Loading...
2011, 07-19 Study Session AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday,July 19,2011 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL 1.Mike Stone Sculpture Donation and Placement Discussion/Information 2.Mike Stone City Sign Plan Discussion/Information 3. Lori Barlow Shoreline Goals and Policies Discussion/Information 4. Inga Note Indiana Avenue Speed Limits Discussion/Information 5.Neil Kersten Bike Lane Striping Project Discussion/Information 6. Steve Worley Transportation Improvement Board Discussion/Information 2011 Call for Projects 7.Mike Basinger Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Discussion/Information 8.Mayor Towey Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 9. Information Only (will not be discussed or reported): Avista Facility 10.Mayor Towey Council Check in Discussion/Information 11.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,July 19,2011 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 19, 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: Donation and Placement of Sculpture — Dr. James Harken GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 4/6/2010 - SVAC Update to Council — Update only, no action taken. 9/7/2010 — SVAC Social Service Outside Agencies Grant Request presentation. Amount requested included $1000 toward placement of the sculpture. 9/28/2010 — Council awarded SVAC $5,000 in Social Services Outside Agencies budget for 2011 BACKGROUND: In an effort to promote the arts in Spokane Valley, the Spokane Valley Arts Council (SVAC) worked to raise funds to purchase and donate the City's first piece of public art. In August 2009, SVAC donated a bronze sculpture by artist Jerry McKellar titled "Working the Line." The sculpture was placed at the northwest corner of Mirabeau Parkway and Mansfield Avenue, just south of CenterPlace Regional Event Center. Dr. James Harken of the Spokane Valley Arts Council will provide an update on SVAC's plans for donation and placement of a second sculpture, titled "Berry Picker," by the late artist Nancy McLaughlin. Plans call for it to be placed just east of the CenterPlace building. In addition to the artwork, columnar basalt plaques with information about the sculpture will be placed at this location, and another at the location of the other sculpture with relevant information. OPTIONS: Discussion/information Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Michael D. Stone, Director of Parks and Recreation ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 19, 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: Gateway Signage and Identity Development GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has been in existence since 2003. There is a growing interest in establishing a City of Spokane Valley identity recognizable by our citizens. The City Council is interested in exploring potential signage options for a variety of City uses. The Parks & Recreation Department has prepared several signage concepts for the City Council's review and comments. OPTIONS: Select signage option OR provide additional direction to staff RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council Direction BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Michael D. Stone, Director of Parks and Recreation ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation do0Valley GATEWAY SIGNAGE AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT POKANE VALL MT• LA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING WWW.MT-LA.COM SIGN EXAMPLES CITY OF UBLIN SIGN EXAMPLES ) onto STATES DEPARTMENT OF PM INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK 5000100 SIGN EXAMPLES VANCOUVER LAWN TENNIS & BADMINTON CLUB Esc.1897 SIGN EXAMPLES CONCEPT #2 - LARGE ENGRAVED STONE SIGN A large granite or sandstone boulder, with sandblasted lettering would provide a simple and natural sign option. Lettering would be painted so that text is highly visible. The boulder top would be shaped to reflect the mountain form of the city's logo. This sign can be scaled to down to approximately 5' in length by 5' tall for a city park or city facility sign. The logo could be reduced in size with the park or facility name installed below the logo. Landscaping could be installed around the base. CONCEPT #3 - CORTEN STEEL SIGN WITH TIMBERS AND GRANITE VENEER COLUMNS 21'6" 4„ I.- T. This two sided sign includes two Corten Steel panels be mounted on wood beams, centered between granite veneer columns. This sign could be located where two sign faces are required and includes a built in planter area for season color. Brushed aluminum letters would contrast with the dark Corten Steel to provide highly visible text. The city's logo would provide the text for this sign option and the steel reflects the form of the city's iconic logo. This sign can be scaled to down to approximately 5' in length by 4' tall for a city park or city facility sign. The logo could be reduced in size with the park or facility name installed below the logo. The masonry planter could be removed and landscaping installed around the base. CONCEPT #4 — CORTEN STEEL SIGN WITH TIMBERS EirAsiT Corten Steel would be mounted on sainted wood beams, center between wood post for this option. Cobblestone bases would anchor the post at each end of the sign, also providing a planting area. A deconstructed version of the city's logo would be used for the text, made from brushed aluminum. This sign can be scaled to down to approximately 8' in length by 4' tall for a city park or city facility sign. The logo could be reduced in size with the park or facility name installed below the logo. The masonry planters could be removed and landscaping installed around the base. CONCEPT #5 - WOOD SIGN WITH SINGLE COLUMN AND RAILROAD RAIL SUPPORTS 4' -12'- WIT A single cobblestone column would anchor a large wood or metal sign with railroad rail supports in this option. Brushed aluminum text will contrast with the signs dark wood color. The use of railroad rail supports would reflect the areas historic ties to the rail lines. In addition a small plaque with the city's logo will be mounted on the column. This sign can be scaled to down to approximately 8' in length by 4' tall for a city park or city facility sign. The logo would remain on the column and park or facility name would be mounted on the wood or metal sign face. CONCEPT #6 - SANDSTONE SIGN WITH COBBLESTONE BASE 4'4" �1QIIII'.'IEIII alio 16' A large sandstone piece would be mounted on a cobblestone base. The sandstone piece reflects the shape of one of Spokane Valley's historical buildings, the Heritage Museum. Sign text would be sand blasted into the stone and painted. Again, the use of cobblestone reflects the nature of many homes and stone walls found in the Spokane Valley. This sign can be scaled to down to approximately 5' in length by 3' tall metal sign mounted on steel posts for a city park or city facility sign. The sign logo would remain in the upper portion of the sign with the name of the facility replacing the words 'Spokane Valley'. MINOR ENTRANCE STREET SIGNS SiMkane lky There variations of a city road sign are shown here with slight changes to the shape and size of the sign. All signs would be mounted at a minimum of 5' above grade, with city standard street sign posts and attachments. The text on each sign is the same city logo at varying text heights. "Welcome to" can be easily added to each concept. A version of these signs could be used for wayfinding for specific city facilities like parks or Centerplace. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 19, 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: Shoreline Master Program Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, RCW 90.58, and WAC 173-26 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Shoreline Advisory Group has completed their review of the draft goals and policies developed for the Shoreline Master Program Update. The group met eight times between January 20, and June 23, 2011. The group was comprised of 19% user groups, 24% business and property owners, 19% Special Interest/Environmental Groups, 14% government representatives, 14% neighborhood groups, and 10% interested parties. The group's primary role was to provide input on the development of the draft goals and policies. As a part of the review process considerable modifications to the staff draft were completed. At the March 1, 2011 council meeting, Council requested staff provide the draft document for their information prior to beginning the public review process. The draft is attached, along with a memo to the City Manager that provides background information on the development process and guiding regulations. The next steps of the review process are to conduct an open house, public hearing by the Planning Commission, and Council review and acceptance by resolution. Work remaining to be completed on the shoreline master program includes finalizing the environmental designations, drafting development regulations, a cumulative impacts analysis report, public access plan, cumulative impacts analysis report, and restoration plan. As indicated in the public participation plan, once each individual component of the shoreline master program is complete, it will be presented to the public at an open house, reviewed by the Planning Commission with a public hearing conducted, and finally forwarded to the Council for review and acceptance by resolution. Once all components of the SMP are complete, it will be assembled and a formal review process, preceded by environmental review, will begin. Kathy McClung, the Community Development Director, Attorney Mike Connelly, and I will be present at the meeting to discuss this matter. OPTIONS: No Action Required RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP-Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Memo to Mike Jackson dated July 7, 2011 Working Draft Goals and Policies dated June 16, 2011 STVoka•ii., ne �� From the Community Development Department 4000 a e Interoffice Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Lori Barlow,Senior Planner CC: Kathy McClung,Director CD; Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Date: July 7,2011 Re: SMP Project Update -Draft SMP Goals and Policies Purpose The purpose of this memo is to provide information to the council regarding the completed draft of the Goals and Policies developed by the Shoreline Advisory Group (SAG). The memo documents how the goals and policies were developed by staff and reviewed by the group, notes the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and provides a general comparison of the current goals and policies and the proposed draft goals and policies. The draft goals and policies are attached for your information. Background Information: The Shoreline Advisory Group completed their work on the development of the Draft Shoreline Goals and Policies. The group was formed to provide assistance to staff with the development of the goals and polices, as well as to insure public involvement of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) at each phase of development. Group members included business owners, land owners, recreational users, environmental groups, state and local government agencies, and other interested persons. The diversity of the group's interests was designed to insure that the draft goals and policies would represent a balance of the community's interests. The group met eight times between January 20 and June 23, 2011. Meetings were facilitated by Lunell Haught, of Haught Strategies, to insure that the meeting environment was conducive to discussion of somewhat controversial topics and opinions. Process The goals and policies were initially developed by staff as a draft. Staff reviewed the requirements of the SMA (RCW 90.58), the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) guidelines (WAC 173.26), and the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization report prepared by URS, Corporation, then prepared the preliminary draft of the goals and policies for review by the SAG. Initial group exercises provided the opportunity for SAG members to identify their respective concerns and priorities. These were used as a check and balance system throughout subsequent discussions to insure that issues were addressed by the draft. Goals and Policies were reviewed element by element by the group, with changes resubmitted to the group at Memo to City Manager SMP Goals and Policies Update Memo July 7,2011 Page 2 of 3 subsequent meetings. All materials were routed to group members via email. The group determined that general agreement by members inferred acceptance of the reviewed materials. Absent members had the opportunity to comment by email to insure that their opinions were considered. However,very few email comments were received. SMA Requirements and Goals and Policies Policies are a required component of a SMP. The SMA requires that every SMP address seven specific elements, as well as any other element deemed appropriate or necessary to implement the policies, and provide development regulations for associated uses. The elements and uses are listed in Table 1 below, with the required elements identified. The policies must be consistent with the policies of the SMA. Each jurisdiction is tasked with developing program policies that reflect their community's unique physical circumstances, as well as community preference. The policies become the framework for the development regulations,which are the rules that regulate all development located within 200' of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Goals and Policies Overview The draft goals and policies developed are consistent with the requirements of the SMA. Policies focus on encouraging, promoting, and allowing a variety of uses within the shoreline area, while balancing the directives of SMA to protect, preserve, and restore fragile and unique shoreline areas, and ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The subsequent development regulations will implement the policies by specifically identifying uses, and protective measures that will include buffer zones and setbacks. Table 1 below generally identifies the elements and shoreline uses addressed and compares the proposed draft to the existing SMP goals and polices. The table notes whether the elements were addressed in the draft and/or the existing SMP, and further notes whether or not specific uses will be allowed. This information is not intended to be detailed or specific. A detailed review of the goals and policies will be conducted at a joint Planning Commission and City Council Study Session to be scheduled in the near future. The draft goals and policies essentially follow the format of the WAC Guidelines by addressing all of the required elements and uses. Additional elements, corresponding to required use regulations were created. For example, the SMA requires that a restoration plan and critical areas regulations be developed, but does not require a separate Restoration or Critical Areas Element. In those cases it made sense to provide policies to guide the development of the plan and regulations. A Utilities Element, which is not required by the SMA, was created in order to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. See Table 1 to identify which elements are required by the SMA. General Comparison of the Proposed Draft Goals and Policies to Existing Goals and Policies The same topics are generally addressed in the proposed draft and existing goals and policies of the SMP. However, some of the existing policies are reorganized under the proposed draft goals and policies, and a handful of uses were not addressed since they were no longer determined to be applicable. For example roads railroads and bridges are now addressed in the Circulation Element, and not as a separate use. Aquaculture and Marinas are two examples of uses not applicable within our community. A comparison of the specific policies within the Memo to City Manager SMP Goals and Policies Update Memo July 7,2011 Page 3 of 3 elements will indicate that different points are often addressed. This is the result of a snapshot of the issues relevant at that time. The proposed draft attempts to address current development issues, and non-relevant topics were eliminated. The table also indicates that certain uses are restricted or limited. Generally, this means the use is/will be limited to certain shoreline designated areas, and that specific conditions must be met or considered. Table 1 provides a general summary of the proposed goals and policies by element and by use, as well as a general comparison to the existing SMP goals and policies. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF DRAFT GOALS AND POLICIES TO EXISTING SMP GOALS AND POLICIES c a- m $ :a g Allowed Elements or Shoreline Use r,1 la o ; Allowed in 6 Comments in draft Existing a a W SMP Note:1 Required Element and 2 Required Use Regulations Historic, Cultural, Scientific and Policies provide Educational' protective measures in both documents Utilities Policies allow utilities in shoreline area when necessary to provide adequate utilities. Circulation' Limits the location of all transportation systems to avoid impacts to the shoreline while balancing circulation needs of the community. Economic Development' Policies encourage water dependent,water related, and water oriented economic development. Conservation' Policies provided to protect and preserve shoreline areas that include natural vegetation and open areas Restoration Policies provided to restore and improved shoreline ecological functions Critical Areas Element Policies protect critical areas while protecting property from adverse impacts of critical areas. Flood Hazard Reduction' Policies limit development within flood Memo to City Manager SMP Goals and Policies Update Memo July 7,2011 Page 4 of 3 c a w$ :a g Allowed Elements or Shoreline nts in as m Allowed in 6 N Comments T .171' in draft Existing 4 a W 4 hazard areas to reduce flood potential Public Access' Policies provided to encourage and ensure adequate public access to the shorelines Recreation' Policies provided to increase and preserve shoreline areas for diverse recreational activities Shoreline Uses: Residential2 Commerciale Limited to water dependent and water- oriented uses Industrial2 Limited to water dependent and water related industry shoreline modifications(including Allowed only to protect bulkheads)2 \ \I existing uses from damage; limited in current SMP piers and docks2 Allowed only for public water dependent uses, single family and public access;restricted in certain areas in current SMP shoreline fill' Allowed when public interest is served i.e. habitat restoration Streambank protection/stabilization Allowed in limited circumstances,primarily to protect existing structures dredging2 Limited to ecological restoration,maintenance of existing structures,and gravel pit operations boat ramps and other boating \i Allowed in limited facilities2 circumstances gravel pits \ \i Policies to allow continued operation of Memo to City Manager SMP Goals and Policies Update Memo July 7,2011 Page 5 of 3 c a w $ :a g Allowed Elements or Shoreline Use 0 m Allowed in 6 N Comments 28 T ;, in draft Existing 4 a W SMP existing gravel pits;not specifically addressed in existing SMP. Agricultural - Not anticipated in draft SMP Aquaculture - Not anticipated in draft SMP Forest Management Practices Not anticipated in draft SMP. Marinas Restricted by current SMP;Not anticipated to occur in draft SMP Mining Restricted;not intended to be allowed in draft SMP other than existing gravel pits. signs and outdoor advertising Off premise signs not allowed; signage not otherwise restricted Utilities See utilities comments Solid waste dis.osal water related industry -- See industrial use comments roads,railroads,and bridges MI. See Circulation Element comments archaeological areas and historical - -- See Archaeological sites, Element comments recreation See Recreation Element Comments Next Steps: The next step in the review of the Goals and Policies is to conduct an open house to introduce the document to the community and obtain feedback. This is slated tentatively for the latter part of August. The Open House will be followed by a Planning Commission/Council Joint Study Session to provide an opportunity for detailed discussion of the goals and policies. The study session will likely occur in mid September. The draft will then proceed to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, and move on to the Council for acceptance by Resolution. Once this is complete, the review of the proposed Shoreline Environment Designations will begin. June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY General Goals and Policies Goal SMP 1: Enhance the City's shorelines by establishing and implementing goals,policies,and regulations which promote a mixture of reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses that improve the City's character,foster its historic and cultural identity, and conserve environmental resources. Policies SMP 1.1 Coordinated Planning Coordinate shoreline planning between the City of Spokane Valley, agencies with jurisdiction, adjoining jurisdictions, the State of Washington, and the State of Idaho into which the river basin extends, and consider the plans of non-government organizations(NGO's)and/or special interest groups. SMP 1.2 Consistency with Other Plans and Programs Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program is consistent with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act and Growth Management Act, the basic concepts, goals, policies, and land use plan of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, the City of Spokane Valley Critical Areas Ordinances,and the Shoreline Master Programs of adjacent jurisdictions. SMP 1.3 No Net Loss of Ecological Functions Ensure that all shoreline uses and development are regulated in a manner that guarantees no net loss of shoreline ecological functions SMP 1.4 Public Interest and Property Rights Protect the interests of the public in attaining the goals of the Shoreline Master Program, in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. SMP 1.5 Shoreline Designated Environments Designate shoreline environments for the City of Spokane Valley shorelines that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land uses, shoreline management practices, and shoreline inventory within each designated area. SMP 1.6 Use preferences for all Shorelines Give preference to those shoreline activities which fulfill long range Comprehensive Plan goals and the Shoreline Management Act policy priorities,as listed and discussed below: It is the policy of the City to provide for the management of its shorelines by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. Policies are designed to ensure the development of the City's shorelines in a manner which will promote and enhance the public interest. These policies will protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land, its vegetation and aquatic life and wildlife, and the waters of the Spokane River, Shelly Lake and the Sullivan Road and Park Road Gravel Pits and their aquatic life. SMP 1.7 Use preferences for Shorelines of State-wide Significance The State Legislature has declared that the interest and benefit of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of state-wide significance, and therefore preference shall be given to uses in the following order of preference which:. 1. Recognize and protect statewide interest over local interest 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline 3. Allow uses that result in long-term over short-term benefits Shoreline Advisory Group 1 Goals and Policies 1 June 16, 2011 [WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY] 4. Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines 5. Provide public access to publicly owned areas of shorelines 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines. Historical, Cultural, Scientific & Educational Element Goal SMP 2: Goal: Protect the historic,cultural,scientific or educational sites within the shoreline that reflect our community's unique heritage and create or contribute to our collective sense of place. Policies SMP 2.1 Sites and Structures Identify,preserve,and manage shoreline sites and structures having historical,cultural, scientific or educational value,and develop regulations that avoid,minimize,or mitigate any adverse impacts to these resources. SMP 2.2 Sites and Building Acquisition Public acquisition through gifts,bequests,grants,or donations of buildings or sites having cultural, scientific,educational,or historical value should be encouraged. SMP 2.3 Development Impacts Discourage public or private development and redevelopment activities on any site,area,or building identified as having historical,cultural,educational or scientific value. SMP 2.4 Cooperation and Consultation Ensure constant cooperation and consultation with affected agencies and tribes for projects that could potentially impact cultural and historical resources. SMP 2.5 Inventory of Sites Work with tribal, state, federal and local governments as appropriate to maintain an inventory of all known significant local historic,cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of applicable state and federal laws protecting such information from public disclosure. SMP 2.6 Site Inspection and Evaluation Ensure early and continuous site inspection,consultation or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected tribes for all permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources. Utilities Element Goal SMP 3: Maintain and provide adequate utility services within the shoreline environment while preserving and enhancing the natural environment and ecology of the shoreline. Shoreline Advisory Group 1 Goals and Policies June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY Policies SMP 3.1 Location Locate new public facilities and utilities,including,but not limited to,utility production,processing, distribution,and transmission facilities outside of the shoreline jurisdiction whenever feasible. SMP 3.2 Place Underground Require new utilities and facilities that must be located within the shoreline to be built underground,if feasible,and utilize low impact,low profile design and construction methods to the maximum extent possible. SMP 3.3 Existing Rights-of-way and Utility Corridors Require new utilities and facilities to be located in existing rights-of-way,easements,or utility corridors whenever possible. SMP 3.4 Maintenance Design When existing utilities and/or utility corridors located within shoreline jurisdiction require maintenance or other improvements,the maintenance/improvement should be designed and implemented to minimize additional impacts on the shoreline environment and,if possible,to correct past impacts caused by the utility. Vegetation Management Plans should be recognized as maintenance activities. SMP 3.5 Preference to Existing Facilities and Utilities Give preference to established utility corridors and rights-of-way for upgrades and reconstruction of existing utilities and facilities,unless a location with less potential to impact the shoreline environment is available. SMP 3.6 Stormwater Facilities Stormwater utilities will be designed and located as to minimize environmental impacts within the shoreline jurisdiction. If located within the shoreline jurisdiction they shall require the use of best management practices(e.g.biofiltration measures)and landscaping with native vegetation to provide habitat,ecological restoration, and aesthetic improvements.All stormwater facilities must protect water quality,manage runoff and address erosion control and sedimentation. Circulation Element Goal SMP 4: Provide a safe, convenient, and multimodal circulation system which will minimize disruption to the shoreline environment Policies SMP 4.1 Transportation Access Ensure that a system of arterials,scenic drives,pathways,public transit routes,and bikeways adjacent to and within the shoreline areas provide appropriate access to the Spokane River in a way that meets the needs and desires of the community as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan,while also preserving ecological function of the shorelines. Shoreline Advisory Group 1 Goals and Policies 3 June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP 4.2 Location of New Streets or Street Expansions Locate new streets or street expansions outside of the shoreline jurisdiction,unless no other options are available or feasible. In all cases, streets should be on the landward side of development. SMP 4.3 Consolidation of Corridors Encourage the consolidation of transportation and utility corridors crossing the shoreline environment in order to minimize the number of crossings,and encourage the collocation of utilities on bridges or in transportation rights of way whenever possible by considering the needs during the design of bridge and corridor upgrades. SMP 4.4 Transportation Facilities Plan,locate,and design proposed transportation facilities where routes will have the least possible adverse effect on shoreline ecological functions,will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions,or adversely impact existing or planned water dependent uses. SMP 4.5 Stormwater Treatment All development within the shoreline jurisdiction area shall provide stormwater treatment for all new and redeveloped pollution generating impervious surfaces. SMP 4.6 Parking Facilities for Public Access Parking facilities for public access to the shoreline and water should be kept as far from the shorelines as feasible SMP 4.7 Parking Facilities not a Primary Use. Parking facilities should only be allowed as necessary to support permitted shoreline uses,and not as a primary use,and must be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction area if other options are available and feasible. SMP 4.8 Impacts of Parking Facilities Minimize the environmental and visual impacts of parking facilities where allowed. SMP 4.9 Retain Unused Public Rights-of-way for Visual and Physical Access Retain unused public rights-of-way within the shoreline area to provide visual and physical access to the shoreline unless: • The street vacation enables the City to acquire the property for beach or water access purposes,boat moorage or launching sites, park,public view,recreation,or educational purposes,or other public uses or the City declares that the street or alley is not presently being used and is not suitable for the above purposes; or • The street vacation enables the City to implement a plan,that provides comparable or improved public access to the same shoreline area to which the streets or alleys sought to be vacated,had the properties included in the plan not been vacated. SMP 4.10 Improve Non-Motorized Access to Shoreline Improve non-motorized access to the shoreline by developing,where appropriate,pathways,trails and bikeways along and adjacent to the shoreline. Connectivity between non-motorized access points is encouraged. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies 4 June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP 4.11 Recognition of Centennial Trail Recognize the importance and uniqueness of the Spokane River Centennial Trail to the City of Spokane Valley,the region,and the state, Future trail development including trail extensions,new access points, whether public or private, shall be designed to have the least adverse impact. SMP 4.12 New Rail Lines Allow new rail lines and the expansion of existing rail corridors within the shoreline jurisdiction only for the purpose of connecting to existing rail lines or rights-of-way. Construct new rail lines within an existing rail corridor where possible. SMP 4.13 Rail Lines affecting Public Access Construct,where feasible,all new rail lines so that they do not compromise the public's ability to access the shoreline safely. Economic Development Element Goal SMP 5: Encourage and support water dependent,water oriented, and water related economic activities within the shorelands of the City of Spokane Valley that will be an asset to the economy of the area and that will protect and maintain the ecological functions of the shoreline environment Policies SMP 5.1 Location of Economic Development Give preference to economic development within the shoreline jurisdiction that is particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shoreline. Encourage new development to locate in areas that have intensive prior use and can be upgraded or redeveloped. Encourage new economic development to cluster into areas of the shoreline whose current use is compatible. SMP 5.2 Design of Economic Development Development should be designed to minimize the impacts to the shoreline aesthetic through architectural, landscape, and other design features.All non-shoreline dependent elements of the development should be placed inland. Encourage design that seeks to restore damaged or compromised shoreline through incentives. SMP 5.3 Provisions for Physical and Visual Availability to Water Historic areas,overlook points, structures,and points of public access to the waterfront should be incorporated in economic development site-planning. SMP 5.4 Encourage Regional Tourism Strengthen regional tourism by expanding and developing neighborhood and regional linkages and improvements that use the shoreline areas. SMP 5.5 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Proposed economic development in the shoreline should be consistent with the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.Upland uses on adjacent lands outside of immediate Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies 5 June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMA jurisdiction(in accordance with RCW 90.58.340) should protect the preferred shoreline uses from being impacted by incompatible uses. SMP 5.6 Evaluation of Economic Gain Require that the short-term economic gain or convenience of development be evaluated against the long- term and potentially costly impairments to the natural environments and state-wide interest that may result. SMP 5.7 Provisions for Shoreline Protection Require that development provide adequate provisions for the protection of water quality,erosion control, landscaping,aesthetic characteristics, stormwater systems, fish and wildlife habitat,views, archaeological sites,and normal public use of the water. SMP 5.8 Promote Recreational Uses Promote recreational uses of the shorelines to contribute to the economic attractiveness of the city. Seek opportunities to partner with public and private property owners to increase public recreational opportunities in the shoreline. SMP 5.9 Water-Enjoyment Areas Promote the identification and establishment of water-enjoyment areas, such as parks,view points, beaches and pathways as attractions. SMP 5.10 Business and Industry Operations Encourage shoreline industries and businesses to maintain a well kept appearance and to operate in a manner that will not cause negative environmental impacts to the community. SMP 5.11 Redevelopment Encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment of existing sites that includes points of public access,areas designed for public enjoyment,improve fish and wildlife habitat,or improve fish passage. SMP 5.12 Building Orientation New public and private shoreline uses and developments should be planned and designed to attract the public to the waterfront. SMP 5.13 Design Feature Incentives Incentives should be created to encourage developers to incorporate design features into the waterside of the building. SMP 5.14 Support and maintain the existing aggregate mining industry as a significant component of the area economy. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY Conservation Goal SMP 6: Preserve for the future those natural resources,including the unique,fragile and scenic qualities of the shoreline,which cannot be replaced.Achieve no net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline. Policies: SMP 6.1. Areas to be Preserved Areas that provide open spaces, scenic vistas,contribute to shoreline aesthetics,natural vegetation and, fish and wildlife habitat should be preserved SMP 6.2 Protect Vegetative Buffers and Setbacks Protect existing vegetation and shoreline ecological function by designating buffers and setbacks that are supported by the 2010 Shoreline Inventory. SMP 6.3 Acquisition of Unique Shoreline Areas Acquire and maintain,through conservation futures,donations,grants,general funds,or other sources, shoreline areas containing natural elements especially worthy of preservation or especially attractive to the public, such as beaches,forest covers,trees,wildlife populations,vistas and other scenic features. SMP 6.4 Preserve Ecological Connectivity Protect and preserve ecological viability and connectivity through use of habitat islands and corridors within the shoreline area. SMP 6.5 Incentives for Retention of Resources Lands Retain existing open space and environmentally sensitive areas on private property through the e use of incentives. SMP 6.6 Mitigation of Negative Impacts Development shall avoid and if avoidance is not possible,mitigate negative impacts to steep banks, surface and ground water quality,ecological functions, fish and wildlife habitat,vegetative cover,and erosion of the soil. SMP 6.7 Cumulative Impacts Regulations shall assure that the commonly occurring and foreseeable cumulative impacts of development do not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline. Restoration Goal SMP 7: Restore habitat and the natural systems to improve shoreline ecological functions. SMP 7.1 Restoration Plan Develop a Restoration Plan that will identify degraded areas and provide a framework for restoration efforts to improve the existing ecological function and provide a mechanism for mitigation of unavoidable and unforeseeable future development ■ Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP 7.2 City Stewardship Ensure that the City of Spokane Valley assumes a primary stewardship role through restoration efforts on city-owned and controlled land.Manage the City's programs, services,and operational infrastructure in a manner that achieves no net loss of ecological or shoreline functions. SMP 7.3 Incentives for Restoration and Enhancement Projects Provide incentives for projects that include restoration and enhancement components by implementing tools which may include but are not limited to: modifying the shoreline setback area that would apply to the restored areas or allowing a greater range of uses or flexible development standards(e.g., setbacks)on properties providing restoration and or enhancement. SMP7.4 Gravel Pit Restoration Plans Assist the Gravel Pits in the development and implementation of restoration plans for pits that are consistent with the Shoreline Master Program and the Department of Natural Resources . SMP 7.5 Cooperative Restoration Programs Encourage cooperative restoration programs between local, state, and federal public agencies, tribes,non- profit organizations,and landowners. Critical Areas Element Goal SMP 8: Preserve and protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes within wetlands,critical aquifer recharge areas,fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas and frequently flooded areas. Ensure no net loss of ecological function within these critical areas. Policies SMP 8.1 Consistency with Critical Areas Goals and Policies Ensure the critical area goals and policies for the Shoreline Master Plan are consistent with the critical areas goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. SMP 8.2 No net loss of ecological function Ensure regulatory protection measures developed for the shoreline area assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by Washington State Department of Ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060 SMP 8.3 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Wetlands through protective measures. Rate wetlands based on the quality of the wetland and the ecological function they serve. Develop protective measures tailored to the wetland quality and function and that consider the characteristics and setting of the buffer and the impacts on adjacent land use. SMP 8.4 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Wetlands through mitigation measures. Base wetland mitigation on the wetland rating and require mitigation sequencing. Only allow compensatory mitigation after mitigation sequencing has been applied and higher priority means of mitigation have been deemed infeasible. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies 8 June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP 8.5 Protect people and property from risk associated with critical areas defined as Geologically Hazardous Areas. Limit development that would cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or property. Do not allow development that will require structural shoreline stabilization except in the limited cases where it is necessary to protect an allowed use and no alternative location is available. Allow structural shoreline stabilization to protect existing homes only when relocation or reconstruction is infeasible. Do not allow structural shoreline stabilization that will result in a net loss of ecological function. SMP 8.6 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas Develop measures that assure no net loss of ecological functions of river,lake and stream corridors associated with fish and wildlife habitat. Integrate the protection of fish and wildlife habitat with flood hazard reduction and other fish and wildlife management provisions. Develop measures that authorize and facilitate habitat restoration projects. SMP 8.7 Preserve and protect critical areas defined as Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Protect the hydrologic connections between water bodies,water courses,and associated wetlands. Integrate the protection of critical aquifer recharge areas with jurisdictional and non jurisdictional aquifer protection measures such as Watershed Management Plans,Wellhead Protection Plans,Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices,and others as appropriate. SMP 8.8 Protect people and property from risk associated with critical areas defined as Frequently Flooded Areas Limit development that would cause foreseeable risk to people and property from frequent flooding. Ensure frequently flooded areas are fully addressed in the goals and policies of the Flood Hazard Reduction element of this plan. Flood Hazard Reduction Element Goal SMP 9: Prevent and reduce flood damage in shoreline areas to protect ecological functions, shoreline habitat,lives, and public and private property. Policies SMP 9.1 Development within the Shoreline Prohibit development within the shorelines that would intensify flood hazards or result in cumulative significant adverse effects to other properties,as regulated by Chapter 21.30,Floodplain Regulations,of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. SMP 9.2 Coordination among agencies Coordinate flood hazard reduction planning among the applicable agencies. SMP 9.3 Structural Flood Hazard Reduction Allow new structural flood hazard reduction measures only: • Where scientific and engineering analysis has demonstrated it to be necessary,and when non- structural methods are infeasible and mitigation is accomplished; and Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies 9 June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY • Landward of associated wetlands and buffer areas except where no alternative exists,as documented in an engineering analysis; and • When consistent with current best management practices,using natural materials whenever feasible. Note: An example of a structural flood hazard reduction measure is a structure placed by humans within a stream or river waterward of the ordinary high mark such as,but not limited to a diversion or modification of water flow to control flooding. SMP 9.4 Removal of Gravel Allow removal of gravel for flood control only if biological and geomorphological study demonstrates a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction and no net loss of ecological functions. This does not apply to the permitted gravel mining operations underway at the time of SMP adoption and approval. SMP 9.5 Natural Vegetative Buffers Maintain,protect, and restore natural vegetative buffers that are within the floodplain of the Spokane River that function to reduce flood hazards. SMP 9.6 Alternate Flood Control Measures When evaluating alternate flood control measures,consider the removal or relocation of structures in floodplain areas. Public Access Element Goal SMP 10: Provide diverse, reasonable, and adequate public access to the shorelines of the state consistent with the natural shoreline character,private property rights,public rights under the Public Trust Doctrine, and public safety while maintaining no net loss of ecological function. SMP 10.1 Public Interest and Private Property Promote and enhance the public interest with regard to rights to access waters held in public trust by the state,while protecting private property rights and public safety. SMP 10.2 Shoreline Development by Public Entities Require public entities,including local governments, state agencies and public utility districts,to include public access as part of each development project unless such access is incompatible due to reasons of safety, security or impact to the shoreline environment. SMP 10.3 Shoreline Development Require the dedication and improvement of public access in developments for water-enjoyment,water- related and non water-dependent uses and for the subdivision of land into more than four parcels,with exceptions as allowed by WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii). SMP 10.4 Public Access Maintenance and Improvements When improving and maintaining existing public access points,minimize additional impacts on the shoreline environment and,if possible,correct past adverse environmental impacts caused by the public access. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP 10.5 Access Plan Develop a formal Public Access Plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system that identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access that includes visual and physical access. The plan should identify access opportunities and circulation for pedestrians(including disabled persons), bicycles,and vehicles between shoreline access points. SMP 10.6 Design of Access Measures Require that public access measures have a design appropriate to the site,adjacent property,and general nature of the proposed development,while protecting and providing views. Public access facilities should be designed with provisions for persons with disabilities,where appropriate. SMP 10.7 Motor Vehicle Access Where access to the water's edge by motor vehicles is necessary,parking areas should be kept as far from the shorelines as possible. Parking facilities shall implement a design appropriate for the shoreline environment. SMP 10.8 Access Design and Spacing Access design and spacing of access points should be based on the biophysical capabilities of the shoreline features and should protect fragile shoreline environment. SMP 10.9 Impacts on Views Minimize the impacts to existing views where the view is taken from the water or shoreline,public property or substantial numbers of residences. Water-dependent shoreline uses and physical public access shall have priority over maintaining a view when a conflict between them is irreconcilable. SMP 10.10 Permitted Uses Regulate the design,construction,and operation of permitted uses in the shorelines of the state to minimize,insofar as practical,interference with the public's use of the water. SMP 10.11 Incentives Incentives such as density or bulk and dimensional bonuses should be considered if development proposals include additional public access beyond that required by this SMP. SMP 10.12 Non-Motorized Access Preference shall be given to the development,or improvement,of access for non-motorized recreational activities. Recreation Element Goal SMP 11: Increase and preserve recreational opportunities on the shorelines of the City of Spokane Valley Policies SMP 11.1 Preserve Shorelines for Public Recreational Use Encourage appropriate public agencies to preserve shorelines for public use and to dedicate or transfer appropriate shoreline land for recreational uses. SMP 11.2 Encourage Passive and Active Recreation Both passive and active recreation should be encouraged for appropriate shorelines. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies 11 June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP 11.3 Recreational Areas Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions Recreational areas should be located,designed,developed,managed and maintained in a manner that protects shoreline ecological functions and processes. SMP 11.4 Linkages to Recreation Areas Hiking paths,bicycle paths,easements and scenic drives should link shoreline parks,recreation areas and public access points. SMP 11.5 Public Access Priority Public use and access to the water should be a priority in recreational development. SMP 11.6 Recreational Opportunities for All Ensure that recreational planning takes into account the differences in use groups,physical capabilities, and interests among the public in order to provide opportunities for safe and convenient enjoyment of the shorelines. SMP 11.7 Adequate Support Facilities Create adequate support facilities of uses such as parking areas,maintenance buildings,and rest rooms to meet shoreline recreational demands. SMP 11.8 Non-Motorized Recreation Preference shall be given to non-motorized recreational activities. Shoreline Use Element Goal SMP 12: Consider the use and development of shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business,industry,transportation, recreation, education,public buildings and grounds,utilities and other categories of public and private land uses in relation to the natural environment and ensuring no net loss of ecological function. Policies General Use Policies SMP 12.1 Shoreline Use Priorities Give preference to water-dependent and single family residential uses that are consistent with preservation of shoreline ecological functions and processes. Secondary preference should be given to water-related and water-enjoyment uses.Non-water-oriented uses should be allowed only when substantial public benefit is provided with respect to the goals of the SMA for public access and ecological restoration. SMP 12.2 Protect Shoreline Ecological Functions Ensure no net loss of ecological functions through the use of specific standards for setbacks,buffers, density,and shoreline stabilization. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies 12 June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP 12.3 Public Access in Development Ensure that shoreline development includes visual and physical public access to the shorelines,while avoiding,minimizing,or mitigating negative impacts to the shoreline including views. SMP 12.4 Preserving Fish and Wildlife Habitat Encourage new development to contribute to the creation or preservation of open space and/or fish and wildlife habitat along the shorelines through the use of tools such as conservation futures,conservations easements,transferable development rights, and planned unit developments. SMP 12.5 Nonconforming Use and Development Legally established uses and developments that were erected and maintained in lawful condition prior to the effective date of this Master Program, shall be allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses provided that future development or redevelopment does not increase the degree of nonconformity with this program. SMP 12.6 Mitigation Sequencing Avoid and reduce significant ecological impacts from shoreline uses and modification activities through mitigation sequencing. Residential Use SMP 12.7 Subdivided Lots Require new subdivided lots to be designed,configured, and developed to: • Prevent the net loss of ecological functions at full build-out; • Prevent the need for new shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures ; and • Be consistent with the applicable environment designations and standards. SMP 12.8 Over-Water Residences Prohibit new over-water residences and floating homes Commercial Use SMP 12.9 Priorities for Commercial Use Give preference to commercial uses in the following order: • First priority is given to water-dependent commercial uses, • Second priority is given to water-related and water-enjoyment commercial uses. SMP 12.10 Non-Water Oriented Commercial Uses Prohibit new non-water oriented commercial uses unless they are part of a mixed-use project or the use provides a significant public benefit, such as public access and ecological restoration. SMP 12.11 Non-Water Dependent Commercial Uses Prohibit non-water dependent commercial uses over the water Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP 12.12 Mitigation of Shoreline Impacts Public access and ecological restoration collectively should be considered as potential mitigation of impacts to shoreline resources and values for all water-related or water-dependent commercial development unless such improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or inappropriate. Industrial Uses SMP 12.13 Priorities for Industrial Use Give priority to industrial uses in the following order: • First priority is given to water-dependent industrial uses • Second priority is given to water-related industrial uses • The existing legally permitted gravel pits are considered water dependent uses. SMP 12.14 Non-Water Oriented Industrial Uses Prohibit new non-water oriented industrial uses SMP 12.15 Industrial Use in Impaired Shoreline Areas Encourage industrial uses and redevelopment to locate where environmental cleanup and restoration is needed and can be accomplished. SMP 12.16 Water Dependent and Water Related Industrial Uses Water dependent and water related industrial uses within shoreline jurisdiction should be prohibited in areas that are susceptible to erosion and flooding and where there are impacts to ecological functions. SMP 12.17 Control Pollution and Damage Designate and maintain appropriate areas for protecting and restoring shoreline ecological functions and processes to control pollution and prevent damage to the shoreline environment and/or public health. SMP 12.18 Uses Consistent with Comprehensive Plan Ensure shoreline uses are consistent with the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and satisfy the economic, social,and physical needs of the city.. Shoreline Modifications SMP 12-19 Shoreline Modifications Allow structural shoreline modifications only where they are: • Demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage;and • Necessary for reconfiguration of the shoreline for mitigation or enhancement purposes. SMP 12-20 Modification Impacts and Limitations Reduce the adverse effects of allowed shoreline modifications and,as much as possible, limit allowed shoreline modifications in number and extent. