The URL can be used to link to this page

1998, 06-12 Final EISFinal Environmental Impact �•s '� w f+!' t tement. e.rFy± ^: j 1r�li^"1•.j MIRABEAU POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE RECLASSIFICATION cADDA mac Abv5•k--Dc £ 37 -9G XseP 199E ;• "r�ry!'S�•T Lead Agency: SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING Spokane, Washington Qom' Prepared by: Imo. DA ASSOCIATES, INC. Spokane, Washington ' June • FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MIRABEAU POINT LEAD AGENCY: SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH: - WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1971, CHAPTER 43.21C REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON - REVISED SEPA GUIDELINES, EFFECTIVE APRIL 4, 1984, CHAPTER 197 -1 1 , WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE - SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1984 PREPARED BY: RAMM ASSOCIATES, INC. 25 SOUTH ALTAMONT SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99202 JUNE 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Cover Letter from Lead Agency i Fact Sheet ii Distribution List vii Project Summary. 1 Final EIS Comments and Responses 25 Appendices Appendix A: Supplemental Air Quality Study Appendix B: Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Appendix C: Technical Appendix to the TIA Appendix D: Archeological Site Verification Study (45SP234) "A Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Mirabeau Parkway" Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 95 -024B S P C) 1< A E BUILDING AND PLANNING • JAMES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR June 12, 1998 To Whom it May Concern: C Q u N r '' A DP VISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E. DIRECTOR This is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the request by Inland Empire Paper Co. for an amendment to the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and a zone reclassification to develop Mirabeau Point; a 236.2 acre mixed use master planned development combining public and private recreational, educational, entertainment, residential, and business uses. The proposed project includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment for 156.8 acres from the Rural land use designation to the Urban and Major Commercial designations, an amendment to the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan, and a zone reclassification for 115.5 of those acres from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Community Business (B -2) and Regional Business (B -3). The project site is located in the Spokane Valley, east of Pines Road. north of I -90, in portions of Sections 3, 10 and 11. in Township 25 N, Range 44 EWM. This statement was prepared by Ramm Associates. Inc. in accordance with WAC 197 -11 and the Spokane Environmental Ordinance. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was mailed or delivered to approximately 48 agencies or individuals on October 7, 1997. The review period within which comments were received concluded on November 18, 1997. A total of 13 letters of comment were received during the comment period specified by WAC 197- 11- 502(5)[b]. These letters and responses are included in the FEIS. The FEIS is issued on this date pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -460, and is being distributed to those who commented on the DEIS and is available to those who received but did not comment on the DEIS as well as other interested parties. Copies of the FEIS are available at the Spokane County Division of Building & Planning, 1026 W. Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260. 1026 WEST BROADWA' Al'EN1:E • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 PHONE: (5 09) 456 -3675 • FAX: (509) 4564703 TDD: (509) 324 -3166 FACT SHEET Title: Mirabeau Point Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification Project Location: The project site is located in the Spokane Valley, east of Pines Road and north of Interstate -90 (1 -90). It was previously the site of the Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo and is bordered on the northeast by the former Mirabeau County Park and other state owned property occupied by the Centennial Trail, which extends along the south bank of the Spokane River. Directly west of the property is a preserved natural open space area that was transferred to the Nature Conservancy by the project proponents (Inland Empire Paper Company). The new Spokane Valley Mall site is located to the southeast of the project site. The project site occupies portions of Sections 3, 10, and 11, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., Spokane County, Washington. Site Description: The project site consists of the entire Mirabeau Point Master Plan of approximately 236.2 acres. The topography of the site is primarily a gentle rolling plain, with the exception of approximately 50 acres located in the central portion of the site. This 50 acre area is characterized as a Ponderosa Pine woodland, with large rock out -crops rising more than 100 feet above the adjacent native grass plain. The physical setting is primarily undeveloped with the exception of the former Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo facilities and exhibits. The site contains approximately five soil types within the Garrison and Spokane soil series. Proposal Description: The proposed project includes an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map for 156.8 acres of the site and a subsequent zone reclassification for 111.5 of those acres. A request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and associated zone reclassifications was submitted to the Spokane County Division of Building and Planning in June of 1996. A revised application and a request to amend the Arterial Road Plan map was submitted in August 1997. These proposed actions are further described in the following Comprehensive Plan and Zoning sub - sections. The proposed 236.2 acre Mirabeau Point Master Plan consists of a mixed use master planned development that combines public and private recreational, educational, entertainment, residential, and compatible business uses in a "campus -like" setting. Comprehensive Plan The entire Mirabeau Point Master Plan site consists of approximately 236.2 acres. Of this total acreage, approximately 156.8 acres in the central portion of the site are currently designated as Rural on the County's Comprehensive Plan Map. Mirabeau Point Final EIS ii June 1998 95 -024B Remaining portions of the site are designated as Urban (32.4 acres to the north) and Industrial (47.0 acres to the southeast). The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment