With the adoption of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in 2001, many of our neighborhoods held much hope that when reconstructed, the arterials that run through our neighborhoods would be more pedestrian friendly, would have traffic calming features and would address the myriad of transportation concerns that parents of school children bring to our attention at neighborhood council meetings. After all, the Comp Plan has abundant references to these features. With the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, we felt the City has heard residents’ concerns and that the groundwork had been put in place to provide us and our neighbors with meaningful transportation options. The Comprehensive Plan states in Section 18.2:
“…it is partly because of the existing nature of Spokane’s built environment that Spokane is auto dependent and lacking viable transportation options and, as a consequence, that citizens established this new direction. Following this new direction with its clear transportation priorities, however, will lead to new transportation systems that reflect the city’s new transportation goals. Establishing these new transportation systems for Spokane will take time. It will take careful and steady implementation of the plan, as expressed in its goals, policies, and implementation methods (such as the new street standards). But with consistent implementation of the plan on a case by case basis, the community’s built environment will change and with it, the opportunity for Spokane to achieve its desired future.”
In fact, the framers of the Comp Plan felt so strongly about these new transportation goals that they included a provision to provide for their funding. Section TR 9.3, Dedicated Funds for Retrofitting, says:”The City of Spokane shall dedicate some amount of its annual transportation capital budget to retrofitting the street system to meet the city’s pedestrian design standards.”
The Revised Code of Washington provides the requirement that the comprehensive plans adopted by city and counties will conformed to and be implemented by capital budget decisions.
RCW 36.70A.120
Planning activities and capital budget decisions — Implementation in conformity with comprehensive plan.
Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall perform its activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with its comprehensive plan.
[1993 sp.s. c 6 § 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 12.]
Notes: Effective date -- 1993 sp.s. c 6: See note following RCW 36.70A.040.
Confidence was further bolstered in this new transportation policy on February 21, 2005, when the Spokane City Council adopted the following language to the Spokane Municipal Code:
“Section 17B.010.010 Purpose and Applicability
The comprehensive plan of the City is the document, prepared by the city plan commission and adopted by resolution of the city council, containing text and maps setting forth goals and policies to guide decisions about the future orderly development of the City, which are designed to enhance the fiscal, physical, social, cultural and economic well-being of its population. “Comprehensive” means that the plan encompasses all geographic parts of the City and all functional elements such as land use, circulation and community facilities, and their relationship to one another, the environment, and the metropolitan community.
The adopted comprehensive plan is intended to guide and give direction to City-wide development over a relatively long period of time. The land use codes shall be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. Public improvements through the investment of public capital funds, regardless of the source, are to conform to and implement the comprehensive plan...
Date Passed: Monday, February 21, 2005
ORD C33581 Section 1”
In 2004, City of Spokane voters passed a ten year, $117,351,000 Street Bond. Neighborhoods assumed that approval of this additional property tax levy would commence the rebuilding of the city’s transportation infrastructure conforming to comprehensive plan policies. However the draft plans for the reconstruction of Bernard and other arterial streets implements none of the policies mandated in the Comp Plan. In fact, it does the opposite in some cases by removing existing street trees, failing to provide for pedestrian safety or a pedestrian friendly environment and failing to include traffic calming features.
The following comprehensive plan policies are not being implemented with the spending of the 2004 Street Bond funds:
TR 1.1 Transportation Priorities
Make transportation decisions based upon prioritizing the needs of people as follows:
♦ Design transportation systems that protect and serve the pedestrian first;
♦ Next, consider the needs of those who use public transportation and non-motorized transportation modes;
♦ Then consider the needs of automobile users after the two groups above.
Discussion: This fundamental transportation policy is a statement of how the City of Spokane prioritizes people’s transportation needs. It indicates a general priority of how the needs of people are considered. Applying this policy on a case-by-case basis will not mean that in all cases pedestrians come first and automobiles last. The intent of the policy is not meant to be anti-automobile, but rather the intent is to accomplish the following: First, following these priorities leads to the development of the type of community described in the adopted “Citywide Vision” statement and Transportation Vision and Values statements. Second, it increases the transportation choices available to people. Third, it lessens the negative impacts of automobiles, such as noise and air pollution, traffic through neighborhoods, and the need for additional parking. Fourth, it helps prepare Spokane for the future when more people may need alternatives to driving and the negative impacts of automobiles increase as Spokane’s population increases. Fifth, it makes driving in Spokane quicker, more convenient, and safer by reducing vehicle congestion and, in some cases, by providing separate facilities for bicycles and transit. Sixth, these priorities recognize that we are all pedestrians. Seventh, they also recognize that pedestrians, babies in strollers, people in wheelchairs, and people on bicycles can’t compete with automobiles or trucks, yet they should be able to travel safely and comfortably. Those least able to cope with the physical and psychological stresses of the built environment should receive equal consideration. Finally, this policy recognizes that the city and region are auto-dominated without the variety of transportation choices desired by the community.