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies 14 June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP 12-21 Appropriate Modifications Allow only shoreline modifications that are appropriate to the shoreline environment designations and environmental conditions for which they are proposed. SMP 12-22 Modifications and No Net Loss of Ecological Functions Assure that shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions by: • Giving preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have the least impact on ecological function; and • Requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications. SMP 12-23 Shoreline Modifications Regulations Base shoreline modification regulations on scientific and technical information of reach conditions for the Spokane River, Shelley Lake,Central Pre-mix and Flora Pit SMP 12-24 Restoration of Impaired Ecological Functions Plan for the restoration of impaired ecological functions where feasible and appropriate,while accommodating permitted uses. SMP 12-25 Measures to Protect Ecological Functions Incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide processes as shoreline modifications occur. Piers and Docks SMP 12-26 Dock Restrictions Allow new docks only for public water-dependent uses, single-family residences,and public access on the Spokane River and Shelley Lake. The existing gravel pit operations are allowed docks if it is necessary for operations and as permitted per operating permits. SMP 12-27 Dock Location Docks shall be allowed only in locations where they will not pose a public safety hazard or adversely impact shoreline ecological functions or process and limited as follows: • Spokane River-only in reservoir areas,where flow conditions least resemble the natural free- flowing river; • Shelley Lake; • Gravel pits;or • Severely ecologically impacted shoreline areas with adequate public access SMP 12-28 Dock Size Restrict the size of new docks to the minimum necessary to serve a proposed water-dependent use. SMP 12-29 Demonstrate Need Permit new docks only when specific need is demonstrated,except for single-family residences. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP 12-30 Expansion and Multiple Use Encourage multiple use and expansion of existing docks over the addition and/or proliferation of new single dock facilities. SMP 12-31 Joint Use and Community Docks Require residential development of more than two dwellings to provide community docks, rather than individual docks. SMP 12-32 Design and Construction Design and construct all piers and docks to avoid,minimize,and mitigate impacts to ecological processes and functions. Shoreline Fill SMP 12-33 Design and Location Shoreline fills shall be designed,located,and constructed to protect shoreline ecological function and ecosystem-wide processes,including channel migration,wildlife habitat,water quality,water currents, surface water drainage,and flood hazard protection measures. SMP 12-34 Limitations on Fill Fill waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark shall require a conditional use permit and shall only be allowed under limited circumstances. SMP 12-35 Fill Proposal Plan Require a plan that addresses species removal,replanting,irrigation,erosion, and sedimentation control and other methods of riparian corridor protection with all fill proposals. Streambank Protection SMP 12-36 Streambank Protection Measures The term"streambank" shall apply to all shoreline banks within Spokane Valley. Prohibit new streambank protection measures,except when necessity is documented through a geotechnical analysis of the site and shoreline characteristics. When necessity is demonstrated and conditions require,only allow streambank protection for existing primary structures,water-dependent development,new development, and ecological restoration or toxic clean-up remediation projects. SMP 12-37 Design and Location of New Development Design and locate new development and lots created through subdivision,particularly those located on steep slopes and bluffs,to prevent the need for future streambank protection measures during the life of the structure. SMP 12-38 Public Access Incorporate ecological restoration and public access as part of publicly funded streambank protection projects. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies 16 June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY SMP-12-39 Integrated Approach to Streambank Protection Require an integrated approach to streambank protection. Select and design streambank protection measures using an integrated approach requiring an analysis of the reason for the erosion; fish and wildlife habitat characteristics,needs and potential; and the current and future risks associated with erosion and bank protection to property,infrastructure,fish and wildlife habitat and public safety. SMP 12-40 Dredging Site and design new development to avoid the need for new or maintenance dredging. SMP 12-41 Dredging Restrictions Prohibit dredging except when necessary for projects that restore ecological functions and to maintain existing structures. Dredging is allowed as part of the permitted aggregate mining operations in the gravel pits. Dredging for recreational purposes is prohibited. SMP 12-42 Dredging Materials Prohibit the use or disposal of dredging materials within the shoreline except for projects that benefit shoreline resources and except for permitted aggregate mining operations in the gravel pits. SMP 12-43 In-Stream Structures Site in-stream structures to protect and preserve ecosystem-wide processes,ecological functions,and cultural resources,including but not limited to fish and fish passage,wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas,hydro-geological processes,and natural scenic vistas. SMP 12-44 In-Stream Structure Location Consider the full range of public interests,watershed functions and processes,and environmental concerns when planning and locating in-stream structures,with special emphasis on protecting and restoring priority habitats and species. SMP 12-45 Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities Locate and design boat ramps and other boating facilities to meet health, safety,and welfare requirements and to minimize adverse affects upon geo-hydraulic processes,fragile shoreline features,natural wetlands,and aquatic and wildlife habitats. SMP 12-46 Development of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities Assure no net loss of ecological functions as a result of boat ramp or other boating facility development. SMP 12-47 Aesthetic Impacts of Boat Ramps and other Boating Facilities Avoid or mitigate impacts to shoreline aesthetics as a result boat ramp or other boating facility development. SMP-12-48 Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects Advocate and foster habitat and natural system enhancement projects which restore the natural character and function of the shoreline provided they are consistent with the Restoration Plan. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies —I. June 16, 2011 WORKING DRAFT FOR SAG REVIEW ONLY Gravel Pits SMP12-49 Gravel Pit Operations Allow existing gravel pit operations to continue to operate and expand within the 200' of the ordinary high water mark consistent with operational permits. Operational uses include both above water and below water gravel extraction(dredging),processing,and crushing. Accessory uses include,but are not limited to,concrete batch plants,hot mix asphalt plants,aggregate processing and recycling plants, customer service(truck dispatching)offices,maintenance facilities,truck&equipment parking, stockpiles, scale houses,retail product stores,and quality control facilities. SMP 12-50 Water Dependent Uses Existing Gravel Pit Operations are considered water dependent uses. Shoreline Advisory Group I Goals and Policies Shoreline Master Program Update CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 19 , 2011 SAG Purpose Primary Role: Assist City Staff with the Development of Goals and Policies by providing comment Group Dynamics designed to insure that diverse community interests were represented Volunteer Group — No Decision Making Authority 8 Meetings between an. 20 and June 23 Shoreline Advisory Group Members Recreational User Groups Property Owners Interested Parties Special Neighbor Interest hood Groups Groups Business Owners Gov't Agencies L.d General Goals and Policies Development Process Initial Draft by Staff Based on: SMA (RCW 90.58) WAC Guidelines (173-26); and Shoreline Inventory Characterization Report SAG Review o Modifications made based on SAG discussion o Review conducted element by element o Revisions considered and accepted • Goals and Policies - Overview • SMA requires SMP's to address the following elements: o Economic Development o Public Access o Recreation o Circulation o Shoreline Use o Conservation o Historical, Cultural, Scientific & Educational Flood Hazard Reduction Optional Elements Include: o Critical Areas o Utilities o Restoration Goals and Policies - Overview I- ma SMP's must develop policies to regulate the following specific uses: o Residential o Commercial o Industrial o Shoreline modifications(including bulkheads) 2 o Piers and docks o Shoreline fill o Streambank protection/stabilization2 o Dredging o Boat ramps and other boating facilities Uses that are unique to Spokane Valley include: o Gravel pits Goals and Policies - Overview o Policies focus on encouraging, promoting, and allowing a variety of uses within the shoreline area, while balancing the directives of SMA to protect, preserve, and restore fragile and unique shoreline areas, and ensure no net loss of ecological functions. o Draft goals and policies are consistent with the requirements of the SMA. o Essentially follow the WAC Guidelines o Development regulations will implement the policies by specifically identifying uses, and protective measures that will include buffer zones and setbacks. Goals and Policies Overview o General Comparison of Proposed Draft Goals and Policies to Existing Goals and Policies: Same broad topics are generally addressed o Existing policies reorganized o Some uses not addressed since they were no longer determined to be applicable. Element to Element comparison indicates different issues relative to the element are often addressed. o Reflects a snapshot of the issues relevant at that time. o Draft attempts to address current development issues Goals and Policies - Next Steps Conduct an open house to introduce the document to the community and obtain feedback. Tentative - latter part of August. Planning Commission/Council Joint Study Session to provide an opportunity for detailed discussion of the goals and policies. Tentative - mid September. Planning Commission Review and public hearing Council Review for acceptance by Resolution. CITYHALL@SP4KANF` Department of Community Development Planning Division Group Discussion CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ® pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Indiana Avenue Extension Speed Limit GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Info Memo on 7/12/11 BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley adopted the speed limits established by Spokane County upon incorporation. This RCA seeks to address the adopted speed limit of Indiana Avenue and its extension (Mission Parkway and Indiana Parkway) from Sullivan Road to Flora Road. The MUTCD states that "States and local agencies should conduct engineering studies to reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone significant changes since the last review, such as the addition or elimination of parking or driveways, changes in the number of travel lanes, changes in the configuration of bicycle lanes, changes in traffic control signal coordination, or significant changes in traffic volumes." (MUTCD, 2B-13) This is the case of Indiana Avenue, which is currently being extended from approximately 0.75 miles east of Sullivan Road to where it transitions at Flora Road into Mission Avenue. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) also states that "when a speed limit within a speed zone is posted, it should be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed* of free- flowing traffic." (MUTCD, 2B-13) Currently, Indiana Avenue does not meet this condition. A speed study was conducted on Indiana east of Sullivan and the 85th percentile speeds are 35.3 mph for eastbound drivers and 34.5 mph for westbound drivers. Additionally, Indiana west of Sullivan Road is posted at 35 mph, and Mission Avenue east of Flora is posted at 35 mph. Because drivers are travelling at 35 mph approaching this segment of Indiana, it is recommended that the segment be posted at 35 mph to create continuity and to prevent driver confusion. Furthermore, Public Works engineers have designed the Indiana Extension (Mission Parkway and Indiana Parkway) to have a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Consequently, all vertical and horizontal curves of the roadway meet the minimum requirements of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for 35 mph. `The 85th Percentile Speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motor vehicles travel. Speeds are measured with traffic tube counters during typical driving conditions;the speeds measured are free-flow speeds.The 85th percentile speed is derived from these counts. Table 1. Modification to Arterial Speed Limit Speed Limit Comments Road Segment 85% Speed Adopted Posted from Study Recommended Indiana Sullivan Road to 35.3 mph Avenue Flora Road 25 mph 25 mph 34.5 mph 35 mph Minor Arterial Figure 1. Indiana Avenue from Sullivan Road to Flora Road IF . . . •'� t may ill��•, .' i f5' � .r-• �• ..:yam �' + ' ilk T IC.' F�It k { t?'r - —t-DA! sion Pave:5- m •�I y'••.o f, InrY•Sp k�.�. . •� ., r - 3- a 30. Il t• M � F _ ' F • I I �,�. '+ rl,L,rApi. r1 - I - • I r n ,,,, • 7816 , .. Y. .. 41,1,i i, sa Figure 2. Indiana Avenue Extension I +jrs- - --r-' - II I/ III 11 . OLD 1.199x1 ABLE l �.�4I _ / 7 I 4t.S...t4ek Ji.- iliki"lb / ______.....___________...-^'''''''' ' ..-'1,... 711(IMirill tE - =tip ,z zoe WI ikiqgi'IN •001".°....' �,:=111--_---_i� •~ ~ ________ _ 2 .111C'W;101' "III" kliMiii OPTIONS: 1) Proceed with approval of the recommendation from Public Works for speed limit change. 2) Request additional analysis of speed limit by Public Works. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to move forward to change the speed limit of Indiana Avenue from Sullivan Road to Flora Road to 35 mph. Establish a 35 mph speed limit on Indiana Parkway and Mission Parkway. (Draft resolution scheduled to come before Council at the July 26 council meeting.) BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Speed limit signing will need to be changed. This will be completed under the county maintenance contract. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 11-006 2. Draft Master Speed Limit Schedule DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 11-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, REVISING AN ARTERIAL SPEED LIMIT PURSUANT TO SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.05.030; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council from time to time may modify arterial speed limits to better reflect changing traffic conditions and roadway characteristics; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 9.05.030,which, in part, provides that the maximum speed limits for streets can be established by ordinance or resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authority under SVMC 9.05.030 to change speed limits, provided that such alteration shall be made on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, be reasonable and safe,and in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this City; and WHEREAS,these changes will be listed in the Master Speed Limit Code adopted by the City. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington,as follows: Section 1. Establishing an Arterial Speed Limit: The speed limit on the following City road sections shall be established at 35 mph: • Indiana Avenue from Sullivan Road to Indiana Parkway. • Indiana Parkway from Indiana Avenue to Flora Road. • Mission Parkway from Indiana Parkway to Flora Road. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence or clause of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Resolution. Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Adopted this 26th day of July,2011. City of Spokane Valley ATTEST: Mayor Thomas E. Towey City Clerk,Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 11-006 Establishing an arterial speed limit Page 1 of 1 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Speed Limit Schedule Page No. Schedule A: School Speed Zones 2 Schedule B: Playground Speed Zones 4 Schedule C: Speed Limits 5 Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26/11 Page 1 of 6 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Schedule A— School Speed Zones SCHOOL SPEED ZONES The following road sections have been designated as school zones. The maximum speed allowable on the said road sections shall be twenty miles per hour as designated with any of the signage options pursuant to Washington Administrative Code section 392-151-035 as adopted or amended. The Council shall establish any changes to speed limits or school speed zones by resolution. TWENTY MILES PER HOUR: 4th AVENUE from six hundred (600) feet west of Adams Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Adams Road; from three hundred (300) feet west of Bradley Street to three hundred (300) feet east of Coleman Street; and from three hundred (300) feet west of Long Road to Moen Street. 8th AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of Adams Road to eight hundred (800) feet east of Adams Road. 9th AVENUE from Herald Road to Felts Road. 10th AVENUE from Wilbur Road to Union Road. 12th AVENUE from Wilbur Road to Union Road. 16th AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of University Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Glenn Road; from Woodlawn Road to Clinton Road; and from three hundred (300) feet east of Bolivar Road to two hundred(200) feet west of Warren Road. 24th AVENUE from Union Road to Pines Road and from three hundred (300) feet west of Calvin Road to two hundred(200) feet east of Adams Road. 32nd AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of Pines Road to Woodlawn Road. ADAMS ROAD from 9th Avenue to three hundred fifty (350) feet north of 4th Avenue and from eight hundred fifty (850) feet north of 24th Avenue to 24th Avenue. ALKI AVENUE from Glenn Road to Pierce Road and from four hundred (400) feet west of Pines Road to Pines Road. BARKER ROAD from seven hundred fifty (750) feet south of Mission Avenue to three hundred (300) feet north of Mission Avenue. BOWDISH ROAD from 20th Avenue to 24th Avenue and from three hundred (300) feet south of 11th Avenue to three hundred(300) feet north of 11th Avenue. BRADLEY ROAD from 5th Avenue to 3rd Avenue. BROADWAY AVENUE from four hundred (400) feet west of Farr Road to four hundred (400) feet east of Fan Road; from one hundred (100) feet west of VanMarter Road to Johnson Road; from three hundred (300) feet west of Progress Road to St. Charles Road; from four hundred (400) feet east of McDonald Road to Blake Road; from three hundred (300) feet west of Felts Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Felts Road; and from three hundred (300) feet west of Ella Road to three hundred (300) feet east of Ella Road. BUCKEYE AVENUE from two hundred (200) feet east of Park Road to three hundred fifty (350) feet east of Center Road. CENTER ROAD from Marietta Avenue to Utah Avenue. Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26/11 Page 2 of 6 CIMMARON DRIVE from Sunderland Drive to three hundred (300) feet east of Woodruff Road. COLEMAN ROAD from 5th Avenue to 3rd Avenue. FARR ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Valleyway Avenue to three hundred fifty (350) feet north of Valleyway Avenue. FLORA ROAD from six hundred(600) feet south of Wellesley to Wellesley Avenue. HERALD ROAD from 11th Avenue to 9th Avenue. LONG ROAD from three hundred(300) feet south of 4th Avenue to 2nd Avenue. MCDONALD ROAD from Broadway Avenue to Cataldo Avenue; from three hundred fifty (350) feet south of 16th Avenue to 14th Avenue; and from 7th Avenue to 5th Avenue. MISSION AVENUE from five hundred (500) feet west of Bowman Road to Park Road; from SR-27 to seven hundred fifty (750) feet east of SR-27; and from Barker Road to five hundred (500) feet east of Barker Road. PARK ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Mission Avenue to Nora Avenue and from one hundred (100) feet south of Carlisle Avenue to four hundred (400) feet north of Buckeye Avenue. PINES ROAD from 25th Avenue to 23rd Avenue, from 40th Avenue to five hundred (500) north of 32nd Avenue, and from 18th Avenue to 20th Avenue. PROGRESS ROAD from six hundred fifty (650) feet south of Broadway Avenue to Broadway Avenue and from Wellesley Avenue to Crown Avenue. SCHAFER ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Cimmaron Drive to three hundred (300) feet north of Cimmaron Drive. SR-27 from two hundred (200) feet south of Mirabeau Parkway to one hundred (100) feet north of Pinecroft Way and from three hundred (300) feet north of Broadway Avenue to three hundred (300) feet south of Broadway Avenue. UNION ROAD from 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue. UNIVERSITY ROAD from 19th Avenue to 16th Avenue. VALLEYWAY AVENUE from three hundred (300) feet west of Marguerite Road to one hundred fifty (150) feet east of Hutchinson Street. VISTA ROAD from Frederick Avenue to two hundred (200) feet south of Buckeye Avenue. WELLESLEY AVENUE from seven hundred (700) feet west of Adams Road to two hundred (200) feet east of Burns Road and from Conklin Road to Flora Road. WILBUR ROAD from 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue. WOODRUFF ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of Cimmaron Drive to three hundred (300) feet north of Cimmaron Drive. Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26/11 Page 3 of 6 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Schedule B—Playground Speed Zones PLAYGROUND SPEED ZONES The following road sections have been designated as playground zones. The maximum speed allowable on said road sections shall be as shown below when signs are in place. TWENTY MILES PER HOUR: MISSION AVENUE from two hundred fifty (250) feet west of Bowdish Road to one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet west of Bowdish Road. TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: MIRABEAU PARKWAY from one thousand (1,000)feet east of Pinecroft Way to one thousand three hundred(1,300) feet north of Mansfield Avenue. Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26/11 Page 4 of 6 MASTER SPEED LIMIT SCHEDULE Schedule C—Speed Limits The following road sections have maximum speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour. THIRTY MILES PER HOUR: 3"AVENUE from west city limits to Fancher Road. MISSION AVENUE from Pines Road to Sullivan Road. MONTGOMERY DRIVE from Argonne Road to Dartmouth Lane. THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: 1st AVENUE from Eastern Road to Thierman Road. 4th AVENUE from west city limits to Eastern Road. 8th AVENUE from west city limits to Park Road; from Dishman-Mica Road to University Road; from Pines Road to Sullivan Road; and from Barker Road to Hodges Road. 16th AVENUE from Dishman-Mica Road to Sullivan Road. 32"d AVENUE from Dishman-Mica Road to Best Road. 44th AVENUE from Locust Road to Sands Road. APPLEWAY AVENUE from Sprague Avenue to east city limits. APPLEWAY BOULEVARD from Thierman Road to University Road. ARGONNE ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to SR-290. BARKER ROAD from south city limits to four hundred twenty (420) feet north of Bridgeport Avenue. BLAKE ROAD from SR-27 to Saltese Road. BOWDISH ROAD from Sands Road to Mission Avenue. BROADWAY AVENUE from Havana Street to Flora Road. CARNAHAN ROAD from south city limits to 8th Avenue. DISHMAN ROAD from 8th Avenue to Appleway Avenue. DISHMAN-MICA ROAD from three hundred (300) feet south of 8th Avenue to Sprague Avenue. EUCLID AVENUE from Sullivan Road to Flora Road; from Flora Road to Barker Road; and from Barker Road to east city limits. EVERGREEN ROAD from 32"d Avenue to Indiana Avenue and from SR-290 to Forker Road. FANCHER ROAD from the Freeway (PSH No. 2) access on 3rd Avenue to SR-290. FLORA ROAD from Sprague Avenue to Montgomery Avenue and from the north side of the Spokane River to Wellesley Avenue. INDIANA AVENUE from SR-27 to Indiana Parkway. Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26/11 Page 5 of 6 INDIANA PARKWAY from Indiana Avenue to Flora Road. MADISON ROAD from Thorpe Road to Pines Road. MANSFIELD AVENUE from Montgomery Avenue to Pines Road. MARIETTA AVENUE from Sullivan Road to Euclid Avenue. McDONALD ROAD from 16th Avenue to Mission Avenue. MIRABEAU PARKWAY from SR-27 to Indiana Avenue. MISSION AVENUE from Argonne Road to SR-27 and from Flora Road to east city limits. MISSION PARKWAY from Indiana Parkway to Flora Road. MONTGOMERY DRIVE from Dartmouth Lane to SR-27. MULLAN ROAD from Appleway Avenue to Indiana Avenue. PARK ROAD from Beverly Drive to Bridgeport Avenue. PINES ROAD from Madison Road to 16th Avenue. PROGRESS ROAD from Wellesley Avenue to Crown Avenue. RUTTER AVENUE from west city limits to Park Road. SALTESE ROAD from 16th Avenue to Blake Road. SANDS ROAD from 44th Avenue to Bowdish Road. SCHAFER ROAD from 44th Avenue to Dishman-Mica Road. SPRAGUE AVENUE from west city limits to east city limits. SR-27 from SR-290 to five hundred (500) feet south of 16th Avenue. SULLIVAN ROAD from Saltese Road to Wellesley Avenue. THORPE ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to Madison Road. UNIVERSITY ROAD from Dishman-Mica Road to Mission Avenue. WELLESLEY AVENUE from McDonald Road to Flora Road. FORTY MILES PER HOUR: BARKER ROAD from Euclid Avenue to SR-290. SR-290 from west city limits to twelve hundred (1,200) feet west of University Road. FORTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR: DISHMAN-MICA ROAD from south city limits to three hundred (300)feet south of 8th Avenue. SR-27 from five hundred (500) feet south of 16th Avenue to south city limits. FIFTY MILES PER HOUR: SR-290 from twelve hundred(1,200) feet west of University Road to east city limits. Master Speed Limit Schedule 7/26/11 Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EECBG Facility Implementation - Bike Lane Striping GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of$215,000 of EECBG Allocations for Bike/Pedestrian Facility Implementation on 12/28/10. BACKGROUND: On December 28th, 2010 Council approved the latest Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) fund allocation with $215,000 for implementation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These funds were divided amongst three specific projects: $100,000 to North Greenacres Trail design, $40,000 to bike lane striping, and $75,000 for sidewalk infill design. Potential locations for bike lanes were discussed in the 5/25/11 monthly report to Council. For the bike lanes staff selected S. Pines Rd between 32nd Ave. and 24th Ave. and University Rd. between Sprague Ave. and Mission Ave. These locations are highlighted on the Adopted Bike and Pedestrian System; Map 3.2; see attached Figure 1. They are included in both the Adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Draft Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. These roads were selected since they are signed as "No Parking", and are wide enough to add bike lanes without reducing the number of travel lanes. Striping these bike lanes should not negatively impact motorists or the nearby homeowners. In fact, adding the bike lanes should increase safety along these roads by separating the bicycles from the motorized vehicles. Staff requested bids to complete the work from three (3) contractors. The work was awarded to Road Products, Inc. for $39,936.00. A list of contactors and their bid totals are shown below. Contractor Bid Total Road Products, Inc. $39,936.00 Sharp-Line Industries $44,879.04 Apply-A-Line, Inc. $58,048.00 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The striping will be paid for through funds from the EECBG. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1 Figure 1 r MIM Plante's Perry w City of Spokane Rh hid''Park [hi in nrI.h 4.t Myrtl Pots (Nand and Ave Park F 11'�� �I of Mil MOO' m IF117- 111"111-1111P-41.1 kirfarr .Spatrca •ear itirahran Ya rk Park Rnn3 .,`Pool• riMr Balfour PLANE W'I■—■I,IGIC it 911t■■ili ■■. olt;ran Park IIIII%oli11 jfir.• Va Uri M rs Ion Park WN PtirM W - Liberty Lake W 11 ild =1111 olm1i 11ir p S3s1ir eke t I.hn.an]IN, 4 .ILL jE �. _ i Iii e_E o " � :'r=: ms �� i ■ - wrr- I*SINi1% N� .'EEL •it ao ■ „iisTTii MR , Proposed Bike Lane Striping Projects Mar Conservation orrow comae rattan Fr Map 3.2 Bike and Pedestrian System Legend S1Cy.de Wad Fed ealrian Syeaern - @LarcJ ua Path •••• Propoard Shared 11M Path Bike Lane •••• Propoard Bike fnnc w-Bile l.ann.Proposed Shared tier,Path - Signed Shared Roadway •--.Signed Shared Roadway/Proposed Bike — Shared Roadway - Prdratri an Path ••• Proposed Pedestrian Palh ■ Trailheads — fnleralYa 90 Schools ...wee Railroad I I Other Municipalities Clip or Spokane Valley Urban Oraw01 Area Padre Water Bodice FFrxilve Dstm XXtXXJXX Ordinance No.XX-XXX 4fr Val ley Map LXalinn ra ZEt u Is 1 2Mil.. 1 . I a. 1 . .. I i Nariar-Ill..Lryo.arpn xJ].M a.rhismin rcargrafedJrwaver,acr sae=¢jai C Adjaa o roname nreratir1.The city»nails nacfewa c.gr.ara.ria ataame axuarva Oienay grdtae pmot prasdydiedmnrs fiandyf errors mad nnl(s,;ors in da o>. ma. To cay Wave."'cow=rJn ary sf fiNgesw r+rer¢y,CO..71,4). L><lvlgmert Dcarmiv¢Divisiare ofPtrrnrr.f509)921.1000. Pnl-,.roar Csr.ta.wr Y.Ola,cyaarrly Iron1.--IOnasa-1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Transportation Improvement Board 2011 Call for Projects (FY 2013) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: June 28, 2011, Resolution #11-005 adopting the 2012-2017 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) BACKGROUND: At their March 2011 Board meeting, the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) issued a 2011 Call for Projects for allocation of Urban Corridor (UCP), Urban Arterial Program (UAP) and Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) funding. The anticipated funding levels are: UCP - $8.4 M for the East Region; UAP- $3.4 M for the Northeast Region; and SP - $209K for the East Region. Project applications are due Wednesday, August 31st, 2011. Staff has evaluated the TIP grant criteria and worked to identify projects that will have the highest potential to be selected for funding. We have reviewed the adopted 2012-2017 Six Year TIP, the Pavement Management Program, accident hot-spots, and several other elements of the city's transportation network. Based on this review, staff has come up with the following preliminary list of projects for submitting to TIB for the 2011 Call for Projects. UAP Projects: 1. Mission Avenue Improvements - Flora Rd to Barker Rd: This project will reconstruct the roadway with sidewalks, bike lanes and new stormwater facilities to accommodate the increased traffic from the new Indiana Ave Extension project and the rapid development in the North Greenacres and Liberty Lake neighborhoods. This request to TIB would be for construction funding only since design and right-of-way funding has already been acquired for this project through a federal STP(U) grant from SRTC. 2. Bowdish Road Improvements — 8th Ave to 16th Ave: This project will reconstruct Bowdish Road from 8th to 16th with sidewalks, bike lanes, curbs/gutters and upgraded stormwater facilities as needed. This project will widen this narrow roadway and provide needed safety improvements for the many students that use Bowdish Road to access Opportunity Elementary School and Bowdish Middle School. 3. Park Road Improvements - Broadway Ave to Indiana Ave: This project would reconstruct the roadway with sidewalks, bike lanes and new stormwater facilities. This request to TIB would be for right-of-way and construction funding only since funding for the design phase has already been received through a federal STP(U) grant from SRTC. 4. Broadway/Argonne/Mullen Concrete Intersections: This project would reconstruct the intersections of Argonne and Mullen roads at Broadway Ave in cement concrete pavement, upgrade the traffic signals, and provide safety improvements. This request to TIB would be for construction funding only since design and right-of-way funding has already been acquired for this project through a federal STP(U) grant from SRTC. 5. Pines Road & 16th Ave. Intersection Safety Improvements: This project would provide restriping and signal improvements at the intersection of Pines road and 16th Ave where they diverge from SR-27. The safety improvements are needed to address the high accident rate at the intersection. UCP Projects: 6. Mansfield Ave Connection — 200-ft east of Houk to Pines Rd (SR27): This project completes a gap in Mansfield Ave between Mirabeau Parkway and Pines Rd (SR-27). The project was originally identified as part of the Pines-Mansfield Congestion Reduction Project, but was not constructed at the time due to lack of funds. This request to TIB would be for construction funding only since design and right-of-way funding has already been acquired for this project through a federal STP(U) grant from SRTC. 7. Broadway Ave — Flora Rd. to Barker Road: This project would complete a new arterial connection between Flora Rd and Barker Road. This project reconstructs the roadway with sidewalks, bike lanes and new stormwater facilities. 8. Sullivan West Bridge @ Spokane River: This project will replace the existing 2-lane Sullivan West Bridge that carries southbound traffic with a new 4-lane bridge. The project is needed to address the inadequate structural condition of the existing bridge. This request to TIB would be for construction funding only since design and right-of-way funding has already been acquired for this project through a state FMSIB grant ($2M) and federal Bridge Program Grant ($8M). SP Projects: 9. Sprague Avenue Sidewalk - Appleway to Long Rd: This project fills in a large gap in the sidewalk serving Greenacres Middle School and Greenacres Elementary School. 10. 4th Avenue Sidewalk — Sullivan to Conklin Rd: This project fills in several large gaps in the sidewalk connecting several large apartment complexes to Sullivan Road, Central Valley High School and the and commercial district on Sprague and Sullivan 11. Progress Road Sidewalk —Wellesley to Trent Ave.: This project provides sidewalk along a school walking route serving three East Valley School District Schools and the modified STA transit route #96 that will be implemented this fall. At the June 24, 2011 TIB Board meeting, the Board approved a supplemental call, totaling up to $50 million, to be added to the normal November award. The supplemental call will include three funding opportunities; one of which Spokane Valley can apply for. Construction Ready Projects. Projects must be ready to go to bid by March 19th, 2012 and notice to proceed must be issued and filed with TIB no later than May 18th, 2012. These projects will be scored and ranked using the normal urban or small city arterial criteria, but will compete only with other construction ready projects. Currently there is one city project that may be able to meet this funding opportunity; the Park Road Reconstruction — Broadway to Indiana Proiect. Staff will continue to evaluate other potentially eligible projects and bring this information to council for consideration. OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The city's match on TIB funded projects is typically 20% of the total project cost. The federal grant funds previously received for the Mission Ave Improvement Project, Park Road Improvement Project, Argonne/Mullen Concrete Intersection Project, Mansfield Connection Project and Sullivan West Bridge Project count towards the 20% TIB match. As the proposed TIB applications are developed, staff will coordinate with the Finance Department to ensure there are sufficient city funds to provide the needed match for the proposed TIB projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, AIA— Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: TIB Program Information TIB Call for Projects 2011 Program Overview 2011 Target Program Sizes Urban Arterial Program UAP $ 30 Million East Puget Sound Southwest Puget Sound Southeast Northeast Urban Corridor Program $40 Million Sidewalk Program - SP West $ 1 ,0 Million Overview > 2011 TIB Call for Projects •Urban Arterial Program (UAP) - $3.4m Northeast Region •Urban Corridor Program (UCP) - $8.4m East Region •Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) - $209,000 East Region > Applications due August 31 , 2011 UAP Program — 5 regions UCP & Sidewalk Programs — 3 regions I AM Puget Sound Selection Criteria Criteria UCP UAP SP Safety 10 45 55 Mobility 30 20 Pavement Condition 15 Sustainability 15 15 10 Local Support 30 5 5 Growth & Development 15 Pedestrian Access 30 Total 100 100 100 Mission Ave Improvements - Flora to darker Bowdish Rd Improvements - 8th to 16th r 'ill 1.- .ili+'' i� - 1..■il 10.-11. ' } } i }�...r _ I i.l •.1." 41'HIIH y ■ i. ! ,� l 14 1,4�- E Sprague Ave: E Spra,g�ueAve i_r , E Sprague Ave—NI-.ps lalce`'I n:E.SRr gue A+e,;�....-.. E pr u#+� "Wt. �i � o E Sprague Ave -- ••'StbOppinp Center 1`' �i. ---- f E ire kwe' :I I • +ter �� _.••Li.�'rE—_. • f 'f `' _: 4 I • I'.�:• t I.' 'I a - C `41 * L • - I.- i I r r E4thi'Ave w E 41:h Ave. al"„;i= _ E X111 i•'.- —• E ,-Il llr t: � 41 �L„ ; -y� ^,► .'.r y R4•(r' .} . , s• J r `iii 14 I� +" 1 _ 4 t ' x s•�, 1 7i EE1 -1,..'.2;z I I, ��'1* `' j• .... ' �I f-; r r a,i 7; i } i � '�. �4'1 ;RI:. TESrNC'=5�1Y ■' r' 7�i' ' *' ' �I .f r- .. .,L1/ 1:A. 4 + 1 , :5,tea „I• �.I I!' .4 .i_i IF , ,s .' - �k I • 1* .4? 1 41 ■►' ���. '".1: -i !.d11.14.69%.1 I_ ' Ir 4 •^a} . •,11 '• t,Aae� '. r `' I� .•'t .E 6!h�FiwP.`- i'. �i �y' F #' r+.�f •.i/ i.. r I 'h A`'r _ � . E'-,1, 'rc :37 y �v rte * �! �. .I • {' rra.164.1 + s f I. E 9N7} .e F Fi hRwe--_ •K• E 8:17..sve 1 �{,� sx Y , ' Y s. r- t - Bit:Na I_ Imo!9om,4 1317.1id,Pr.!.re,nnno.me.,nea it t '�` rSL .,.i1F /yi, F r - W—JY • [Y I� r t r t... + .7.1c,.....7. .r .. + rs !r,':,�— E' :lh A've ,I 1,: _ `j —E 1UlhFwe'•- . ,ti,... . ! 3!/ .7 ■r -..- 11 �1 v -o• ' .. . .1!- P.L_.. -s ':,o- 'or 4• v� k'' IE•2t Aue } E12ViAve- . "Wail �A _' tr�iQ� T t 'i. FM„i'� ..: r ;, � _ fOZ 1 •.'fm } f•:. --r '4 t1 �I-. • • 1'-u+ ,.` . r"�. 'a � J'E 1M1th�'r[iaV�J '- +Ilei S1 Ira i= 'l�} Up. T ' -}- - T- ` ''} r• * T- .icy. RI1.wr:T� #�fF {. nt'I `7..:L r1.`?',. { - fi5Ci�ve _. - y ==F.'5tn:kve3•'!j s a. Y �� 4 r it . _. • i f '' m._Ji•, '- r' — . . i.^aer I ' I ,~ '..4.a■"�h •;u�'r--"— T'! u - - _ I� IT ,E 16V Av..,� �E•16kn'Ave-- — E 16L1,'Ave. �ti �, : ,, r. } i p 11r Ff} r 4. E ,rlh'A e yY ,r R1-4 r4'Je1 .I l �1 'C•.ry �' •r ..- 'ua"� 'r—,y r•'' -.. — - - - dark fed Improvements - Broadway to Indiana N., ./1-10-1 ?iJ� • i 3 L Y • T'..t µE'JBCA Or1 AV2 �.1 r .i i. .T r __ E'.Carl∎sleAg. i I r• i r {.L,~ '. _� t��r,f_ -. ,r --1_* �r v fi r• . �te+d'P�s i''c - f111J�R'ti� !41,� '.f '} .� a'. S<• `� .- Expressti�At_m -`1 c.l.•� ' � _ �•My"Iggme}rY aVe�,� 1,,. -• !''.1: =I_� •Z� - ° ■� .,n iit -,-- II *T?Tl - ::, ro-p..:, 'IV. EI •= iiA. { �. _`.F! 1 :.r ' .., 14r'4�r 'iJ .F ii ;; - 1n,:p,.,.•r tKc..nee,! { ,p 0 Ir 1Ir.+ r 4 q •�� _ „1' _I I I, — jj Y -4' _ -r• �F r. 14 m� -A F*n:one Valley .•x mil , .. °i!'•T_-',1,f r • �.• z 1 Ai j h klrlFi'Schnni :4.7 --� - - - �.�:.: rE _ — Fes.. ,�rrr ce f-I,,,IwoAe i i, �. 6E Ill . _'.II - .i a'-V i. ...� try r - t rj+C -e •. -?. .i-, - l ! - i.1 i 4Yi} ,' F F±».. T��1•CNO•s rive -1� n :.Ill•:P.r,i:y' r F•�n�nia Broadway / Argonne / Mullan Concrete Intersection project +_Mi.f!+Sl A i4gve ;y 7 D:El— ' 7�'nPhn'nilr I -�- rfi. u I Valley..:' .NI�:' .. . r -o -T �Ar .C:. o ., ••�. s x l -.I. '�-� i.� .�I�S Y; I4 tR _ per• W.., I .L a' _ a _,. 1 , 3. 5� .l54 r . �I. 11.1, � ' = ..;FS VI 4- 1 '�-- ' •_ _E SprrgJc A•:r � --E SPIu:luc Ayc—1��� FSpr3r{I,r. ...c. __ 7: r 4: _ rp ol•■inq CHI 1.la 1,41{ E 1 I I c',,.ir , y# E �xw ■ewdy Blvd. -A�to �� f - � .' w - !-..�,✓ }. . dines Rd / 16t1 Ave Intersection Safety Improvement Penske Truck Rental 16th Ave F 161h Ave 161h Ave E:16th Ave Grystalfnnrz An erce �.e •.2I]11 Google-Imager/©i2U'i oigit r vrls$s....-A to,g.-11 1 G,•. --Tennis of IJ Edit in G Mansfield Ave Connection project vna Avu" + i. ,xur z-.y..r. - 711r ,t1WilliMilt• -54i' .. . r +r -- a • �r•�'.?�,� ,rte.1 IJ`� .rl a I e . Maltf er st$ E Ma.nsald'AVO. 9aGy,[ranx y . T8tt041SSndlia ;GymnasI- Academy.. i ..�Spokane Sniinds,Dn . Carstens Margie ENara Ave,, :;7 Ai .'-5� OCI Valley Mission; Broadway Ave Connection - Flora to darker .ti. ,} -I .6• I. L '7' a' r 4fc C'—. klki n.c' . rr S, J' �'r rii _ M. S.tip . kR 4, -.,F I,t— E SpragiirAyr E Sprague PAT 4 ff I1 11 .1ilIII r' ' i J, •1 . x r. . re_ ro . ' =v•l= 1. r +l�r YFi-40: iii . ''..: ` +4 E2ndua- , .j19 {• r J dr"':; •;a r i. :n. t aJir,I . :' �r' +' • I a : sr 'iJ• Sullivan Rd W fridge @ Spokane River Steakhouse Rorp.:e-ere 6 ; 1 Sprague Ave . Sidewalk - Appleway to Long Ind . II: 71... 1f� r..—' +. '"E.A.i4!Axe , - m r.-'7...!::, t- 1 . ..0. . `I. .r L - • It • 71, r . • _ ;1 • = a• J i' F [kE.... •-} _ 1..1•• r 11„. . F • x • i`'- ....r ''gyp.' . it°?'7.iC.l P..r.''••- }_ • • • 4 r 7 m h ■ { ' n lr if ` ' ah •r • –- ;i i '•T. !•'# I. E pras:.:11.A i' n — E Sprague Ave » ��� "EaSpr ague Ave�` l , Z ' #� !� + IE Sp!Etylx.F..ai . # • I* I r r 5 1 !1 } ,' ,ir _.� ` . ��i F j �ti'.,.......,%.f. i' 41 7•1111 . � �r - 71] - �`� . . .LI Qt. +Ji�1F l l4l�.. i' Aij T• 'F F�y� — y+11 �3 ,rray erw,spm��,�.,.n..-•• �_,:n.,.,,���..ena,ties #4 :III I�LC!r.IF' r-al - .• —i s 40.1 F r r li r t IF r.,, ._— _-,I r ._ `' .LI f . ,k _ Ins I• 7.. , i .I-_. lb }I}I�.;I./1..11103 1 .. — 4th Avenue Sidewalk - Sullivan Rd . to Conklin Rd . F :'.1:':I' I. �2,.'rt ' C..I 5��=wan :_1I:- ?m Sr45F�,I}gsFil �41 ■ { i IIIII�t - — •Y2 44t4a. [I.Ift,'. • .� f p., .•f1, f r • {` 1 I 4■■ I L` !PI I+ 11 + ::r l_:ln - •- 7 } Y+� r ■l z.: lira ' 1 lt 1_ ~ � ' - ` + ` .dtn'dl,re E 4tn A.�e - �E'�1n`4we :I — t,�'ir i 41 I •k� ?An. • 1 t . X11 1 " �- 1 t Li�'. .. •� r �,LyY.L?k+ 1 1j I�il' xC+ I• ' •I r I ' I 'SCIt��Flr f {•jGS 'F kY .•• I-}� -; r 5�. '' 1 I G7 ' I I. I j •�-"-5�,i f f' r t �' - 1 ■ } I • ■mow ••,, w , 4 I. Rrt •• �}I ,,-■ — J illi P t'' ,.„,1,..). 4 x } - . I:r 21F../2.....e. — E Leh P•++ — _._'• J )) i 1 17 ;J'.- bi i • T r'-- $M11r$ 811$y y �: _ _ 1 Hlr�hytCh49�s ' 1 11.1111.1 V ebcams Videos Labels 55646 Ent-I[II A .,I II C,Wsenr iun,unme,Shoes progress Road Sidewalk - Wellesley to Trent Ave . Efr • .., J U4 IL r w 91 Photos Jideos Fedia Lahclo • 0 E,G1•gadk4ue • • • ierLJAIDI 1171:: a • Treniwodd • I'5 • Otp • r - 'r i - �T I 5'24 ..".- L- . .r my-- ■' -■ ion-, Ill +I, r J 6, 'rid Dr r �y w_J. 17 r. • 2I F •YT#�w�a L mi.y"- 4_ �fl i ■•�., . Fti- ii I. E'WellesleyiAue "it -" lull 414,- + y o.14 EAI•ter¢yl,AvIP ••4 -0 rig relicovove ,.. sew . AWN U I . di Irrti3gc U S. Geoicirc21 Oi.v c+-rr7.1 - Questions? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Review Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ® new business n public hearing n information ® admin. report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Bike and Pedestrian Master Program(BPMP)-Overview PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Draft Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) will be an element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expanding on the Transportation Element to focus on non- motorized transportation. This element must be consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use,Transportation,Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. As an element of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,this chapter 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 the city- wide bike and pedestrian facility map,recommended improvements,and 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. 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. 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 to proceed with first reading scheduled for August 9,2011 STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Findings Public Hearing Draft(Chapter 11 —Bike and Pedestrian Element) Staff Report 1 of 1 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan SPOKANE VALLEY: AT THE INTERSECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Helen Dewey,Spokane Regional Health District September,2010 Spokane Valley Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2008 IMMIEBIMII Percent White 92% Non-White (AI/AN, Hispanic, 8% API, etc.) AI/AN=American Indian/Alaska Native API=Asian Pacific Islander Data Source: Office of Financial Management,Washington State Spokane Valley Population by Age Group, 2008 Age Group Count Percent <1-19 years of age 25,025 26.9% 20-29 years of age 12,911 13.6% 30-39 years of age 11,545 12.2% I0-49 years of age 13,733 14.5% 50-59 years of age 13,108 13.8% 10-69 years of age 70+years of age 9,277 9.8% Data Source: Office of Financial Management,Washington State Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Life Expectancy for those born in 2008 100 78.0 78.3 79.6 80 - 60 di In m w c w 40 — on a 20 0 El Spokane Valley AI Spokane County ^4 Washington State Data Source: Population Data,Office of Financial Management,Washington State Department of Health Top 5 Causes of Death, 2004-2008 Spokane Valley Spokane County Washington Cause of Death Rank State Rate Rank Rate per 100,000 Rank Rate per 100,000 Per 100,000 Malignant neoplasms 184.0 1 186.0 1 179.0 1 Diseases of the heart 159.7 2 160.4 2 169.0 2 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 50.5 3 52.1 3 44.0 4 Cerebrovascular diseases 48.2 4 47.0 5 45.2 3 Injuries 45.8 5 51.5 4 39.6 6 Rates are age-adjusted Data Source: Death Certificates,Washington State Department of Health,Center for Health Statistics Mortality from Injuries Breakdown Mortality–Injuries(Cause of Spokane Valley Rank Spokane County Rank Washington Rank Accident) Rate per Rate per State Rate per 100,000 100,000 100,000 Falls 15.91 1 15.35 2 10.08 3 Accidental poisoning and —1 13.4 19.01 Mr— exposure to noxious substances Transport Injuries 9.68 3 10.14 3 11.79 1 Rates are age-adjusted Data Source: Death Certificates,Washington State Department of Health,Center for Health Statistics Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Top 5 Causes of Hospitalizations, 2005-2009 Spokane Valley Spokane County Washington Diagnosis Group Rank State Rate Rank Rate per 100,000 Rank Rate per 100,000 Per 100,000 Diseases of the circulatory system 1,556.2 1 1,697.7 1 1,656.0 1 Diseases of the digestive system 1,014.3 2 1,076.0 2 1,081.2 2 Diseases of the respiratory system 1,005.8 3 1,067.9 4 984.2 3 Injury and poisoning 941.1 4 1,070.2 3 959.1 4 Diseases of the musculoskeletal 813.5 5 933.8 5 771.3 5 system and connective tissue Rates are age-adjusted *Excludes childbirth,complications of pregnancy,and conditions originating in the perinatal period Data Source: Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System(CHAR Overweight and Obesity, 2004-2008 45 38.4 I 37.7 •Spokane Valley 35.5 36.2 •Spokane County II 30 26.8 25.I4 � N U O. 15 — 0 —, Not Overweight/Obese Overweight Obese Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Physical Activity, 2005 and 2007 Combined 75 — — 1 Spokane Valley 14 Spokane County 60 —1 53.6 ■ / 45 c a 30 15 — — Met Recommendations Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Diabetes, 2004 to 2008 12 8.6 •Spokane Valley •Spokane County 9 i.b 6 a 3 — I 0 Diabetes L Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Asthma, 2004 to 2008 15 •Spokane Valley 9 9 •Spokane County 12 10.2 9 +.. c w U 'al a 6 3 0 Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Fruit and Vegetable Consumption, 2005 and 2007 Combined 30 •Spokane Valley 21.0 23.1 •Spokane County 25 20 +.. c U 15 - L a 10 5 0 Met Recommnedations Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Education, 2004-2008 45 37.4 •Spokane Valley 35.4 •Spokane County 34.9 I 33.4 31.6 30 I 27.2 — . 1 cu a 15 0 <=High School Graduate/GED Some College >=College Graduate Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Poverty Level, 2004-2008 60 •Spokane Valley •Spokane County 43.9 45 41.2 — I I U 30 — L a 19.9 20.3 I 15 <=100% FPL <=185% FPL <=200% FPL Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) The poorest fifth of Americans spend 42%of their annual household budget on automobile ownership.That's more than twice the national average.Source:Surface Transportation Policy Project Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Health Care Coverage, 2004-2008 25 • •Spokane Valley •Spokane County 20 14.2 15 10 5 0 No Coverage Data Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(BRFSS) Walking Trips per Sidewalk Availability to 25 c 20 73 15 10 ID 5 Q- 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %of route with sidewalk Data Source:Rodriguez D,et al.,151-173. Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Safe Routes to School • 42% of school children are dropped off in a vehicle at school • 58% stated that lack of sidewalks and bikeways make roadways unsafe for their children to bike/walk to school • Physical activity does improve academic performance! Source: Nonmortorized Transportation Pilot Program Evaluation Study. University of Minnesota. 2007. Communities surveyed: Marin County, CA; Minneapolis, MN, Sheboygan, WI, Columbia, MO, and Spokane, WA Cost of Physical Inactivity in Spokane Valley • Physical inactivity is costing an estimated $141.8 million per year. • That's in medical care, workers comp, and lost productivity. • That's about$1,967 per person! Adopted August 2011 (Updated) Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 8 Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Workshop 1: Bike and Pedestrian Interactive Exercise On June 16, at City Hall, the City held the first in a series of workshops for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. At the workshop, a r. .� ,,,� _ T diverse group voiced their opinions and concerns on bicycling and walking. City staff performed an interactive exercise with the • " participants to identify destinations, obstacles, and preferred routes for r these alternative modes of travel. Specific questions included: 1. Where do you like to bike or walk (destinations like parks or schools, etc)? 2. Which areas, roadways, or intersections are difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians? 3. Where would you like to see a new or improved bike and/or pedestrian facility? In addition, a non-statistical survey was launched through the City's website to ask the same questions plus a few more in-depth inquiries. Results of the workshop exercise and the survey are presented in the following graphics. Staff summarized the challenges, opportunities and desired routes obtained from the data in the following Community Connectivity Assessment map. Workshop 2: Route Prioritization Interactive Exercise On September 29, a second community workshop was held. The Spokane Regional Health District presented findings linking ° ' I community health with opportunities for active transportation, including biking and walking. An interactive exercise followed. kvnrd Participants, broken into small working groups of three to four people, 6- E i E .. � were first tasked with identifying their top ten issue areas and/or � � �'r, desired bicycling routes. The routes receiving the most "votes" were , "" ►i . then ranked by each group by matter of importance. The results - show the communities' desire to see improved bike and pedestrian facilities in or around the following six routes: 1. Sprague Avenue 2. Pines Road 3. 32nd Avenue/ Dishman Mica 4. Argonne/ Mullan corridor 5. Valleyway Avenue (as a "bike boulevard") 6. Sullivan Road Adopted August 2011 Chapter 11— Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 1 Appendix 2—Survey and Workshop Results City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Appendix 3: 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 six general types of bicycle treatments: • Bicycle Boulevards (Table 1) • Bicycle Lanes (Table 2) • Cycle Tracks (Table 3) • Bicycle Intersection Treatments (Table 4) • Mid-Block Crossing Treatments (Table 5) • Wayfinding (Table 6) • Shared Use Bike Paths (Table 7) These treatments are not exclusive of one another, and are generally used in combination. For example, a bicycle boulevard 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 Bike Master Plan and can be accessed for additional information: • National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Website: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/ • Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design. Prepared by Alta Planning and Design, IBPI, and Portland State University. July 2009. • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bike Guide, 1999 (a draft 2010 update is currently under review and waiting adoption) • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 • National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. 