --7-Pi 1. - '-' Ca 14.•i. '.7, ,'A-'' 61 AI. hottlea-:1 . • ;,,,..i? -: ,.....`,..,/ __.1.1.778 :', 1 ., ',''',7',•1 ., _L 1-__ ..-r• - - 4c1_',7'.'" C.•" j 'cPR1• •ILN, I.= iri.--1.r..::..tliT:,-._-Z'F.,..rn- 1.;- -5„;.• t... ••:-.3_ - ..-.:61.=-i .- , -,L,.......,s,„,.; 1 54.--- . .4,-.-• •-.•.,.-,..,.s...-:.....-, .7 ,,.. ..f '•...V" 51.0 so, . -I, 1;;T:''4' ',V Ty, ,. TP/71-7, -1-'171 ,,. 19; • : i 14.. • -1ZZ I,6 Ir•j:-L n-'.2.4 -1' ,F . ?1'17-- -" • .1.4•••••14..e.r ••••.c'h Corky - • . 1:1..._.;,.... _ .,,.cc, . : 'll.'',. 1.,,:,...!./ .._.._.....L 7 1.11S 61. 6'' ' -.- . . '6M - If?,-..;•!.6-..- - 4 7 1 - },- - tlh:-'4.- - 6....":.4. .1 ▪6 1,1, 7 f•'•71.•-.'Lr-• '-.. q7..rr!I:, V..1••:% 7-'"e7,t,1 1'Sig 2, Imo,,,-*'pak 2'.'-.Vi---- -:_•_,..., ........:....x. L'r'' ,',nj.i).,v/!,-._..-1°7;..,1--. . -. -.. .4.•„Ji.,,,.r--.V L,6 F.,.:.7.,,;,,,v,;...L... -.--•-'r14':.4 ,'.6„,,▪ ..,,.r..„4..,.--.,e.;cL1.%;i-7J._•-."'...4--Lr--V7i,,,4'., a .r... _7__-, - L :-..... Ape, r,,,...: ..-- ..,.7•Vau,r7.."2.14.1 C••••-1„5,.,, 6 - '1rn • I'm-neer 1 ..mften•••■171.■1,- Cd=311111:11517 LI Rd. ••■••■•• _,., ___, '2,11h-1 .. . 6!.kr... 1 --.'-.3.56.L. -'w74`.•- : -' -. - .r. ,..• Iliii. iscb Ai__ ]- 'r•Z ..•-. 'iiS,,,. :'5; • XZr,.....,6:ir.R,7 .,.--.4.1 7. :.,.: Ponder..E,,,w1lary .....; 16'...7,- ....1 Z.C1/1.. -...7?-.7,- •- •-■••• r.'":" •- 7;.%-?,....% , 4:11.2a . ---- - ...*•dr..'•--,-J. __! 4..''', •..1 -L ' • -• t.: .'4..,.. fi.. ....-:,cirVrt .- - '1•TaTd-,11261C.:ttlh'C' . ,_. . . 2.4,,,. .4.„ '... ••;-•-5.,:,.; ..r.:a7," :2 F, , 5.. • .6,,:.^..• ••12' - :'..%,.. - TS X." -64n, ' 4 6711 - •01,- Ocs.„ 13.o. Lialm 0; 7221 pit Legend Pedearian Network g3Hospital ▪ library 1•13 Polka Station Transit Location Safe Haven School Identified Waning Route Cerdannial Trail Trailhcads Schools Railroad Crlhor Municipalities F-7 Ciry of Spokaac Valley Parks sir Water Bodies ElTedive Date:.X=CCVDC Ordinance No.:XX-,C71 Wan.Ce\-' Map Location 0.5 1 2 Wes 1 1 I 1 r I a,fi•rs le+•rn MT YHA slidg 1,117,1•1[7.0117117:1177110 ✓am,and Jr...4.440 3Lerwofi021 rmaaps 70.o .od cr. rrann.m... Cam&Lir nurr.y.q.rev, e-gxrrany•AJA.W..11.1.04.rim andermuo.w.eafi ▪ mry{rn Me IS..ri.W..mo 1!ake.j...Ammo la • Anerkoner21 1.6).021.203 VFW ris.ltsrfhansup.Ida* WAR. 0m...1 1411w Primbasia NIMM11■ DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of September 14,2011; 11:00 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings September 27,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 19] 1. Public Hearing: 2012 Budget -Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes,CTR Interlocal Agreement) (5 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-013 Amending SVMC,City Treasurer-Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Allocation of funds to Outside Agencies-Mark Calhoun (30 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment,Lodging Tax Committee-Mayor Towey(5 min) 6. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] October 4,2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 26] 1. Review of Legislative Agenda-Mike Jackson,Briahna Taylor (30 minutes) 2. Shoreline Issues-John Hohman (30 minutes) 3.Building Code Amendments-John Hohman (20 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 80 minutes] October 6, 2011,AWC Regional Meeting Spokane, Wa. October 11,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Oct 3] 1. Public Hearing: 2012 Budget -Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-013 Amending SVMC,City Treasurer-Cary Driskell(10 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed Ordinance,2012 budget Property Tax -Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 5.