No 2004 Street Bond projects to date or any planned conform to this policy. Rather, these projects and plans invert these priorities by only considering the needs of automobile users.
“TR 2 TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
Goal: Provide a variety of transportation options, including walking, bicycling, taking the bus, car pooling, and driving private automobiles, to ensure that all citizens have viable travel options and reduce dependency on automobiles.
2004 Street Bond project plans fail to promote any other transportation options except “driving private automobiles.” Pedestrian environments, particularly regarding the Bernard Street Project, will be degraded by the removal of street trees and the failure to provide an adequate pedestrian buffer strip.
TR 2.7 Safe Sidewalks
Provide for safe pedestrian circulation within the city; wherever possible, this should be in the form of sidewalks with a pedestrian buffer strip or other separation from the street.
Discussion: It is essential that pedestrians be able to walk safely and easily within the city. Besides being safe, the pedestrian environment should feel safe.
Providing a separation between streets and sidewalks has many benefits for creating safe, usable sidewalks. Separation creates a buffer for a feeling of safety from automobiles, reduces the amount of water and gravel and other debris thrown on sidewalks from passing automobiles, and prevents curbcuts and driveway aprons from protruding onto sidewalks. A separation also provides a place for fire hydrants, poles, signs, trashcans, recycling bins, and other obstacles. A separation additionally provides places to store snow, plant trees, and absorb runoff.
The preferred separation is a pedestrian buffer strip. Pedestrian buffer strips, also known as planting strips, can be landscaped with a variety of treatments, not just grass (see policy TR 7.4, “Pedestrian Buffer Strips”).
In some cases, some other type of pedestrian pathway, such as a trail or staircase, may be preferred to the separated sidewalk. The type of pedestrian circulation provided may differ according to the type of street, topography, or unique circumstances.
In situations where a separation from the street is constrained, such as by topography or existing development, deviations from this policy can be granted by the Design Review Committee upon a finding that an alternative design is necessary to achieve the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The potential additional cost to achieve separation is not, in itself, justification for a policy deviation. The separation between sidewalks and streets is the preferred, expected form of sidewalk design. Deviations from the separation design are to be for truly exceptional cases—the exception, not the rule.
TR 2.12 Pedestrian Access to Schools
Enhance the pedestrian environment along routes to schools to provide a safe walking environment for children.
Discussion: Providing a safe walking environment for children on their way to school increases their safety and encourages them to develop the habit of walking. Ways to accomplish this include: ♦ Encouraging school routes not to cross arterials. ♦ Having user-activated lights at intersections where arterials must be crossed. ♦ Implementing safety patrols with traffic-control signs at busy street crossings.
♦ Working with schools to promote walking groups.
♦ Strengthening and enforcing pedestrian right-of-way laws.
Two elementary schools are adjacent to Bernard Street (Roosevelt and Cataldo) and two additional elementary schools (Wilson and Hutton) have pedestrian routes that cross Bernard, most notably at 14th Avenue, 18th Avenue and 25th Avenue. No pedestrian enhancements are provided in the Bernard Street draft design along these routes. The walking environment will be less safe as drivers will drive faster on a smooth, new street surface with additional open space that result from street tree removal.
TR 4.2 Self-Enforcing Street Design
Design streets to discourage drivers from speeding and increase the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, other drivers, and every person and animal in the city.
The Bernard Street draft design does the opposite by encouraging drivers to pass on the right. This situation is particularly dangerous as some drivers stop for pedestrians and others, not realizing those drivers' intentions, pass on the right. Wide smooth roads that are not enclosed by trees will encourage speeding and decrease the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and other drivers.
TR 4.3 Narrow Streets
Build streets with the minimum amount of street width needed to serve the street's purpose and calm traffic.
Discussion: Streets should be constructed as narrow as possible. Narrow streets are less costly to build, require less maintenance, reduce storm water runoff, help reduce the speed of traffic, conserve land for other uses, and are safer for pedestrians. Narrow streets also serve as an effective traffic calming measure.