2006 • Minneapolis Bicycle Facility Manual. May 2010. • Safety Effects of Marked vs Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncrontrolled Locations. November 2000. Zegeer, Charles, et al. All photos used in this toolbox are supplied by DKS Associates unless otherwise noted. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 1: Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle Boulevards Description: Roadways with low speed and low volume that have been optimized for cycling.The treatments recommended for bicycle boulevards improve through movements for bicyclists and other non-motorized modes,while discouraging 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). 0 vo BLVD � ilk D e as 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:speed bumps, traffic islands(pictured on the left and right respectively),curb extensions, lower speed limit, painted or patterned pavement • r,l .. • • • Estimated Cost Range:$2,000(speed bump on roadway approximately 24 feet wide)to$15,000 plus landscaping for traffic islands Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design. Published by !BPI,Alta Planning and Design,and Portland State University.July 2009. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Boulevards c. Traffic Reduction/Diverters Traffic reduction is used to maintain or reduce motor vehicle volumes on designated bicycle boulevards.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). r. o � ` ' ONLY i INWi �= ^ [txcevr Bicraes 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 bike boulevard. CI- • Source: Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design,page 22. Estimated Cost Range:$200 to$1,500 per intersection (depending whether an engineering study is required) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 33 Appendix 3: 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 bike 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, bike lane treatments that offer additional separation between bicycles and vehicles should be considered. Typcial Applications—Bike Lane Types a. Standard Bike Lane Recommended bike lane width is 5 feet,although 6 feet is preferred.2 A standard bike lane is placed to the right of vehicular traffic in the same direction. From left to right,the pictures below show a bike lane offset from the curb,a bike lane adjacent to on-street parking,and a bike lane adjacent to the curb. aS '- : . . UPI .1 dis { Estimated Cost Range:4,000 to$6,000 per mile 2 National Association of City Transportation Officials. http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/bike-lanes/ Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes b. Climbing Lane Climbing lanes can be used on bike 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 characteristics 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 bike climbing lane,and left lane is traveling downhill with a shared bicycle/vehicle lane. K rt w • e v. _ .44 Estimated Cost Range:$4,000 to$6,000 per mile(the cost may increase if existing pavement marking removal is required) c. Buffered Bike Lane A buffered bike lane provides additional separation between the bike lane and vehicle travel lane(or in some cases between the bike lane and on-street parking). Depending on the existing lane widths,creating a buffered bike lane either reduces the width of a vehicle travel lane or removes a vehicle travel lane.A buffered zone between the bike 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. • • • C feb Estimated Cost Range: $5,000 to$10,000 per mile Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes d. Left Side Bike Lane A left side bike 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. T —10e11\ 0 • Estimated Cost Range:$4,000 to$6,000 per mile(same as a typical bike 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 8 feet wide.As long as the paved shoulder meets the width requirements based on roadway speed,the shoulder may be signed as a bike facility. Ir ft.') Estimated Cost Range:Varies depending on the existing roadway conditions. Typical Applications—Bike Lanes at Intersections f. Right Turn Restrictions or Warnings To improve the safety of bicyclists using bike lanes,right turns across the bike lane by vehicles could either be restricted or warning signs used to raise awareness of the bike lane and potential conflict with bicyclists. NO :: 't TURN I ON RED �' EXCEPT BICYCLES ., YIELD TO BIKES Estimated Cost Range:$75 to$200 per sign(plus installation) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes g. Transitioning a Through Bike Lane Transitioning a through bike 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. + \. -r. _ ii - f. 7 _.I ., 4 '4 ANI RAIL UMFI v! .p lIFIY lO,5 jr,Or . !i • Ill A■1 I I OPIP • _ _ r; il ■ Source of image on right: NACTO website(http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments/)Estimated Cost Range:$500 to$4,000 per intersection approach(depending whether green pavement markings are chosen) h. Combined Bike Lane/Turn Lane With a combined bike lane/turn lane,the bike lane drops prior to the intersection and the right most lane becomes a shared right turn vehicle lane and through bicycle lane. Al E V I Source: NACTO(http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/intersection-treatments/combined-bike-laneturn-lane/) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Lanes i. Colored Bike Lane Coloring a bike 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 bike 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 bike lanes and bike 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.3 fit, 1 tti ,1 • - S 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 of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes(IA-14). Federal Highway Administration website: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim approval/ia14/index.htm.Accessed May 9,2011. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 3: Cycle Tracks Cycle Tracks Description: 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 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 greater4 and total two-way traffic volumes are 9,000 vehicles per day or greater.5 • 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:http://nacto.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/03/Nottinghamshire-Cycling-Design-Guide-2006.pdf. May 9, 2011 5 Sustrans Cycling Guidelines and Practical Details.Accessed via: http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Sustrans-Cycling- Guidelines-and-Practical-Details.pdf. May 9,2011. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 9 of 33 Appendix 3: 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). - NI _. r Aptio �. I t . . 1lbHN:: Source: NACTO i iii 7 ..r IP . . j Estimated Cost Range:$100,000 to 1,000,000 per mile(cost varies significantly depending on chosen treatments). Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 10 of 33 Appendix 3: 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. Al driveways and minor intersections, TURNING r• color.yield lines,and'Yield to Bikes' yt:NICLES signage should be used to identify For motor vehicles attempting to cross the the conflict area and make N clear r't cycle hack from the side street or driveway. that the cycle track has priority over v Tti aryl street and sidewalk furnishings and/or other entering and exiting trams V features should accommodate a sIght triangle vanan[m MurCO Rtnrs s Of 20 feet to the Cycle track Bonn minor street or Rt5,laa s crossings,and 10 feet from driveway Crossing_ If configured as a reined cycle track,the crossing Feet should be raised,in which the sidewalk and cycle hack help should their elevation through the crossing_Sharp in- acent clines on alter side from road to sidewalk level serve ss as a speed hump far motor vehicles ` o ii e e e o ik =4), ^^i � ...rte Motor velf i traffic crossing the cycle track should be constrained or channelized to make turns at sharp If the cycle track is parking protected.parking angles to reduce travel speed prior to the crossing should be prohlbited near driveways and minor intersections to improve visibility.The desirable rlo.parking area is 30 feel from each side of the crossing. 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. 4 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 August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 11 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cycle Tracks 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 bike 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 bike 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. L �_ T - , i Y f ii ` =F Source: NACTO ! ,�1 ., p d f 11 >■ ,� pi., it�1 cal, _ f ma 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 August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 12 of 33 Appendix 3: 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. e ace a car a tc . Planters 23 Cycle Track 4 1 ifi Ili � 'r 0 C] 171 II L. i 10' 3' Sidewalk 5ldewaik Cycle Track Planter Parking Vehicle& y �OpGonal) Street Car Traffic 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). Streetcar Vehicle Traffic I Vehicle Traffic—* Streetcar Raised Driveway 20'Adva►rre Placement 1[I ,'Where Space Allows J. ....,,,,,,,,„__,-,-,-„, .0,__ L� Dpw►rlrrll Dirertin►r I / Bicycle Markings 1 t I / \ may be Placed here Driveway Through Longer Driveways `♦ W'11-1 Modilicd Estimated Cost Range:See section e(cost included in overall length of a cycle track) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 13 of 33 Appendix 3: 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 bike 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. It i NO SCALE 3'Wide Planters OM w Option to Place_ Candle Stick Second Northbound 20 f Left Turn Bike Box Right Turn Yield Sign I a/Select Intersections on Mastarm Typical � v —. o Street IIIIHhJ.IIIIIIIHI 0 © I I- - 0 .i0,- 1 3 1 411 1�I li° 1 1■ ■ 1 1∎ 1 i 1 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 4. A° 4 Active Static ' Signals 12" Signs Signs 12" 8" 4 TURN 12" 4 �l/7■■ ON 8. ® ; BIKE ' 0 8" SIGNAL R3-IOOR trio n O MJi°41 © © 0 0 LED Estimated Cost Range:See section e(cost included in overall length of a cycle track) Adopted August 2011 - 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 Bicycle Intersection Treatments Description: Intersection treatments improve the safety 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 and/or 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. Bike Boxes Bike 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. { 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 Bike Lane Through the Intersection Bike 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. _. -- - McLeu9Flln&vtl� • ... n rerttlA M+wIFeMF•I,v - I� ul d a' tr= i[IiI;fr7 if',ill I^ul of A _ 1.19ni j Ii ilf ii fa m { f • Estimated Cost Range:$5 to$15 per square foot depending on material Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 15 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Intersection Treatments c. Bike Signals Bike 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 all-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 • A.. i;' _• _ ;:= :, ��� BIKE . v-- r SIGNAL. • rr ---- OHO . � `' 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 bike 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. vw I' S.. /C I 1 t g / VF/41011Ci F Source: NACTO Estimated Cost Range:$5,000 to$6,000 Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 16 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Intersection Treatments e. Traffic Reduction/Diverters(also in the Bike Boulevard section) Diverters are often used at intersections along bike boulevards to reduce vehicle volumes on a roadway.The diverters allow bicycle through movements but prohibit vehicle through movements. L Q STQP ONLY I - - ..7 . •`" '- ,: "s'EXCEPT BICYCLE) A. it PA [:11/: - . L x @ y - N a "'111_ c J - E 4 .y! .- y (sign stating"DO NOT ENTER,except Bicycles") Estimated Cost Range:$1,000 to$20,000(depends on design and materials) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 17 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 5: Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Mid-Block Crossing Treatments Description: 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 mid- 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. • 'r - - ,■ •••■. 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. Estimated Cost Range:$15,000 to$30,000 per 100 feet Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 18 of 33 Appendix 3: 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 left 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. 1 r F r r . _ - — — • T aditiT 'II -1 y Pi.® . . . ,,i ,_. moisiiiWorp o: 1 : _ 1r` 7 Wiz : -r 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 August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 19 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Mid-Block Crossing Treatments d. Off-Set Intersections At some locations a bike boulevard may continue at an offset across a busier street.One treatment options to safely connect the offset bike boulevard 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 bike lanes connecting the off-set intersections. HERE FUR ' ike P Push _ Button • Rctrvated ng 111111 1111111 F 6lashieacpns . ■ Piste IIIIII 1111111 Button U I 'Y Activated Hashing ` Beacons I I � I I fit , I I I 41 I ?III -. _.. im; Estimated Cost Range:Varies based on right of way impact$1,000 and up depending on chosen treatment Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 20 of 33 Appendix 3: 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. Library CPD 41. (ND B eStk) each 15 BIKE LANE L Kingston 10 4. BIKE ROUTE Ft3-17 D1-30 D11-1 CCID otritior 13 TO Downtown ) BEGIN END 011-1c M1-8 M4-14 M4-6 MB-3 Adopted August 2011 - 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. St LAt ,r HApp S :'.. • 0o Broadwa A4 Y 14 MT TABU 1.7 -w .. 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. Sharrows and bicycle lane symbols can also be considered wayfinding treatments in the sense that they help identify a facility as a bicycle facility. p. . Nit CiCS:t° Estimated Cost Range:$50 to$250 per marking depending on size and material(plus installation) Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 22 of 33 Appendix 3: 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 bike shops or other interested vendors. In addition,the map should be available electronically through the City's website. 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 August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 23 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 7: Shared Use Bike Paths Shared Use Bike 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 ' - ' . --0,10,4.0e1. r: M w •� •, :x !`--- 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 August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 24 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Shared Use Bike 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. Or- lirP4 IC= � . u F' a A sroP�,.• •rte "`_ rte, - �.. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 25 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Cross Sections The following tables illustrate how to convert roadways with specific paved widths into bicycle boulevards 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— Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle Boulevard Cross Sections 18 to 24 feet Paved Roadway Width Roadways: • 12th Ave(sections) • Progress Rd(sections) • Valleyway Ave • 4th Ave(sections) • Pierce Ave(sections) 18-24 • 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) V • Flora Rd(Maxwell Ave to 400 ft north of Sprague Ave) • Alki 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 On-Street • Adams Rd Parking On One Side 7 Progress Rd(sections) • Mission Ave(Francher Rd to Vista Rd) 18'-28' - 8' • • 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) 11,8 • 38`h Ave(37th Ave to Pines Rd) • Mamer Rd(Mission Ave to 1-90) • 16th Ave(Sullivan Rd to Rotchford Dr) • Rotchford Dr(16`h 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) • 6th Ave,4th 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 August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 26 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Bicycle Boulevard Cross Sections 36 to 46 feet Paved Roadway Width Roadways: • Pierce Ave(sections) • 24th Ave(sections) aro • Blake Rd(sections) • Park Rd(north of Rutter Ave and south of 8th Ave) 8' 20'-30' 1 8' I • Farr Rd(Sprage Ave to 8th) • University Rd(railroad tracks to Montgomery Dr) • 37th Ave(Bowdish Rd to 38th Ave) • Conklin Rd(Sprague Ave to 4th Ave) �; • Pines Rd(south of 32nd) Cft MIT 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 bike lanes:2 lanes ;om�� Roadways: fir • Bowdish Rd(sections) 10'-14' 1 10'-14' 1 5'-B' • Evergreen Rd(sections) • Flora Rd(sections) _ • Barker Rd(sections) �4 Wellesley Ave(sections) • Mission Ave(sections) 1 I- • • Broadway Ave(sections) • 32nd Ave(sections) • 44th Ave • McDonald Rd(sections) 3a'-00' • 3rd Ave(Francher Rd to west City Limits) • Montgomery Ave(University Rd to Jackson Ave) • 8th Ave(west of Park Rd)currently less than 30 feet,widening necessary • Carnahan Rd(consider climbing lane only) Design: • 5 to 6 foot bike 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 August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 27 of 33 Appendix 3: 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 bike lanes: 3 lanes with TWLTL Roadways: - • University Rd(sections) • McDonald Rd(sections) • Fancher Rd(sections) V-6'1 10.5'-14' 11'-15' 10.5'-14' 5-6' • Mission Ave(sections) • Broadway Ave(sections) * • Montgomery Ave(Argonne Rd to Woodruff Rd)I I+ r4114 q • Pines Rd(Pinecroft Wy to Trent Ave)•I • Pines Rd(16`h to 32nd Ave) ill( •• Park Rd(sections) - I 4 i Montgomery Ave(Jackson Ave to Bowdish Rd) • Evergreen Rd(sections) • Barker Rd(sections) 42-55 • Mission Ave(sections) • 32nd 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 bike lanes: 3 lanes Roadways: • approximately m Blvd feet wide,,6 with bike lanes approximately 4 feet wide,6 feet recommended) Approx.13'-15' , Approx.13'-15' Approx.13L15' l 34_6^ Design: • Bike lane with 3 foot buffer _ • No on-street parking Note: In areas where the cross section is 54 feet,4 vehicle travel lanes could be maintained at an 11 foot width while nt including the buffered bicycle lane as shown. 39'-45' 48'-54' Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 28 of 33 Appendix 3: 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 bike lanes: 3 lanes with TWLTL Roadways: I 54 M 1 • Euclid Ave(Sullivan Rd to Flora Rd) 5'-6' 3' 12'-14' I 14' I 12'-14' 1 3 1 5'-6' Design: — •' A buffer zone next to the bicycle lane would make. t a ii§ iii the bicycle lane more comfortable to riders. tr ,..i A q , 1 ' vo �I . , a... 54'-60' 68 to 80 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section: 5 lanes with TWLTL (Two-Way Traffic) Cross section with bike lanes: 5 lanes with TWLTL Roadways: ;; ice_. ;t • Fancher Rd(sections) " 1 • University Rd(Sprague to 4th) I 6'-T{ 11'-13' { 11'-13' I 12-14' 11'-13 11'-13- 6'-7' • Indiana Ave(Sullivan Rd to Desmet) 1 Design:tilk MB NA f if iiill 1 • This option narrows existing lanes to maintain the 1 11, 1 III 411 I I I existing cross section while adding bicycle lanes. 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 bike lanes: 7 lanes with TWLTL T MI OZ gt ...... .,_i,. n I 1 6' 1 11' 11' I 11' I 14' I 11' 11' I 11' l 6' V WTAN I I I III II 1 NW - 11 1 1 �.�� 1 _ j 4�4 92' Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 29 of 33 Appendix 3: 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 bike lanes: see options#1 and#2 below. Note that with option#1 the bike lane narrows to 4.5 feet at intersections and mid-block locations where left turns are allowed.Due to the narrow bike 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) T gt -„,......,- at n ra, n, 6' 11' 11' 11' 8' 11' 11' r 11' _E 6'• I I owe ill WI MIX I I I Raised T I I ! M I Median I- I 16._ 86' Option#1 -7 lanes with left turn lane(at signalized intersections and mid-block where left turns are allowed):m, I' It -,..r. „.=_ , -Attlwe ... . _— cm. •g; I 4-5'.. 11' 1 11' I 11' 11' 11' I 11' 11' 4.5' Of Iiill al: !TM T ' ii.I h I.1 1 iwi 4 - - I — I a coo' 86 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 M tm, if OE— -.... i 8' I d'{ 13' 13' I 14. { 13' } 13' 14L' -Rim 43 Cle i ,, 7 t I I iii 1 i 1 A lag I' 86' Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 30 of 33 Appendix 3: 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 bike lanes: 5 lanes with median or left turn lane o. T M m n n I ' 6' 1 11.5' 1 11 I 14' I 11' i 11.5' 1 6' I I I f o o c • ri t I I I A 1 1 us ivin — I -– I ) I 614 1 o 71' Sprague-66 Foot One-Way Cross Section: Sprague east of University Road(westbound only) Original cross section: 5 lanes Cross section with bike lanes: Option#1 -5 lanes with buffered bicycle lane m. r; n -n. n I 11' 1 11.5' I 11.5' I 11.5' I 11.5' 13'1 6' I I - 1 I __ I I l I l 1 - 1 ! 1 1 — � o .... I 66' Option#2-4 lanes with buffered bicycle lane m n n n I 14' 14' I 14' I 14' I 4' I 6' I - I — I -' ale Na -- 6181 ,61 l . t , , igi ck 66' Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 31 of 33 Appendix 3: 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 t a = i Cross section with bike lanes: 1 lane each direction with on-street parking (both sides) 8' I 6' I 10'-14' I 10'-14' I 6' I 8' Roadways: • Mission Ave(Evergreen Rd to Sullivan Rd) CBI O �~ . �', Design: I + I I 81 • 6 foot bicycle lanes adjacent to 8 feet wide on-street 1,� 4 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-Street 20•_28' On-Street TWLTL could be maintained with a 10 foot lane in Parking Parking 48'-56' each direction. — 60 to 70 feet Paved Roadway Width Original cross section: varies (Two-Way Traffic with Parking) Cross section with bike lanes: varies _ Roadways: • If on-street parking is desired on roadways in the B' i 6' 1 10.5'-14' 11'-14' 10.5'-14' 1 6' 1 8' future,these cross sections could be applied to accommodate both on-street parking and bicycle Snc o t MS facilities. , ,. 8 1 IR Design: 41 6 foot bicycle lanes adjacent to 8 feet wide on-street parking allows bicyclist to maneuver around open car 1 On-Street 1 32'-42' 1 On-Street k doors while remaining in the bicycle lane. Parking 60'-70' "g • 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). • For the 84 foot cross section,a five lane cross section r.— ' would also fit(four 11 foot lanes,and a center 12 foot TWLTL). 8- 6' : 105-13' 10.5.13' , 10.5-13' 10.5-13' F 6' I 8' wowI ] I t MS iii ii 8 8 18 fig 1 - I I an-Slreer 42-56' I On-Street Parking 74._84. Parking Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 32 of 33 Appendix 3: 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 bike 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, 4 Roadways: landscaoing strip,or grade separation) •n Millwood Path 2' 10'-94' 2' • Trent Path Shared Use Path • Sprague Path Roadway Vanes Varies • Appleway Path • North Greenacres Path • Dishman Mica Path • Sullivan Rd, north of the River • Flora Rd, north of Mission Ave Design: • see toolbox section for design recommendations. Adopted August 2011 - DRAFT Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 33 of 33 Appendix 3: Facility Design Guidelines City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 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 August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 9 Appendix 4: 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. • 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. • Recreational Equipment, Inc. has long been a financial supporter of local trail and conservation projects. • 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: • 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 August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 9 Appendix 4: 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 August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 9 Appendix 4: 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 August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 9 Appendix 4: 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 August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan State of Washington — 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) • The intent of the project must be transportation and not recreation. Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) • 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 August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 9 Appendix 4: 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 August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 9 Appendix 4: 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.orq/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 August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 9 Appendix 4: Funding Sources City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • 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 • 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 info @saferoutesinfo.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: • Budget report of actual expenditures • 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 August 2011 Draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 9 of 9 Appendix 4: 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, bike boulevards, 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 comparison, streets and places where people are not present often feel uncomfortable and barren. In addition, communities that provide facilities for walking and biking have proven to be prosperous ("Economic Development and Smart Growth", International Economic Development Council). Cities around the nation with the most positive economic growth and solid resources from tourism, general retail and other sources are towns where all people can come and feel comfortable. 11.0.2 Overview As an element of the City of Spokane Valley 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 the city-wide bike and pedestrian facility map, recommended improvements, and 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 1 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and other stakeholders. This step included 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 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 2 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 11.0.5 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Technical Advisory Group Developing the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program 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 Bike and Pedestrian Master Program 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 (Appendix 1: Spokane Valley Health Profile). 