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 2012 budget,tax confirmation-Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 6.Motion Consideration: Participation in Traffic School Program-Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Spokane Valley Fire Dept Accreditation-Chief Thompson (20 minutes) 8.Admin Report: Bonneville Power Franchise-Cary Driskell (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 100 minutes] October 18,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Oct 10] 1. CDBG Project Ideas-Scott Kuhta (20 minutes) 2.Budget Amendment,2011 -Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 3. City Signs-Mike Stone (15 minutes) 4. Car Shows-Mike Stone (15 minutes) 5. Sign Code-John Hohman (30 minutes) 6.Advance Agenda-Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 105 minutes] October 25,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Oct 17] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Amended Budget-Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG-Scott Kuhta (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance,2012 budget Property Tax-Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 2012 budget,tax confirmation-Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 5.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2012 Budget-Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 6. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution for 2012-Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Lodging Tax Funding-Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 8. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 100 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 9/15/2011 12:31:54 PM Page 1 of 2 November 1,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Oct 24] 1. Public Facilities District Presentation,Proposed Convention Center Completion—Kevin Twohig (20 min) 2. Landscaping Code Amendments—John Hohman (30 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] November 8, 2011,No meeting (3 councilmembers attending a conference) November 15,2011, Special,Formal Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Nov 7] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2011 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Funding Allocation,Lodging Tax—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] November 22,2011; NO MEETING(Thanksgiving week) November 29,2011, Study Session Format 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Nov 21] 1. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] December 6,2011,Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Nov 28] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] December 13,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Dec 5] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending 2011 Budget—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 3. Committee,Boards,Commission Mayoral Appointments—Mayor Towey (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] December 20, 2011,Possible no meeting (Christmas Week) December 27, 2011,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Dec 19]] 1. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Bidding Contracts(SVMC 3.—bidding exceptions) Senior Housing Centennial Trail Agreement Shoreline Draft Goals and Policies Code Compliance Report—Extreme Cases Sidewalks Commute Trip Reduction Program Renewal Signs(Liberty Lake;Veterans Monument,City signs) Contracts,Annual Renewals Site Selector Update East Gateway Monument Structure Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Governance Manual(resolution)Update Speed Limits Greenacres Trail/Northern Railroad Sports Commission Presentation Investment Accounts Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment Milwaukee Right-of-way Stormwater Projects for Grant Funding Mission Ave Design(Mission&Long ped. crossing) Stormwater Contracts Old Mission Ave Trail Access WIRA,Water Protection Commitment,Public Educ. Parking/Paving Options(for driveways,etc.) Pavement Management Program Update *time for public or council comments not included Prosecution Services Public Input Process for Capital Projects Railroad Quiet Zones Draft Advance Agenda 9/15/2011 12:31:54 PM Page 2 of 2