The Spokane Regional Transportation Commission (SRTC) has designated Bernard Streetas a minor arterial. In SRTC’s 30-year plan, Bernard is maintained as a two-lane street The lane width requirement for a minor arterial that is designated as a "shared use" (with bicycles) lane is 14'. The total width requirement for Bernard is 28'; the roadway is presently 40'. This leaves 12' that could be dedicated to a turn lane, parking, pedestrian buffer strips or a combination thereof. It seems safe to suggest that Bernard could be narrowed in order to fulfill TR 4.3.
TR 4.20 Design and Maintenance of ROW Streetscape Elements
Design pedestrian buffer strips, medians, traffic circles and other right-of-way streetscape elements so that they enhance public safety and Spokane’s visual and environmental quality and can be effectively maintained.
None of these right-of-way streetscape elements are included in the draft plan for Bernard or any other 2004 Street Bond projects. Rather, Bernard Street will be stripped of the few streetscape elements it presently features when the street is reconstructed.
TR 5.1 Neighborhoods for Pedestrians
Orient, design, and maintain neighborhoods for pedestrians.
The Bernard Street project and all 2004 Street Bond projects do not orient, design or maintain neighborhoods for pedestrians. These projects are oriented and designed to maintain Spokane’s auto dependent character.
TR 5.2 Neighborhood Transportation Options
Promote a variety of transportation options within neighborhoods.
Discussion: Providing for walking, bicycling, and transit use as viable transportation options gives residents more transportation choices and reduces the amount of traffic in neighborhoods. Transportation choices that are environmentally, culturally, and historically connected to neighborhoods produce healthy and cohesive neighborhoods.
Only one transportation option is promoted within the neighborhoods by the draft designs of 2004 Street Bond projects.
TR 5.3 Neighborhood Traffic Issues
Work with neighborhoods to identify, assess, and respond to the unique traffic issues and needs in each neighborhood.
Discussion: ….Areas of transportation planning that are particularly dependent on neighborhood involvement include design issues (such as the selection of street tree types and landscaping choices for pedestrian buffer strips) and the location and type of traffic calming measures and traffic control.
The Engineering Department has sent representatives to neighborhood council meetings, the community assembly and before the City Council. They have repeatedly announced what to expect when they reconstruct Bernard Street. There is no evidence that the input of neighborhoods over the last five months has been incorporated into any design. Lobbying activity by the Engineering Department is not sufficient to meet this policy.
TR 5.4 Traffic Calming Measures
Use traffic calming measures in neighborhoods to discourage speeding, reduce nonneighborhood traffic, and improve neighborhood safety.
To date, there has been no traffic calming measure incorporated into a 2004 Street Bond project.
TR 5.5 Arterials and Neighborhoods
Locate and design arterials to minimize impacts on neighborhoods.
Discussion: The impacts of arterials on neighborhoods should be minimized. Arterials that through poor design or location divide neighborhoods should be avoided. Arterials do not have to be vast stretches of asphalt that separate and isolate neighborhoods.
The Bernard Street draft design maintains a 40’+ street width, maximizing the impacts of the neighborhood. This has the effect of dividing the neighborhood, including what could otherwise be walking routes to four elementary schools (Roosevelt, Cataldo, Wilson and Hutton). The Bernard arterial cannot be relocated but it can be redesigned to minimize the impacts on the neighborhood.
TR 7.3 Street Trees
Plant street trees wherever possible to enhance the transportation environment.
Discussion: A healthy “urban forest” is one of the greatest assets a city can have. It is also one of the few infrastructure elements that appreciate in value with age. For transportation purposes, street trees have many benefits; they provide a traffic calming effect, help orient motorists, provide shade and habitat, reduce glare, noise, erosion, and wind, and absorb carbon monoxide. Large trees with overhanging canopies of branches are especially desirable. Streets with a cathedral of trees overhead are an important aesthetic element that fosters community pride and identity.
One concern in planning for street trees is to ensure that public safety is protected by preventing sidewalks and curbs from being damaged by tree roots. This problem can be addressed through the design of the pedestrian buffer strip and the selection of the appropriate tree type for the planting site. In addition, planting techniques such as root barriers, “structural soil,” and irrigation practices are helpful mechanisms in preventing tree roots from damaging sidewalks and curbs.
….The potential problems caused by street trees should not be used to override their fundamental importance and overall value.