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 3 of 31 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 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 Planninci 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. Several items relative to non-motorized transportation planning are found in the RCW and the WAC: a. Coordination Similar to freeways and arterials, a bicycle and pedestrian network extends through one jurisdiction to another. The comprehensive plans of each county or city must be coordinated with, and consistent with, those of adjacent counties or cities (RCW 36.70A.100). b. Concurrency A jurisdiction is responsible for setting level of service standards based on the urban or rural character of the area and consistent with the land use plan and policies. Multimodal level of service methodologies and standards should consider the needs of travelers using the four major modes of travel: automobile, public transit, cycling and walking. The desired community character, available funding and traveler expectations should be considered when adopting levels of service for transportation facilities (WAC 365-196-840). Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 4 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan c. Climate Change The State of Washington legislature recognized that it is in the public's interest to reduce the state's dependence on foreign sources of carbon fuels that do not promote energy independence or the economic strength of the state. The legislature therefore encourages the development of policies, practices and methodologies that may assist counties and cities in addressing challenges associated with transportation-related alternatives (RCW 2008 c 289). Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 5 of 31 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 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 6 of 31 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. 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/ Dishman Mica 4. Argonne/ Mullen corridor 5. Valleyway Avenue (as a bike boulevard) 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 of the survey and community input results can be found in Appendix 2 to this Chapter. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 7 of 31 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% 35% r ra-r--r-L9.% 3% 4% �r t`, �y a5 °` y �� of raa °��° °ayo �t�ac \yGr° �ta� ot�a or ¢te-, k,. aa. `mac °� ,�° �° <C.+ co °QQ '`° '°�¢ t`�0� *CC\ C)o What prevents you from biking or walking? Note: Respondents were asked to check all that apply 70% 57% 43% 28% 26% 26%r 6%I 1-17 14% 13% 17% �;�ey �°°j Ja``d ao°� ate`°t �•°t ta'.`�G �°°' �t°� r°t a° °�' ate° as �6\ �.5` coQ° `�`i �.t st- ��yJ`G\ Q �° �° .6...\a `°� O a�tta C Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11–Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 8 of 31 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% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% eta\ sea` G�5 a* .cs S��G� ooa a�5 �0 Qo\S �J� �� �s o ���a �� ���� v� <5 ���� Q for SQia b•\��� cor Which roadways are difficult for bicyclists or pedestrians? Note: Responses were tallied from qualitative data 24% 17% 16% 10% 5% 12% 3% 3% 3% 3% [3% 2% °° 0 M 1/0 1/0 1:1.141_ — T714.7 PQQ\� ��o���a�eo�`�ioaa����raC���`o����o �,S(-- y`o� Q9)Q\�e�'�ia�J�J\`,ac�i�J� `�J�\\� 5r Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 9 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan What bicycle and pedestrian facilities do you prefer? Note: Respondents were asked to check all that apply 78% /— 1-- 62% 51% 11,_AT_36% 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% 66% 55% 47% 46% 36% 34% rl 28% 71___ ...-- , .. , , , , ,c, , , .(. .,,z z ,,:s, ,.. z ,e, „ .c.,,_ Ae, ..S4 Jy° �aa fat ,`tom G�-\ 5° �o `.,0 5rai°a <2 a.°ate�� °� ,,C.,- <2\1' ,(D Jae �� \5 Q° - a b. Health Data As part of the initial community workshops, the SRHD prepared information correlating active lifestyles, including bicycle and pedestrian commutes, to improved health. Obesity, which can be defined as a person with a body mass index of 30 or greater, is related to illnesses including heart disease and strokes, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, diabetes and some forms of cancer. Less than 1/2 of all adults and children are getting the recommended levels of moderate physical activity. In the City of Spokane Valley, SRHD Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 10 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 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. SRHD estimates this cost as $141.8 million per year or approximately $1,967 per person in Spokane Valley (site: The College of Health and Human Performance). 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 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 Walking80 25 20 ; , 15 O ;, 10 e 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 B0 90 100 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. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 11 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 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. This equates to a family of four earning $3,400 per month or less. The poorest fifth of Americans spend 42 percent of their annual household budget on automobile ownership (site: Surface Transportation Policy Project). 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. Collision Data The Washington State Department of Transportation maintains records of pedestrian and bicycle collision data. Between 2007 and 2009, there was one fatality and eight serious or disabling injuries in Spokane Valley associated with pedestrian and bicycle collisions. An additional 76 reported events resulted in possible injuries. 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. 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 bike 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 AASHTO (American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials) 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 Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 12 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 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, ASSHTO 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 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. • 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 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. 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 children, seniors, people without cars and people with disabilities. Those with higher levels of transportation choice, i.e. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 13 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan 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 principal, minor and collector 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 14 of 31 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, balanced and equitable 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 Increase the number of bike lanes, shared use paths and sidewalks throughout the City. BP-1.2 Ensure bicycle 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 sidewalks, bicycle facilities and shared use paths as part of development where applicable. BP-1.5 Encourage trees, planting strips, 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 Cooperatively pursue joint funding applications for implementation that will expand the regional bikeway network. BP-1.8 Maintain pedestrian, bicycle and, when needed, emergency response access rights when street closure or vacation requests are processed. BP-1-9 Use technological advances as available to update and maintain the bicycle and pedestrian network, including but not limited to bar-code scanning technology at wayfinding stations, alternative paving options, etc. 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. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 15 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Policies BP-2.1 Ensure bicycle and pedestrian facilities meet recognized design standards for safety and accessibility. BP-2.2 Ensure that bicycle routes and shared use paths are properly signed, marked and lit to address personal safety. BP-2.3 Promote safe bicycle and pedestrian crossings of major arterials, railroads, 1-90 and the Spokane River through use of innovative treatments where appropriate. BP-2.4 Increase enforcement of pedestrian and bicycle safety rules on City streets and bikeways. BP-2.5 Consider potential future regulations to encourage safety, including bicycle helmet use. 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 the Spokane Regional Health District, the Safe Routes to Schools program, the Sherriff Department, SCOPE 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 Continue to work with existing programs such as the Commute Trip Reduction and the Safe Routes to School programs to promote bicycling and walking to work, school, shopping and recreational activities. BP-3.3 Provide current and easily accessible information about the bicycle network, bicycle programs and bicycle parking. 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, the available funding opportunities, and the availability of staff. 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. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 16 of 31 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 3: Facility Design Guidelines. i. Bicycle Boulevards — Bicycle boulevards are roadways with low speeds and low volumes optimized for bicycling. The treatments recommended for bicycle boulevards improve through movements for bicyclists and other non-motorized modes, while discouraging through movements by vehicles. Bicycle boulevard 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 3 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 3 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, bike boulevards 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 17 of 31 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 3 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 Table 11.4.1 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. Table 11.4.1 Bicycle Facility Prioritization Criteria Criteria Reasoning Points Available Mobility and Access(Total of 20 Points) Estimated volume of existing or potential bicycle Projects that serve the most number of 0-5 users people should receive priority. Completes a missing segment of a bicycle path Projects that provide a continuous bicycle 0-5 network are desirable. Provides access to major destinations(shopping, Getting people where they want to go is 0-5 schools,transit,trails, etc.) important. Connects existing routes/eliminates gaps and/or Projects that provide a continuous bike 0-5 barriers(i.e. 1-90,the Spokane River, railroad) network are desirable. Safety(Total of 20 Points) Projects that reduce or eliminate an Corrects or improves specific issue areas 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 0-5 and/or higher speed facility speeds have less safety conflicts. Ability to Implement(Total of 10 Points) Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 18 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Project has all or partial funding,or is likely to be Identified funding facilitates quicker 0-5 funded implementation. Route has design and environmental reviews Projects further along in the design and 0-5 initiated review phase can be implemented sooner. Maximum Possible Score: 50 Points ix. Prioritization Criteria — Pedestrian Network The criteria contained in Table 11.4.2 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. Table 11.4.2 Pedestrian Facility Prioritization Criteria Criteria Reasoning Points Available Project Setting(Total of 20 Points) Projects that enable direct access to transit Located within 1/4-mile of a transit route increase the availability and use of alternative 0-5 modes of transportation. Connects residential neighborhoods to activity centers - Getting 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 and/or 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 0-5 addition, many pedestrian/vehicle collision incidents occur on these routes where vehicle 1 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 19 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan x. Network Improvements Facility improvements, summarized in Tables 11.4.3 and 11.4.4 below, are categorized as short-term and long-term projects based on need and ease of implementation. Placement of a project within the tables is not meant to guarantee that projects will be completed in a sequential order. Exact timing of improvements will vary depending on factors such as funding and coordination with other private and public development projects. Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements Short Term Projects East–West Routes 1 Valleyway Avenue Flora Road Park Road Bike boulevard Enhanced crossing treatments at 6 locations. 2 Alki Avenue Barker Road Flora Road Bike boulevard 3 12th Avenue Sullivan Road University Road Bike boulevard Enhanced crossing treatments at 3 locations. 4 13th Avenue University Road Woodruff Road Bike boulevard 5 24th/25th Avenue Sullivan Road University Road Bike boulevard Enhanced crossing treatment at 1 location 6a Sprague Avenue University Road Pines Rd- Bike lanes a, b,c"indicates portions of connected route. 6b Sprague Avenue Pines Rd Evergreen Rd 6c Sprague Avenue Evergreen Rd Sullivan Rd 7 Mission Avenue Pines Road Sullivan Road Bike lanes 8 Mission Avenue Flora Road East City Limits Bike lanes Design funded 9 North Greenacres Centennial Trail East City Limits Shared Use Path Design partially funded Enhanced Path crossing treatments at 1 location. Mirabeau Adjacent to railroad line Enhanced 10 Millwood Path Fancher Road I Parkway Shared Use Path crossing treatments at 3 locations _ _ I Design funded Sprague Enhanced crossing treatment at 3 11 Appleway Path University Road Avenue/ Shared Use Path locations I Tschirley Road 12 Sprague Ave Sullivan Rd I Sprague/Corbin Bike lanes Already designed North–South Routes 13 Progress Road 24th Avenue Mission Avenue Bike boulevard 14 Blake Road Highway 27 Valleyway Bike boulevard Avenue 15a Pierce Road 32nd Avenue 4th Avenue Bike boulevard 15b 4th Avenue Pierce Road Skipworth Road Bike boulevard "a, b,c"indicates portions of connected route. 15c Skipworth Road 4th Avenue Appleway Path Bike boulevard 16 Long Road Appleway Montgomery Bike boulevard Avenue Avenue 17a Marguerite Road Mission Avenue Harrington Bike boulevard Avenue 17b Hutchinson Road Harrington Riverside Bike boulevard Avenue Avenue _ "a, b,c,d"indicates portions of 17c Harrington Avenue Marguerite Hutchinson Bike boulevard connected route. Road Road 17d Riverside Avenue Hutchinson Argonne Road Bike boulevard Road 18a University Road Sprague Ave Mission Avenue Bike lanes a, b,c"indicates portions of connected route. 18b University Rd —16th Ave Sprague Ave Bike lanes Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11–Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 20 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements 18c University Rd 32nd Ave 16th Ave [ [ Bike lanes 19a Park Road Sprague Broadway Ave Bike lanes a, b,c"indicates portions of Avenue connected route. 19b Park Rd Broadway Ave Indiana Ave Bike lanes 19c Park Rd Indiana Ave Rutter Ave Bike lanes 20 Evergreen Road 16th Avenue 32"d Avenue Bike lanes 21 Flora Road Mission Avenue Appleway Path Bike lanes 22 Pines Road 16th Ave 24th Ave Bike lanes -" - -1 Pro- East–West Routes 23a Indiana Avenue East City Limits Arc Street Bike boulevard 23b Tschirley Street Indiana Avenue Baldwin Bike boulevard "a, b,c"indicates portions of Avenue connected route. 23c Baldwin Avenue Arc Street Flora Road I Bike boulevard 24a 4th Avenue Park Road Carnahan Road Bike boulevard 24b Carnahan Road 4th Avenue 6ch Avenue Bike boulevard "a, b,c"indicates portions of 24c 6th Avenue Carnahan Road West City Bike boulevard connected route. Limits 25 16th Avenue Sullivan Road Rotchford Drive Bike boulevard 26 Boone Avenue University Road Pines Road Bike boulevard 27a 3`d Avenue Flora Road Tschirley Road Bike boulevard "a, b,c"indicates portions of 27b 4th Avenue Tschirley Road Barker Road Bike boulevard connected route. 28 37th/38th Avenue Bowdish Road Pines Road Bike boulevard 29 Mission Avenue Fancher Road Vista Road Bike boulevard 30 Liberty Avenue Vista Road Park Road Bike boulevard 31 Railroad Avenue Stanley Road Fancher Road Bike boulevard 32a Knox Avenue Vista Road Sargent Road Bike boulevard 32b Sargent Road Knox Avenue Montgomery Bike boulevard "a, b,c"indicates portions of Avenue connected route. 32c Montgomery Avenue Sargent Road Argonne Road Bike boulevard 33 4th Avenue Dishman Mica University Road Bike boulevard Road 34 Sprague Avenue Sullivan Road East City Limits Bike lane 35a Wellesley Avenue West City Evergreen Bike lane "a, b,c"indicates portions of Limits Road connected route. 35b Wellesley Avenue Progress Road Flora Road Bike lane 36 8th Avenue West City Park Road Bike lane Limits 37 3`d Avenue Wm t City Fancher Road Bike lane One-way westbound 38 Broadway Avenue Fancher Road West City Bike lane Limits 39 Montgomery Avenue Argonne Road Woodruff Road Bike lanes 40 Broadway Avenue Sullivan Road Moore Road Bike lanes 41 Montgomery Avenue University Road Wilber Road Bike lanes 42 Mission Avenue Marguerite Willow Road Bike lanes Road 43 Broadway Avenue Flora Road East City Limits Bike lanes 44 Euclid Avenue Sullivan Road East City Limits Bike lanes 45 32"d Avenue Highway 27 Road Evergreen Bike lanes — 46 Mansfield Avenue Pines Road Houk Road Bike lanes Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11–Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 21 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements Desmet r 47 Indiana Avenue Sullivan Road Avenue Bike lanes 48 Trent Path Park Road East City Limits Shared Use Path Along south side of roadway, requires 2 bridges — 49 32nd Avenue Rd hman-Mica Glenn Road Bike lanes 50 Mansfield Ave Houk Rd Mansfield Ave Bike lanes terminus 51 Sprague Path Appleway West City Shared Use Path Adjacent to railroad line Avenue Limits North–South Routes 52 Rotchford 16th Avenue 4th Avenue Bike boulevard Drive 53 Park Road Liberty Avenue Rutter Avenue Bike boulevard 54 Vista Road Mission Avenue Liberty Avenue Bike boulevard 55 Conklin Broadway Avenue Sprague Bike boulevard Road Avenue 56 Roadlin Sprague Avenue 4th Avenue Bike Lane 57 Locust Road Valleyway Avenue Mission Avenue Bike boulevard 58a Farr Road Broadway Avenue 8th Avenue Bike boulevard 58b 8th Avenue Farr Road Woodruff Road Bike boulevard "a, b,c"indicates portions of Woodruff connected route. 58c Road 8 m Avenue 16 m Avenue Bike boulevard 59 Roadey Railroad Avenue Avenueay —1 Bike boulevard University University 60a Road Mission Avenue Pedestrian- Bike boulevard – _Bicycle Bridge i University University Pedestrian- Montgomery – "a, b,c"indicates portions of 60b Road Bicycle Bridge _Avenue Bike boulevard connected route. 60c University Montgomery Avenue Trent Avenue Bike Lane _ Road _ Mamer Mirabeau 61 Road-Nora Mission Avenue Parkway Bike boulevard Avenue Pedestrian- _ Bicycle Bridge 62 Thierman 8th Avenue Appleway Bike boulevard Street Avenue 63 Park Road 8th Avenue South City Bike boulevard Limits 64 Flora Road Appleway Path 3`d Avenue Bike boulevard 65 v ay Montgomery Avenue Eden Road Bike boulevard Avenue _ 66 Roadher Rutter Avenue 3`d Avenue Bike lane 67 Pines Rd 32' Ave 40th Ave Bike boulevard 68 Conklin Rd 4th Ave Sprague Ave Bike lane Carnahan 69 6th Avenue 14th Avenue Bike lane Possible climbing lane only Road 70 Bowdish Dishman Mica Road Mission Avenue Bike lanes Road 71 Barker Road 8th Avenue Boone Avenue Bike lanes _ 72 ' Barker Road Spokane River Trent Avenue I Bike lanes Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11–Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 22 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.3 City of Spokane Valley Bicycle Network Projects # Street From To Proposed Comments and Potential Improvements 73 McDonald 16th Avenue Mission Avenue Bike lanes 74 Flora Road Wellesley Avenue Euclid Avenue Bike lanes 75 Evergreen Trent Avenue North City Bike lanes Road Limits Evergreen Mansfield 76 Road Indiana Avenue Avenue Bike lanes Extension 77 Pines Road Mirabeau Parkway Trent Avenue Bike lanes 78 Dishman Appleway Avenue 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 I Centennial Trail Shared Use Path Along west side of roadway 81 Long Road Crossing over I-90 Pedestrian-bicycle Bridge bridge Mirabeau Pedestrian-bicycle 82 Parkway Crossing over 1-90 bridge Bridge 83 University Crossing over 1-90 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 Table 11.4.4 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 +/-Dartmouth Carlisle Both sides 5 Montgomery East of Carlisle Pines Crosses railroad 6 Indiana Pines +/-McDonald Both sides 7 Indiana Mirabeau +/-Adams North side South side sidewalk exists 8 Broadway Havana Fancher North side South side sidewalk exists 9 Broadway Fancher Heacock South Side North side sidewalk exists 10 Broadway +/-Moore Conklin South Side North side sidewalk exists 11 Broadway +/-Conklin Flora North side South side sidewalk exists Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 23 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.4 City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements 12 Broadway Flora Long Both sides 13 16th Ave Sullivan Rotchford North side South side sidewalk exists 14 24th Ave Adams Sullivan North side Complete existing gaps;school Design and construction funded East of Evergreen,sidewalk 15 32nd Ave SR-27 Best already exists on north side of street 16 44th Ave City limit Woodruff 17 44th Ave Bowdish Sands North side Complete gaps in sidewalk on north side of street North–South Routes 18 Fancher +/-Cataldo Boone Gap in front of school 19 Farr Appleway 8th Ave Both sides Funded for desigth and construction to 4 Ave a, b,c"indicates portions of 20a Bowdish 8th Ave 16th Ave Both sides connected route.To provide safe access to middle school 20b Bowdish 16th Ave 24th Ave 21 Perrine Main Sprague One or both sides To connect to library 22 Adams 4th Ave 24th Ave Gaps on one or both sides;3 schools on segment 23 Evergreen 16th Ave 32"d Ave Both sides With road construction 24 Sullivan 4th Ave 16th Ave West side East side sidewalk exists 25 Conklin Broadway Sprague Both sides 26 Long Mission Boone Future school and new park site _ Long Term Project East–West Routes — 27 Trent Donald 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 Bowdish +/-Union Both sides Connects Valley Mission Park to commercial area on Pines 31 Wellesley Sunnyvale City Boundary North side South side sidewalk exists 32 12th Ave Bowdish Union Both sides 33 24th Ave University Wilbur Both sides Two schools 34 24th Ave Union Pines South side School Nice residential through street; 35 24th Ave Pines Evergreen One side would need treatment to solve difficult crossing at SR-27 North–South Routes Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11–Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 24 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.4 City of Spokane Valley Pedestrian Network Projects # Street From To Proposal Comments and Potential Improvements 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 Indiana Ave Both sides 37 Park Sharp Dalton Both sides Access to schools; need safe railroad crossing 38 Vista Dalton 1-90 Both sides School; railroad crossing 39 Vista Mission Broadway Both sides 40 Farr Broadway Sprague One or both sides Connects school 41 Bowdish 24`h Ave Dishman-Mica Both sides Portions included as short-term project 42 Evergreen Forker Trent Both sides xi. 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: Bicycle Parking: • Program: 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. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One Year. Ongoing. • Metric: Overall increase of bicycle parking spaces throughout the City. • Responsible: Community Development Department Shower and Locker Facilities: • Program: Coordinate with Spokane Valley 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. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One Year. Ongoing. • Metric: Suggestions included on the City's BPMP web page. • Responsible: Community Development Department, Commute Trip Reduction program Transit Features: • Program: 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. • Timeframe: Immediate and ongoing. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 25 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Metric: Increased bike racks on transit vehicles. • Responsible: Community Development Department Pedestrian Features: • Program: Ensure that pedestrian crossing facilities, including crosswalks and signage, alert both motorists and pedestrians to the presence of the facility. Enforce minimum design standards for sidewalk width and 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 appropriate. Encourage clearly identified safe walking paths between public sidewalks and commercial buildings. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One Year. Ongoing. • Metric: Reduced number of pedestrian/vehicle accidents; increased number of pedestrian trips. • Responsible: Public Works, Community Development Department 11.4.2 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 heighten 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: Child Education and Encouragement: • Program: 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. • Timeframe: Initial implementation: one year. Annual updates and reviews. • Metric: Curriculum developed; bicycle event(s) held; utilization of existing programs. Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 26 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Responsible: Joint effort between Community Development, the Parks Department, the Spokane Regional Health District, the Safe Routes to School program, school districts and interested organizations such as bike clubs, etc. Adult Education and Encouragement: • Program: Together with the Health District, Sherriff's Department and interested organizations, 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 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. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: one year. Annual updates and reviews. • Metric: Information developed and posted on-line; bicycle event(s) held. • Responsible: Joint effort between the City, the Spokane Regional Health District, the Sherriff's Department and interested organizations such as bike clubs, etc. 11.4.3 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: Law Enforcement: • Program: 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. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One to two years. Annual updates and reviews. • Metric: City policy developed and adopted. • Responsible: Joint effort between the City and law enforcement. School Crossings: • Program: 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. • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One to two years. Annual updates and reviews. • Metric: Template for enforcement piece of Safe Routes to School plan developed and shared. Method for coordinating with SCOPE identified. • Responsible: Joint effort between the City, the school districts, the Safe Routes to School program and interested organizations such as bike clubs, etc. Facility Upkeep: • Program: 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 27 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan • Timeframe: Initial Implementation: One to two years. Annual updates and reviews. • Metric: Facility upkeep. • Responsible: Public Works Departments. 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 11.4.5 summarizes potential steps involved with implementation: Table 11.4.5 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 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 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 11.4.5 above, funding is required for implementing many portions of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. Table 11.4.6 summarizes potential funding sources. More detailed descriptions of these sources, including match requirements and application timing, are contained in Appendix 4. 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. b. 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 Adopted August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 28 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan these alternative modes of transportation. Projects designed to address a clear and demonstrated safety hazard are therefore encouraged. c. 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 transportation to daily activities reduces car commutes and pollution. Well located projects also consider and provide for multi-generational users. d. 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 11.4.6 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. • 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 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 for maintenance and restoration of existing trails,development of trailside facilities, transportation authorization construction of new trails and acquisition of property for trails. bill will replace SAFETEA- 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. • 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 29 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.6 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(RTCA) 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 30 of 31 City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 11.4.6 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 will 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 will 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 August 2011 draft Chapter 11—Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Page 31 of 31 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION SpOkane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE Valley PLANNING COMMISSION BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PROGRAM(BPMP) STAFF REPORT DATE:July 7, 2011 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: July 7, 2011, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The Draft Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) will be an element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expanding on the Transportation Element to focus on non- motorized transportation. This element is consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use, Transportation, Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. As an element of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,this chapter 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 the city-wide bike and pedestrian facility map, recommended improvements, and 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. 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. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed text amendments to the comprehensive plan do not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. After a thorough review of the completed environmental checklist, the lead agency has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley,Washington. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley,WA APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. STAFF PLANNER: Mike Basinger,AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian Element Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 1 of 7 Appendices Maps I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICATION PROCESSING: Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Application Submitted: Not Applicable Determination of Completeness: Not Applicable Issuance of Determination of Non-Significance (DNS): June 17, 2011 End of Appeal Period for DNS: July 01, 2011 Published Notice of Public Hearing: June 17, 2011 Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: June 17, 2011 PUBLIC PROCESS: 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 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. 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. 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. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 2 of 7 CONSULTANT: 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. 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. II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). No appeals were received. III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS A. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17(GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.140(H) of the SVMC provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the Comprehensive Plan. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Staff Response: Promoting walking and bicycling can help ease congestion, address weight and health issues and enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. Walking and bicycling can help to promote interaction between neighbors, strengthen connection to the community, provide `eyes-on-the-street' security, and support local retail activity. Communities that provide facilities for walking and biking have proven to be prosperous ("Economic Development and Smart Growth", International Economic Development Council). Cities around the nation with the most positive economic growth and solid resources from tourism, general retail and other sources are towns where all people can come and feel comfortable to bike and walk. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 3 of 7 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Staff Response: The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are not in conflict with Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act) and do not result in internal inconsistencies within the plan itself. 3. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific. This approval criterion does not apply. 4. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments will not result in changes to specific properties. 5. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: Currently, the Comprehensive Plan addresses multimodal transportation in a general fashion in the Transportation Element. The Bike and Pedestrian Element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan will expand on the Transportation Element with a detailed focus on non-motorized transportation. This element will address opportunities and constraints specific to non-motorized forms of transportation allowing the City to focus improvements that enhance the livability and economic vitality of our community. Section 17.80.140(H) of the SVMC provides the following factors that must be considered when the City amends the Comprehensive Plan. The factors are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The effect of the physical environment; Staff Response: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed text amendments do not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The implementation of the bike and pedestrian program should provide more opportunities for biking and walking reducing vehicle trips resulting in fewer emissions to the air and less noise. At the time of development, new impervious surfaces may be developed creating the need for stormwater treatment. Some of the City's existing stormwater swales have excess capacity that could be used to treat newly developed impervious surfaces from bike lanes. Most of the recommended bike lanes are on existing arterials and collectors that merely require a reconfiguration of the road striping. 2. The effect on open space,streams, rivers,and lakes; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. Future projects associated with the BPMP would likely not affect open space, streams, rivers, and lakes. 3. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 4 of 7 Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. 4. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation,and schools; Staff Response: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The Parks and Recreation Plan provide an implementation strategy including a capital facilities plan,which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks. The BPMP will provide a comprehensive, balanced and equitable bikeway and pedestrian system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, trails, and employment areas within the City and to adjacent jurisdictions. 5. The benefit to the neighborhood, City,and region; Staff Response: The BPMP will 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. 6. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and do not address land quantity or land use designations. 7. The current and projected population density in the area; and Staff Response: The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. The proposed amendments do not demand population analysis; however, population projections and capacity numbers were updated through this amendment process. 8. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Analysis: 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. Conclusion(s): The proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendments are consistent with the approval criteria and factors contained in the SVMC. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: Staff has received no public comments to date. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 5 of 7 C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS Findings: The City is required under RCW.70A.106 to send comprehensive plan amendments to Department of Commerce (DOC) for review 60-days prior to adoption. The DOC will be notified prior to June 24, 2011. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) and applicable approval criteria and factors recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Chapter 11, Bike and Pedestrian Element to further focus on non-motorized transportation. V. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact(Sections 17.80.140) when recommending changes to the Comprehensive Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendments,the Planning Commission,by separate motion,should adopt findings of fact. Findings: Staff has prepared the following findings for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. Section 17.80.140 (H) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Findings and Factors(Section 17.180.140H of the SVMC): Findings a. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is furthered by promoting walking and bicycling to ease congestion, address weight and health issues and enhancing the livability and economic vitality of our community. b. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW(Growth Management Act). c. The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific and do not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. This approval criterion does not apply. d. The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific and do not correct mapping errors. This approval criterion does not apply. e. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Factors: a. Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that the proposed text amendments do not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented non-project amendments and will not affect open space,streams, rivers, and lakes. c. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented non-project amendments and will not impact adjacent land uses or surrounding neighborhoods d. The adequacy of community facilities is determined on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. The BPMP will provide a comprehensive, balanced and Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 6 of 7 equitable bikeway and pedestrian system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, trails, and employment areas within the City and to adjacent jurisdictions. e. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and do not address land quantity or land use designations. f The BPMP will increase opportunities for non-motorized transportation that improve the connectivity, safety, convenience and attractiveness of the pedestrian and bicycle network. g. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. h. The proposed amendments do not demand population analysis. i. The Bike and Pedestrian Element is consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use, Transportation, Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. Recommended Motion: The Planning Commission finds the 2011 Comprehensive Plan text amendments to be consistent with Section 17.80.140(H)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC). I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings in the staff report and recommend approval to the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan text to include Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian Element. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Page 7 of 7 City of Spokane ttll�L!!, a11111® . 0111r11111I_.`. 1 . �, rr .-� ia2aoi� Dane' Town of Millwood �� ��� Ma _Valk_ SemorCente •11ji_��-�®'' � Boone v� I i� -im- aw ® ou Firm 1 Balfour e ® Opp l minify Township Map 11.1 Existing Bike Facilities Legend Existing Facilities - Existing Bike Lane - Existing Shared Use Path CentennialTrail Trailheads Schools Railroad Other Municipalities City of Spokane Valley Parks Water Bodies Effective Date:X/XX/XXXX Ordinance No.:XX-XXX4 Map Location n � d 6 0 0.5 1 2 Miles I l i I I I Notice:The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City makes no claims or guarantees about the accuracy or currency of this map and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its contents. To confirm accuracy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product of the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department City of Spokane 1 Clements LC:resent Mandalay el Frederick SRd vFairview Gra •Yn Buckeye ark ppEE■■R■■ 'i . zren� Town-of`Mil_lwood smn V.hamletffils mina �easeamor� � TerraceView Park /Pool en n 2. erre Cork Be Goo Map 11.2 Recommended Bikeway Network Legend Bicycle System Existing Bike Lane Existing Shared Use Path Proposed Bike Blvd Proposed Bike Lane ••••• Proposed Shared Use Path Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge OPotential Crossing Treatments Centennial Trail Trailheads Schools w+«+++Railroad Other Municipalities City of Spokane Valley Parks jo Water Bodies Effective Date:X/XX/XXXX Ordinance No.:XX-XXX� ....� Map Location n � d 6 0 0.5 1 2 Miles I l 1 1 I 1 1 I Notice:The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City makes no claims or guarantees about the accuracy or currency of this map and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its contents. To confirm accuracy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product or the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department Mandalay Manddalay Sansun elle City of Spokane 111- T La r,s POOMOMM MEM MUONMENE YYYYIii�l?EIiAdNGd' Orchard A Frederick Park Ave 131=11F13 &Mira 11111111x1111■ u:i 111 re e cab • Fawlew a -c Mirabeau BuckaveI I Park Dalton Sulliva Park Bnannl nI Valley_Mission — 1 er Valley Se'n iorCenter_ora r m IB°s me t c vau sportunity Townshipti"°n Hail 97 1et1J !Snit Mani en MEE ILL ■9 • Balfour 1 Ok -c k,1 _ _ • _EN ra6iM1 A �1■. - !--r- �,q=M1• ®ME_- gecliff M 1uM1 Park 2th R 4th 00 I ,1]ih O` 4th Vaile L LT 4iM1 15th ■ 7th .11 6th 10th IL le Jeri to - 3- �LL1 c16th =- ,18th _' F 1 ERIM1 Browns mmm l ©M Park '�31L_ \`ICes Jmmy, m t. Perk WHEN I r 44th � 41 44th g 1 MWEilialgi IIMPEOlari HBO n MIN e \I t& 1 23rtl1 iFil41 11W0111 A 24th fl` 40th art a •eu Be Pa 32nd st Map 11.3 Existing Sidewalk Network Legend Sidewalk Inventory Sidewalks • Curb Ramps Textured Curb Ramps Centennial Trail Trailheads Schools Railroad Other Municipalities City of Spokane Valley Parks Water Bodies Effective Date:X/XX/XXXX Ordinance No.:XX-XXX 40 sigiValley. Map Location 0 0.5 1 2 Miles I I l l I l l I I Notice:The information shown on this map is compiledfrom various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City makes no claims or guarantees about the accuracy or currency of this map and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its contents. To confirm accuracy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product of the City of Spokane Valley,community Development.Department t-len k5 �o� �yd°•�\ F Map 11.4 Recommended Pedestrian Network II �� o P Mao WabasM1 an LL ri ate' r Sa°e°° .. ■■■!!! I: �r ��. 1 ti ' wn� a\e 3o se.,._s _ q _ vane City of Spokane , aa- Legend Pedestrian Network a q � a = itx € .a. Orchard ••••. N; _ & a _�..'• j10, ,,' e .IN■■■�■ _ ■ ■■.pp Peril'•■ Da\t°n �■Ni N .7[aFi 7fA g Fretlenck �� -.�,� Spokane River MN ■ �° ' 1■■YH1� •�'- yy_�j - ma N ■ =YrN■ �■ Town of E ■rte �■YNNI DalDal=on Sidewalks - Millwood - ».." .-» �� :� - Proposed Sidewalks ■ �CMIE - o■■ - ■� � � J" I ..�'"" ®���..- • . . ��= Mirabeau Existing Shared Use Path ■■■■•Proposed Shared Use Path PedBike Bridge " Park - -.". • -- • N_ N�1il r a GIb �- �, o �`'��' 'emxa C t . ■ .. sbanne �� • - / Sultiva ' Park erem m Aryj Jm Centennial Trail Trailheads Schools -�•- V1 sron IePark o a �'�� S = o ■ / ^"' m a • � ,, ��.�. •• VaBey Senior _ Center • [•■® �Nm.Nirm�■ �y �.•+s Greenacres` ■ IF _ .' - •�P.x� F� M�M - `I , �' """"*** Railroad Z�an m um �, _ s �.. _ i .- ,- ��� Park Roar \Yool" _ _ •. �. >" �. Other Municipalities INE ®� I ni City f Spokane Valley riP Y '� Parks Water Bodies Map Location LN ll. Balfour Opportunity Township PP D� Mr= � s s`` l� � st ML°,JI �. • ` Shelley � 7.� Park v� =elm ' � ., !WV il w of ■•••�. rjao.. \I =� }�N® 2ntl_ 3rd =�a .:M'IM and - ELF And t . •_ PAW Qai■i r� _ a ur" s �t a IN ®=rs E7J'1i .�N�teNn. k EN ®m Lake _ i■N■N� LMM + r� -7R� s, 6th - -aN Edgecliff .. eV :E= ��M��� Nil ■7i■■■■ Nki Eilau � Fr RMN'■F�■r ,. alM1 n a -� ��}1 ' •e 2�' '� ,2. jN■fP��7 Park' . _�s■lNU �3IN p� „,, ,,, ,,,_ ., 6th k. ' r c A it h ^A 1't 18th m ID 'to mNu Iwo 6�i!• �� 7 F 11 'PPerrace Vi m ■ Park, •. I1 P ' ■9i■.cs° nsth]n Y .' o q !e WAW a `/Pool ■�� c , o • APO °° ° 26th aSteYYt Le - 21st _. ° l9iF1 -■N sualle‘■ Jennie s =MEM= MIL Y _ _ . r � Whir/ �,_ . E ■ � •M tj 1 25th .10NN t g .- Effective Date:X/XX/XXXX Ordinance No.:XX-XXX jUalley• Vi ' 9th K , 1 ®=. Browns p--- , • ==�I tat azna e �NNN ' V Caistle�A ° Park . ark Pill tgs o 32nd `''A : LsI os __ 44th i® ,d 1 `QO 43rd mNm m e �' _ 42nd 43rd 44th 9■ .Z dm ,'a °pt, °t a m - - Ball W 0 1 2 Miles l l l I a Made 4® MN . 1', 5 e et Be\aVis. g assn "MP mpgVD ess :n 46th p M1 - - onto rod b v ,r`�e E 'e0essa �ee an ¢O o dix ° Mop trade MohaA I 81 tlow Chapman f map is compi from various Notice:The information shown on this led antes is about the accuracy revision.The makes no claims or guarantees y or currency of map an expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its'contents. To confirm accuracy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product or the City or Spokane valley,COmmwity Development Department p 111 ft AMe I 'ed F: �•r n '�' .1 Holman .. - Pa k. ',hard U ° o Pled Regal Elemenotmy Spokane"81 II Spokane 01 P° twN■■■so • Frederic Ppokane River uer Oseph Mandalay Pasadena Park Elementary West Valley 4363 E Trentwaad Elemen East Valley 061 Il g •vrtiand W ,.r East Valley Senior ■.High ■■. m Ea s[ i Skyview Valley i Elementary MitlEle f:E.A WriNg .1111 " I lit � MIN ! 11111111121rAFISO,..----7Bri NIiliM 40 �rlmw�l■�i Dolton Center Elementary Wes✓alley": Tow _of Millwood Skyview Elementary East Valley 061 Fre enc r Trent Elementary GG=ac Trent Elementary Fast Valley 4361 rtl Baptist Temple Christian kannon Spokane Valley High Sheridan Elemen Spokane.1 f Washington State University coop ummitimmw C S ■ _ n L,V Breadway Elementary ■ Central✓alley d356J �� al.. Z Backe High North Pines School and Learning Midd voioy��way ■ dill limn,.ota firitIA 1111Jill' ■. _ E W EN Central Valley Kintlergarten cent cata�E P-000 r -4m GreenacreyElementary a 8th _ n was 21st Lincoln Heights EL Spokane d8 9th 29th Chase {�Mia■yle Adams t Lary Spokane ane d81 ntl 7th Moran Pminie Spokane d81 44th Central.11,7 056 44th Co ens, Chester Elementary Central Valley 056 Map 11.5 Safe Routes to Schools Legend Pedestrian Network III Hospital Police Station Library Transit Location •/ Safe Haven School Identified Walking Route Centennial Trail Trailheads Schools H*+++++ Railroad 1 Other Municipalities City of Spokane Valley Parks Water Bodies Effective Date:X/XX/XXXX Ordinance No.:XX-XXX 40 Whane Map Location Jn� � V � d 6 0 0.5 1 2 Miles I I I I I Notice:The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision.The City makes no claims or guarantees about the accuracy or currency of this map and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its contents. To cam accuracy contact the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department,Division of Planning,(509)921-1000. Product of the City of Spokane Valley,Community Development Department SPOKANE 7 DEPARTMENT OF OK ENGINEERING SERVICES III808 W SPOKANE FALLS BLVD. Fill SPOKANE,WA 99201-3343 509.625.6700 � FAX 509.625.6349/509.625.6124 i�)Si Spokaneengineering.org June 30, 2011 To: Mike Basinger, City of Spokane Valley Re: Spokane Valley's Bike and Pedestrian Program. I have had the pleasure of attending two meetings during the development of Spokane Valley's Bike &Pedestrian Program. As the City of Spokane continues to make improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, safety, and opportunities, it's critical to make strides as a region as well. Many of our existing and proposed routes and facilities,large and small, depend on connections and the continuation across jurisdictional boundaries, serving all types of citizens living,working, and traveling throughout the area. I personally and professionally support, and see the regional value of Spokane Valley's Bike and Pedestrian Program. • Grant Wencel, Bicycle &Pedestrian Coordinator, City of Spokane .Z...,37„ c..I ---A, OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES DEPARTMENTS MEMORANDUM w 91/4. TO: Mike Basinger and City of Spokane Valley CENTRALVALLEY FROM: Jay Rowell, Assistant Superintendent S C H O O L D I S T R I C T SUBJECT: Bike and Pedestrian Master Program DATE: June 29, 2011 I am writing this memo in support of the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program. Over the course of the last year I have had the opportunity to meet with Mike and his staff on numerous occasion to have input into the master plan for the city's improvement of Bike and Pedestrian pathways. First of all I would like to say that I am very impressed with the professionalism and information that has been provided by both Mike and his staff. The opportunity to be heard from the school district perspective has been real and is very much appreciated. The plan that you are reviewing in this hearing receives the support of the Central Valley School District. We appreciate that you have taken into consideration the walkways that are used most often by our students and the bike paths that will make it safer for our students to maneuver the roadways. The creation of the safe routes to schools is already being used in our schools today. The sooner that these improvements can be made the safer our children will be as they travel to and from school and around our community. If I can be of any further service in support of this plan please feel free to contact me at 228-5556. Thank you. TO: Mike Basinger FROM: Dee Caputo,AICP, Senior Planner, Growth Management Services, Dept of Commerce DATE: 6/28/11 RE: Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Thank you for this opportunity to add my voice in support of all the great work the city of Spokane Valley has been doing to get its Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) drafted and soon, adopted. It is my pleasure to capture a few thoughts in support of the work you and others have been doing in this regard. I am certain in this day and age that most people 'get' how important it is to provide safe and convenient routes for travel to and from various destinations that include getting to school and work; accessing and indulging in recreational activities, and making the other trips we take typically take in the course of daily living. While we can agree that not every trip will be suitable for traveling by the seat of a bike, many more such trips could be appealing if people knew that this mode of travel would be safe and enjoyable (particularly when weather 'conspires' to cooperate!). By making the efforts that Spokane Valley has undertaken to craft this deliberate and thorough plan, people WILL know and trust that traveling by bike or on foot can become, in many instances, the preferred alternative for local trips. Although I have not been able to make time to attend any of the public meetings related to the Spokane Valley BPMP (nor this scheduled public hearing for July 7th, 2011), I do receive all the workshop/meeting/hearing notices, and so, I am confident the city has been attentive in its efforts to offer public involvement opportunities. The city's citizen participation work should help to encourage greater loyalty and enjoyment during the implementation phase of the BPMP, too, which should be quite exciting! There are so many positive attributes that accrue to people who bike, including improved health and wellbeing of persons, their environment, and the enhancement of purchasing power to personal and public pocketbooks. Providing safe, convenient and pleasant places to go on foot or by bike should help foster a greater sense of community pride, too! This concept of growing community support through extensive citizen involvement brings up an interesting thought process I entertained last summer: one of my exquisite memories while traveling throughout France and the Netherlands, especially