The Bernard Street project plan is to strip the existing street trees and replace them on private property and on cross streets. This plan causes damage to the transportation environment by removing street trees and failing to provide adequate space to establish new street trees. If the Bernard Street project proceeds as planned, there will be no opportunity to reestablish street trees on Bernard Street for the foreseeable future.
TR 7.4 Pedestrian Buffer Strips
Develop pedestrian buffer strips in a way that is appropriate to the surrounding area and desired outcomes.
Pedestrian buffer strips are not developed in the draft Bernard Street project plan. Rather, the current 18-24” space between the street and sidewalks will remain and be useless for any purpose.
TR 10.2 Innovation to Meet Spirit
Review proposals for development projects in a way that allows innovative design and for solutions that meet the spirit and intent of the law, if not the letter of the law.
There is no innovation in the Bernard Street project plan. This plan meets neither the spirit, the intent nor the letter of the law.
DP 1.3 Urban Trees and Landscape Areas
Maintain, improve, and increase the amount of landscaped area in the urban environment and, at a minimum, replace any tree that needs to be removed from publicly owned property.
The Bernard Street draft design fails to maintain, degrades and decreases the amount of landscaped area in the urban environment. And while the number of trees that are removed are replanted, they are replanted elsewhere. The appraised value of the street trees anticipated for removal is in excess of $174,000. The value of the replacement trees is, at best, reflected in the cost of the replacement trees, estimated by the city arborist at $300 per tree or, for 24 trees, $7200. This represents a loss of value to the neighborhood and adjacent property owners of over $166,000.
DP 3.5 Urban Forestry Program
Develop and support a comprehensive urban forestry program
Discussion: An urban forestry program includes an inventory of existing trees and all available tree locations and establishes goals for new and replacement tree planting and total canopy cover. Needed are citywide regulations and street standards that require establishing and maintaining plantings in traffic islands and planting strips and that allow large canopy street trees.
Canopy cover is reduced by the Bernard Street project and the draft design provides no opportunity to maintain plantings in planting strips for any trees.
DP 7 LOCAL DETERMINATION
Goal: Make neighborhoods attractive, safe places by encouraging residents to express their design and development values through local and sub-area planning efforts.
While over 200 city residents have contacted the mayor and city council requesting an alternative design for Bernard Street and the Cliff-Cannon and Manito/Cannon Hill Neighborhood Councils have unanimously adopted resolutions during meetings with record attendance, none of the design and development values expressed in the comprehensive plan have been incorporated into the Bernard Street draft design.
DP 7.1 Design Guidelines in Neighborhood Planning
Include design guidelines in neighborhood planning processes to address local urban design issues.
Discussion: Neighborhood residents are the best equipped to determine what neighborhood design details and elements represent the particular characteristics of their specific area.
DP 7.2 Neighborhood Involvement in the City Design Review Process
Encourage the neighborhoods to participate in the city’s design review process.
NE 12.1 Street Trees
Plant trees along all streets.
Discussion: Installing street trees along all residential and arterial streets is the easiest and most cost effective way to secure the environmental benefits of urban forestry. Street trees planted in buffer strips between the curb and sidewalk should be included in every street project or private development.
The Bernard Street project and all 2000 Street Bond projects fail to include the planting of any trees between the curb and sidewalk.
N 4.10 Pedestrian Design
Design neighborhoods for pedestrians.
The Manito/Cannon Hill and Cliff-Cannon neighborhoods are being designed for vehicular traffic, not pedestrians.
The Director or Park and Recreation (Director) has given notice to seven property owners on Bernard Street of street tree removal on city right-of-way on their property. Director cites his authority to permit street tree removal under the Spokane Municipal Code (SMC) 12.02.912 D and E. SMC Section 12.02.912 states, among other things:
The director may authorize or order removal of or may remove street trees and shrubs situated within the rights-of-way, or other treatment or pruning, whenever one or more of the following criteria are met:
- The tree or shrub is hazardous or other good cause.
- The tree or shrub is damaging public improvements or public utilities and removal is necessary because of the installation of, or potential or actual damage to, a sidewalk, parkway, curb, gutter, pavement, sewer line, underground utility or other municipal improvement.
This section appears to give the Director extremely broad authority to remove street trees. However, there are numerous sections of SMC that require the care, protection and maintenance of street trees. They include Section 12.02.914 which requires that the referenced trees be protected and preserved during the Bernard Street Reconstruction Project.
All street and public trees near any excavation, demolition or construction of any building, structure, street or utility work, must be sufficiently guarded and protected by those responsible for such work as to minimize potential injury to said trees and to maximize their chance for survival. When street and public trees are near the project, any construction permits issued by the city must be approved by the director, who may require protective measures as specified in the Arboricultural Manual.
Removal of these trees also clearly violates the intent of Section 12.02.902 (C), which states:
It is also the intent of the city council to:
- promote the restoration and preservation of desirable trees and shrubs;
- advocate for the establishment and retention of adequate tree planting spaces while considering the community desire for urban aesthetics…
The City of Spokane Vegetation Management Plan (required by Section 12.02.904) and adopted by Council Resolution 2003-040, section 2.1, requires the city to:
“MAINTAIN, PRESERVE, AND IMPROVE EXISTING STREET TREE ENVIRONMENTS IN THE URBAN FOREST OF SPOKANE AND ITS INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOODS.”
Subsections L and M of 2.1 require that the city:
“Enhance neighborhood districts,” and “Prioritize trees in conflict with physical elements such as hardscapes, roads and sidewalks.”
The “Arboricultural Specifications and Standards of Practice for the City of Spokane,” under the heading “Street Trees and Park Trees” (Page 18) reads:
The street tree ordinance states, "The city council and park board recognize that the design of the urban environment must ultimately be for the benefit of the quality of life of the human inhabitants, and that a healthy urban forest is a key component of the quality of life." A focus of the urban forestry program is to advocate for the establishment and retention of adequate planting spaces while considering the community desire for urban aesthetics. Large trees with overhanging canopies of branches are especially desirable. Streets with a cathedral of trees overhead provide many benefits; they provide a traffic calming effect, extend the life of roads, provide a separation between streets and sidewalks, reduce pollution, noise, erosion and wind and cool our community. Pedestrian buffer strips, or planting strips, vary greatly in size. Street trees with large canopies require space to grow in order to provide full, long-term benefits to the community. The Olmsted Brothers in the report to the Board of Park Commissioners in 1909 state, "In Spokane some progress has already been made in the matter of reducing the width of roadways and increasing the width of parking strips in existing streets, but much that is desirable remains to be accomplished.- The statement is more applicable now than ever. Wide planting strips are important, if we want large street trees to reach maturity without damaging sidewalks, curbs and streets. Street system design should provide sufficient space to accommodate large trees.
Additionally, the Arboricultural Specifications and Standards of Practice for the City of Spokane,” under the heading “Tree Preservation During Construction and Development” states,
Where trees exist on public land that is to be developed. it makes good sense economically. socially and environmentally to preserve these natural assets. Tree preservation requires an understanding of tree biology. as well as of construction techniques and their impact on tree health and structure. A systematic approach and proper tree management techniques can protect trees during construction and into the future. Successful tree preservation results in higher property values and a livable community .
According to the City’s Street Tree Inventory, the twenty four Bernard street trees for which a removal notice was received are collectively appraised at a value exceeding $174,000. We suggest that these trees also constitute “municipal improvements” that enjoy equal standing with “a sidewalk, parkway, curb, gutter, pavement, sewer line, underground utility or other municipal improvement” as enumerated in Section 12.02.912. By this measure of value, it would only require 217 trees with an average worth of the 24 to be removed to equal the projected cost of the entire Bernard Street Reconstruction Project, $1,570,994. One “municipal improvement” should not be destroyed in the pursuit of putting value into other municipal improvements. Rather, the value that is maximized in the combination of street reconstruction and tree preservation should be sought.
We have before us an opportunity to improve and enhance the quality of our neighborhoods. What we build now will be the legacy that is left for generations to come. We want to continue and expand the tradition left to us by the Olmstead Brothers at the turn of the last century, when streets were designed with generous pedestrian buffer strips and street trees that grew to become majestic. That is the built environment we enjoy today and we feel it our responsibility to leave the same for those who follow.
Street designs that include features identified by citizens in the Comp Plan not only provide for a great quality of life in our neighborhoods, they serve as an economic engine. Spokane’s economic development motto is, “Near nature, near perfect.” If we design and build streets that have no street trees and do not provide viable pedestrian options, then we are designing a critical economic development component out of our city’s neighborhoods. As a City we spent seven years and eight million dollars developing our Comprehensive Plan. It seems foolish to disregard it as we rebuild our City streets.
|
|