in Amsterdam, involved witnessing the amazing strides that have been made to promote wide spread bicycling in those countries. Just as here, the first step in achieving their stories of success came from a shift in local thinking that allowed the collective soul of the community to accept a new direction for desirable travel options. After decades of spending dedicated funds to implement their effective program, benefits too numerous to count are self evident, and enviable. Keep at it, and Spokane Valley could become another leader in this regard! I am sorry I won't be able to join you later in the week to learn what others have to say. I'd love to get some feedback on the various comments. Please feel free to share with me the community's reception of the BPMP after you experience it during the hearing this coming Thursday. Thanks for inviting me to comment! And good luck for the entire life of the program! East Valley School District No. 361 -1111":.:,,:. I 12325 East Grace Spokane WA 99216 Phone 509.924.1830 Fax 509.927.9500 Website www.evsd.org Superintendent: John Glenewinkel Board of Directors: Mitch Jensen Mike Harris Heidi Gillingham Kerri Lunstroth Roger Trainor June 29, 2011 City of Spokane Valley Mike Basinger, Senior Planner 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mr. Basinger: Please accept this letter as evidence of support for the Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan from the East Valley School District. It was our honor to be included in the development of this plan and we hope to remain part of the process as the plan is implemented. As a school district, we are committed to safe non-motorized routes to and from our schools. Our schools not only serve as centers of education for over 4,000 students they also serve as community centers. Nearly every weekend and evening our buildings and grounds are crowded with activities and events. Summer months find all the field spaces in use and our gyms are in constant use through the fall and winter. Having a comprehensive plan that can grow with time, to safely move pedestrians and bicyclists enhances not only our educational activities but also serves to enhance those community-based activities. We believe that many of our families prefer to walk or bike to events when possible. Thank you for your leadership in the development of this plan. The meetings we have attended have been very impressive and demonstrate how important this project is to the entire community. Sincerely,(,- -� Jo flL1 R. Glenewinkel/Ed.D. Superintendent • t Friends of the Centennial T R A I L 4 iviame. Date: June 28, 2011 City of Spokane Valley Mayor Tom Towey City Council Members 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane,WA 99206 Re: Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Dear Mayor Towey and City Council Members; The Friends of the Centennial Trail had the pleasure of attending the workshops concerning the Spokane Valley's Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. We support the plan's approach,which focuses on promoting, educating and eliminating barriers to walking and bicycling in the City of Spokane Valley. This form of transportation is growing in our region, and as you are aware has many health and environmental benefits. We appreciate the City of Spokane Valley vision to accommodate our community's needs. Sincerely, Kaye Turner Executive Director Friends of the Centennial Trail Friends of the Centennial Trail -P.O.Box 351-Spokane,WA 99210-(509)624-7188-Fax(509)624-7038 www.spokanecentennialtrail.org-e-mail:friends @spokanecentennialtrail.org ■• Spokane Housing Authority July 7, 2011 Mike Basinger City of Spokane Valley Planning Department 11707 E Sprague Ave, suite 101 Spokane Valley, Washington Re: Bike and Pedestrian Master Program Dear Mr. Basinger, The Mission of the Spokane Housing Authority, in the simplest terms, is to provide affordable housing for the people living within our service area. Quality affordable housing is comprised of many elements, including those amenities and the infrastructure available for use by residents. The Housing Authority supports the development of a Bike and Pedestrian Master Program that will enhance the transportation options for residents in our owned developments and persons receiving tenant-based rental assistance and living throughout the Valley. A comprehensive plan to encourage and enhance non- automobile travel will provide a multitude of benefits for those that we serve. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this worthy endeavor to improve the livability of Spokane Valley, Washington. Respectfully, Arthur Noll Development Director 55 W. Mission Ave.,Spokane,WA 99201 Phone:(509)328-2953 Fax:(509)327-5246 www.spokanehousing.org Equal Housing Opportunity SRTC Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Avenue, Suite 310 • Spokane,WA 99201-3613 509/343-6370 FAX: 509/343-6400 June 29, 2011 City of Spokane Valley Mayor Tom Towey City Council Members 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane, WA 99206 Re: Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Dear Mayor Towey and City Council Members; The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) strongly supports the City of Spokane Valley's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) as an effort to achieve a balanced transportation system in our region. SRTC has been actively engaged in the development of the BPMP and realizes the significance of Spokane Valley's non- motorized planning efforts to help reach regional goals. Spokane Valley is significant due to its size and its location is central to regional connectivity and mobility. Adoption and implementation of the BPMP will increase multi- modal transportation efforts and create safe alternative transportation infrastructure in Spokane Valley as well as provide integral regional non-motorized transportation connectivity. Planning efforts of this nature also have the positive side benefit of promoting healthy lifestyles by providing active transportation opportunities for community members. Many jurisdictions in the region are focusing more resources on developing, implementing and promoting a robust non-motorized network. Spokane County recently adopted a Regional Trails Plan; the City of Spokane updated their Master Bicycle Plan and is now drafting an update to the Pedestrian Plan; Airway Heights has passed a Complete Streets ordinance; and SRTC has adopted a Bike Plan, a Pedestrian Plan and is participating in a national effort to double funding for non-motorized transportation. We are excited by the development of the City of Spokane Valley's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Thank you for taking this important step in helping us attain our goals. Sincerely, Coi'// iOl t,vei..Ma Rohwer Int m Transportation Manager Spokane Regional Transportation Council ./►��t Equal C)pporlunit_v/Affirraaatirc Action Employer West Valley School District a4 8s Board of Directors: James Williams � Pamela to Success" Robert McLeod Robert Dornpier Robert Wentworth Samuel Andrews,Jr. July 6, 2011 Mr. Mike Basinger, Senior Planner City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Spokane Valley Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Dear Mr. Basinger: ,I am writing to express West Valley School District's support for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. I appreciate the opportunity you have given West Valley to be a part of the development of this plan over the last year. As a school district, we are committed to providing our students with safe routes to school as it has become necessary to expand the walk areas for each of our schools. The Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan provides a road map of your planned improvements which will, in turn, assist us in providing more options for our students and the community to get to their destination and back home again safely. The Master Plan helps our district as well as the entire community plan improvements for safety and health benefits alike. Thank you again for your quality leadership in this program and for allowing our participation in this important project. Sincerely, Brian Liberg Transportation Director 2805 N.Argonne P.O.Box 11739 Spokane,WA 99211 Superintendent:Dr.Polly T. Crowley (509)924-2150 Fax: (509)922-5295 Deputy Superintendent:Mr.Douglas A.Matson,CPA www.wrsd.com Assistant Superintendent:Dr. Gene Sementi • • • SCIT polka Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106•Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000•Fax:509,921.1008 cityhall @spokarnevalley.org Memorandum tL�=rs Wm.-XSS-�ca`�ivS-�'"-=��.w.• :.^L 41:1.v,L1Y3alt9�.i: ��'L scar.t.'F aE..:-z=y-a.M���..:.+astrw��'ess.3a.a-"E: ".eT..�k-58u3i�w '.i�.a,�,'e..b"a-.�.�3s.'..:a'-.M .a>.... h...«e:.�a.,..so...rh , To <Mayor and City Councilors 4 From; John Carroll,Chair-Spokane Valley Planning Commission Date: July 7,2011 Re: Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation: Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) i BACKGROUND On June 23, 2011, the Planning Commission was briefed on the Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP). On July 7,2011,the Planning Commission received public testimony on BPMP. After receiving public testimony and deliberating on the BPMP, the Planning Commission developed their recommendation for City Council. City Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a proposal,they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Draft Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) will be an element of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan expanding on the Transportation Element to focus on non-motorized transportation. This element is consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use, Transportation,Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. As an element of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, this chapter includes background data concerning bike and pedestrian facilities (Section 1 1.1),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 the city-wide bike and pedestrian facility map, recommended improvements, and 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. 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. 1of3 1 Procedural Documentation and Noticing: 1. Notice for the BPMP was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on June 17,2011. 2. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21C) an environmental checklist was required, 3. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made. An©ptionaI Determination of Non-significance(DNS)was issued on June 17,2011. 4. The DNS was published in the city's official newspaper on June 17, 2011 consistent with Spokane Valley Municipal Code,Title 21,Environmental Controls. 5. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 7, 2011, to consider the proposed amendments. 6. Afier hearing public testimony, the Commission made a recommendation on BPMP. Detailed findings and conclusions specific to the BPMP can be found in the staff report. Planning Commission Findings and Factors(Section 17.180,140H of the SVMC): Findings: • a. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is furthered by promoting walking and bicycling to ease congestion, address weight and health issues and enhancing the livability and economic vitality of our community, b, The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). c. The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific and do not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. This approval criterion does not apply. d, The proposed text amendments are not site or property specific and do not correct mapping errors. This approval criterion does not apply. e. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan, Factors: • a. Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls)of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code,the lead agency has determined that the proposed text amendments do not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. b. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented non-project amendments and will not affect open space, streams,rivers,and lakes. c. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented non-project amendments and will not impact adjacent land uses or surrounding neighborhoods d. The adequacy of community facilities is determined on a citywide basis through oapital facilities planning. The BPMP will provide a comprehensive, balanced and equitable bikeway and pedestrian system connecting residential neighborhoods with parks, schools, commercial areas, trails,and employment areas within the City and to adjacent jurisdictions. e. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and do not address laud quantity or land use designations. 1. The BPMP will increase opportunities for non-motorized transportation that improve the connectivity,safety,convenience and attractiveness.of the pedestrian and bicycle network, g. The proposed text amendments are policy oriented and non-project amendments. h. The proposed amendments do not demand population analysis, i. The Bike and Pedestrian Element is consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use,Transportation,Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Elements. 2 of 3 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS: The planning commission is required to adopt findings of fact(Sections 17.80.140) when recommending changes to the comprehensive plan. The staff report contains findings applicable to the particular request. At the conclusion of the hearing for the comprehensive amendments, the planning commission, by separate motion, adopted the findings of fact contained in the staff report for BPMP. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission after review and consideration of the proposed Bike and Pedestrian Master Program (BPMP) and applicable approval criteria and factors recommends' approval of Chapter 11, Bike and Pedestrian Element to further focus on non-motorized transportation. The findings and factors the Planning Commission used to prepare their recommendation are outlined above. Approved this 71h day of July,2011 I / I# -- 'ohn G. Carroll, Chair Ci City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission 3 of 3 City Council Administrative Report CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY BIKE & PEDESTRIAN MASTER PROGRAM 1 0 0 G1ULLICk LELEEL , Si .■. ■ -•• •, ■ -,MI■ ■ ■ '...!,- ..■ •■••-■ .■■■ -•■••" ■ ■ ■• ■•■••- ■ : it -L.Lii - - - - T • To increase o • • ortunities for non-motorized transportation that improve the: • Connectivity • Safety • Convenience & • Attractiveness of the pedestrian and bicycle network in the 0 1 IIIAin4 n11:11 irrl ci ii No, 2 • To is enti y an . prioritize aci ity - . 1111 - 14 . nel • • * 0 SI ' • Thorough data collection & analysis • Community visioning • Regional Collaboration • Engineering assessment & • Preliminary cost estimates !tip r (r)% THE CI I Y OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIV F; PLAN "A community o j3vort mt. where individuaa anfaes can grow an &ay an iusitresses carp f3 iirr s/i androer: '4 �vawr v1 i 2008 SPOKANE REGIONAL BIKE PLAN Adopted May 8,2008 Prepared by SRTC 22P West First Avenue,Suite 310 Spokane.WA 97201 edestrian Plan Approved December 2009 Connect Spokane A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION F`i Spakaneiraasif Adopted 2010 rwien.firg, • 1iilYYdli R, ▪ 1140Untain Fairview W a.Bucke 6 Ma ietta IL - z g 449 l▪ilt I:J. Indiana BaId to i vo a t pli 11 1.".1%°..0 1 ki N i cooproi iiiiihriwi-air \hY1 aidon 3 a V Indian Mission Nora °7 4 MISSION AV, 0 Maxwell Sint° Sharp Desmet ti Cataldo BROADWAY AV Broadway De sm et Cataldo 1 90 Sprinafreld Desmet Broadwa, Sidewalk Inventory • Sidewalks Driveway Crossings Crosswalks Curb Ramps Textured Curb Ramps s Invt F*Est: IRtwrIG irk 0 0 z None a, c_ None ` � •- z CO a) 0 z One m z Sene county Sewer ROyyr Bike Friendly None_ Bike Card 1-Lane- No g Bike Lanes 4 • Separated sidewalk northside s 0 Mirabea a(le CeVen Point 44 7i-of1 aka! r z Separated C*WO sidewalk P1�Are� None None lb on - Parr, Bike IIII •▪ Friendly ■ Kit• • m C 0 ■ z ■ 44 • Potential 2 m bike blvd. ��p STOP as m Path Connection Balfour .. ■ gaI- ' None 0 • a • z ` None ■ 0, 0 ■ z • 4 Lane -No Bike Lanes a • a 0 ••• ROW 1O feetlsidewalk N side None +# ti rte' 3 Spokane County Sewer ROW Bike Friendly Sidewalk on None _ southside No parking on southside-wide CTL • m 0 i Z• Center turn lane/bike lanes 4 Potential Bike Boulevard STOP w STOP Sunken Grates Center turn Good school lanefbike lanes signage • Potential▪Bike Boulevard Space for future Bike Lanes z Unimproved ROW 54' -60' ROW STOP Potential Bike Boulevard 0 o None a) 0 m -o ■■ a ' • 1 City of Spokane Valley Accident Locations involving Pedestrians or Bicycles January 2003 - December 2009 kar- Icy' I� g 11.1111130 Baspritreral s �F Indi.ne 1114"1 111"almorm=m- 4idr-ZP-MatirgUP°.w.emOVIN a:iees rli 1MkiI1'11 -».__ WPM MENU eiw :MEM -� 2_.2122=M Malley Febfuar7 11.2010 Nei kiMMISEMNPAPIANIS ■ 'wig+140 9� P . magi mom Accident Year: Bicycles: Pedestrians: r it= Wass1-047.41rir 34% It Wit toirentrz. M 11—* till )i 4 ' J . rr AL-. ■ ■ A 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 • • • 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 Number of Accidents by Location: 0 Pedestrian Accident i t Bicycle Accident Q 2 Pedestrian Accidents Jk 2 Bicycle Accidents 3 Pedestrian Accidents A 3 Bicycle Accidents Note: Gdor depict.most recent accident year for locations v i h mu11i ple accidents roluitli * IA • BPMP Webpage r-da-k9],, • Routinely updated • Database with over • oo contacts • Fact sheet — Fall 2010 • Newsletter — Winter 2011 • Distributed regular updates on program • Community Workshops • TY • • Worksho • No. 2 - Fall 2010 • • • 0 • en House — Summer 2011 • Online Questionnaire (Non -statistical) ° 354 people took the survey Preferred Facilities ,•, i' raw's° Grozn WAS] I I NTN STATE uN wERSITY WEST 4 A L L EY SCHOOL DISTRICT 343 CENTRAL VALLEY [ 11 O 11 l 9 1 S T 11 I i T jai a eRoute National Center for Safe Routes to School X1/4i AST VALLEY 36113941 i.)Wrltt-Spc.kiM • RbNI REGIONA LTH j7 I S rt R 1 C 0 () BICYCLE ALLIANCE �� vr�sI iI rari R-Ts Roora rowuof riullwoo te. = . prill•INEF• ° BEN 1I !711 k ■ !LI ri 1111_ fW ‘ ` V ✓ • Hired DKS out of Portland Oregon • Evaluate Route Feasibility • Evaluate Improvement Options for Routes • Develop & Prioritize Projects • Review our Draft BPMP Roadways with low speed and low volume I kct inil VIC es. Bike Lanes designate an exclusive part of the roadway (typically the right side) S r MEI SUPs are h sicall se arated from the roadway & are intended for all non-motorized users Tirmi\ k, Cycle Track is an exclusive bike facility separated from vehicle traffic and the sidewalk • • i I iftt ri • fAr4 rrritiThasi • Map 3. 2 —Vs- Map 11. 2 • Reduced 39 miles of Bike Lanes . - - . . • Added Bike Boulevards • BPMP Provides Tools • Toolbox • Cross Sections \-- -...3 ■._,./LJ \-_____ C`---:_} 2-3 LI \_____./ LfilL .,__ __.--/ .1 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of July 13,2011; 4:50 p.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 July 26,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,July 18] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance for CPA 02-11 (St.John Vianney)—Karen Kendall (20 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance,Zoning Map for CPA 02-11 (St.John Vianney—K.Kendall(5 minutes) 4. Resolution Amending Speed Limits—Inga Note (15 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Railroad Quiet Zone—Neil Kersten (20 minutes) 6.Admin Report: I-90 Signage—Neil Kersten (20 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Finance Monthly Report—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 8.Admin Report: Draft Ballot Ordinance and Resolution—Cary Driskell and Mike Jackson (30 minutes) 9. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 135 minutes] August 2,2011, Study Session Format Confirmed no meeting: (National Night Out) August 9,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Tues,Aug 1] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance CPA 02-11-Karen Kendall (15 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance,Zoning Map for CPA 02-11 (St.John Vianney—K.Kendall(5 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed Ordinance,Ballot Issue—Cary Driskell and Mike Jackson (20 minutes) 5.First Reading Proposed Ordinance,BPMP—Mike Basinger (15 minutes) 6.Motion Consideration: Approval of Development Agreement,CPA 02-11 —Karen Kendall(10 minutes) 7.Motion Consideration: Approval of Proposed 2013 TIB Project List—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 8.Admin Report: Revenues&Expenditures for Preliminary 2012 Budget—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 100 minutes] August 15,2011,Special Meeting,6:00 p.m. Council chambers [due date Mon,Aug 8] 1. Second Reading Ordinance For Ballot Bond issue—Cary Driskell&Mike Jackson (40 minutes) 2. Resolution Placing Bond Issue on Ballot—Cary Driskell&Mike Jackson (10 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] August 16,2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Aug 8] 1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.35 Contract Authority—Mike Jackson (30 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] August 23,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Aug 15] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2012 Revenues&Expenditures (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance,BPMP—Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 4.Motion Consideration: Set 2012 Budget Hearings for Sept 27 and Oct 11—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Review of ordinance that levies 2012 property tax—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Review Ordinance to Confirm Tax Levy—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 7. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 70 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 7/14/2011 4:06:28 PM Page 1 of 3 August 30,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Aug 22] 1. Outside Agency Presentations(Social Service Agencies) — Mark Calhoun (-60 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 minutes] Wed,August 31,2011,confirmed Joint Council and County Commissioners Meeting,9:00 a.m.—Noon, Spokane County Fairgrounds, Bay 4. Tentative agenda topics include (1) Milwaukee right-of-way;(2) animal control;(3) transportation benefit district;(4)waste management; (5)jail. September 6,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Aug 29] 1. Outside Agency Presentations(Economic Development Agencies) — Mark Calhoun (-60 minutes) 2. City Manager's Presentation of Preliminary 2012 Budget—Mike Jackson (30 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 95 minutes] September 13,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 5] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] September 20,2011, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 12] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 2.Fee Resolution Review—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] 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) (5 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Allocation of funds to Outside Agencies—Mark Calhoun (30 minutes) 4. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] October 4,2011, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 26] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 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.First Reading Proposed Ordinance,2012 budget Property Tax -Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 2012 budget,tax confirmation—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 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.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 45 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. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 85 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 7/14/2011 4:06:28 PM Page 2 of 3 November 1,2011,Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Oct 24] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 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.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 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) Prosecution Services Centennial Trail Agreement Public Input Process for Capital Projects Code Compliance Report—Extreme Cases Sidewalks Commute Trip Reduction Program Renewal Site Selector Update East Gateway Monument Structure Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Governance Manual(resolution)Update Speed Limits Greenacres Trail/Northern Railroad Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment Investment Accounts (includes monthly report) WIRA,Water Protection Commitment,Public Educ. Liberty Lake City Sign Lodging Tax Funding for 2012 (Oct 2011) *time for public or council comments not included Milwaukee Right-of-way Mission Ave Design(Mission&Long ped. crossing) Monument(Veterans') Sign Old Mission Ave Trail Access Parking/Paving Options(for driveways,etc.) Pavement Management Program Update Draft Advance Agenda 7/14/2011 4:06:28 PM Page 3 of 3 Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Date: July 12, 2011 Re Taxes collected by City as a result of Avista constructing a facility on Barker Road Per your request I am responding to Councilman Schimmels' question at the July 5, 2011, Council Study Session where he asked what taxes the City might expect to receive as a result of the new Avista facility that was recently constructed on Barker Road. Taxes received prior to construction: • If a property sale was involved, the City would have received a 1/2% real estate excise tax that was collected on our behalf by Spokane County (1/4% goes to Fund #301 — Capital Projects Fund and 1/4% goes to Fund #302 — Special Capital Projects Fund). Taxes received during construction: • Sales taxes would have been paid on the construction materials and these would have been collected by the State and remitted to the City where they would be credited to the General Fund. Ongoing taxes: • Property tax collections would likely increase as a result of the increased value of the property and these would be collected by Spokane County and remitted to the City where they would be credited to the General Fund • There would also likely be some increase in telephone utility taxes that would be generated as a result of additional communications needs in the new structure. These would be credited to the Street Fund. Because the City has no utility tax on either gas or electricity, we would see no revenues from either source. Beyond these I'm unaware of any other tax revenues the City would collect. If either you or Councilman Schimmels have any questions or comments regarding this information, please don't hesitate to ask. P:\Clerk\AgendaPackets for Web\agendapacket 07-19-11\Item 9 Avista tax.docx Page 1