requests that the 156.8 acres currently designated as Rural be changed to Urban (45.3 acres) and Major Commercial (111.5 acres) categories Approximately 35.3 acres in the central portion of the project site will be permanently retained as a natural open space area; 10 to 11 acres to the north of this area have been identified for donation to the County for a public park. Although proposed to be re- designated to Urban in response to Growth Management Act criteria, these areas are not proposed for an urban level of development and could retain their current Rural designation. Other future land uses identified in the Mirabeau Point Master Plan (within the area currently designated as Rural) will require zone reclassifications. The proposed amendment to the existing Comprehensive Plan supports the proposed zoning and future land uses identified in the Mirabeau Point Master Plan. The proposed amendment to the Arterial Road Plan map includes designation of a new minor arterial extending north -south through the site (Mirabeau Parkway) and eliminating the future principal arterial at Evergreen Road north of Indiana Avenue and through the project site. Construction of Mirabeau Parkway as a five -lane collector arterial will not provide the required frontage on a minor arterial for the requested B -2 zone or on a principal arterial for the requested B -3 zone. Zoning Currently the entire Mirabeau Point Master Plan site is divided into two zones. Approximately 156.8 acres in the central portion of the site are classified as Rural Residential -10 (RR -10). Northwestern (32.4 acres) and southeastern (47.0 acres) areas classified as Industrial -2 (1 -2) make up the remaining approximately 79.4 acres of the site. The rezone application proposes to reclassify 1 1 1 .5 acres of the current RR -10 zone to Community Business -2 (B -2) and Regional Business -3 (B -3) zones. The remaining 45.3 acres currently zoned RR -10 in the central portion of the site are not proposed for rezoning and include the natural open space area and future County park discussed above. The areas currently zoned 1 -2 are also not included in the current rezone request. The following table summarizes the existing and proposed zoning classifications: Mirabeau Point Final EIS 95 -0248 June 1998 Existing 1 -2 RR -10 79.4 156.8 236.2 Proposed 1 -2 79.4 RR -10 45.3 B -2 17 B -3 94.5 . 236.2 Mirabeau Point Final EIS 95 -0248 June 1998 Ingress /Egress Vehicular access to Mirabeau Point is proposed to be provided by two primary parkways. The north -south parkway (Mirabeau Parkway) will be developed initially as a five -lane collector arterial, with connections at Indiana Avenue and Pines Road via Euclid Avenue. In the future this roadway could be upgraded to a minor arterial; it is requested to be designated as a future minor arterial on the County's Arterial Road Plan map. An east -west parkway will extend from the western site boundary to the east. These parkways will connect to interior private streets which in turn provide direct access to individual parcels and future lots. The two parkways will intersect near the center core area of the project site near the Community Center, which is proposed to be the project's central focal point. Connection of Mirabeau Parkway to Indiana Avenue will require the construction of a signal and an improved, signalized railroad crossing at the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, located along the site's southern -most boundary. Pedestrian access is emphasized and provided throughout the entire project site. Meandering sidewalks along the parkways will connect to paved interior trails or pathways which link together the proposed uses. These interior pathways will connect with strategically located trail heads along the Centennial Trail, which borders the entire northern property line of the project site. Connection to the Centennial Trail will provide pedestrians, and other forms of non - motorized traffic, significant access to and from the Mirabeau Point site. Stormwater Stormwater generated by site development will be managed and retained on -site via 208 swales, retention ponds, or other treatment /disposal methods developed in accordance with Spokane County Division of Engineering standards. Utilities Sewage disposal will be provided by connection to a Spokane County sewer main located in Indiana Avenue and extension to the north. Domestic water will be provided by two separate water purveyors. Water is currently provided to the southern half of the project site by Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19. Future water service will be provided to the northern half of the project site by Irvin Water District. Electrical and natural gas service will be provided on -site by Washington Water Power. Open Space Approximately 35.3 acres in the central portion of the site consisting of Ponderosa Pine woodlands will be permanently retained as natural open space. This area will contain a soft trail system that provides connections to the interior paved Mirabeau Point Final EIS iv June 1998 95 -024B pathways or trails. Approximately 10 to 11 acres directly north of the natural open space area have been identified for donation to the County for a public park. Substantial areas of open space, greenbelts, park spaces, and landscape buffers are proposed throughout the project site to create an open, campus -like feeling. Development of the entire Mirabeau Point project site will be controlled by the Mirabeau Point Design Guidelines, deed restrictions, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) to maintain the desired theme and character envisioned for the site. These documents will outline controls and specify details regarding the type of architecture, landscaping, site development, and open space elements to be provided within the site. Alternatives: Proponent: Proposed Action Development Under Existing Zoning No- Action Alternative Inland Empire Paper Company c/o Wayne Andresen 3320 North Argonne Road Spokane, WA 99212 YMCA c/o Steve Jurich 507 North Howard Spokane, WA 99201 Tentative Implementation Date: 1998 Lead Agency: Spokane County Division of Building and Planning 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 509/456 -3675 Responsible Official: James L. Manson, Director Contact Person: John Pederson, Senior Planner Required Permits and Licenses: • Comprehensive Plan amendment /Spokane County Board of County Commissioners • Arterial Road Plan amendment /Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Mirabeau Point Final EIS v June 1998 95 -024B • Zone reclassification approval /Spokane County Hearing Examiner • New street and drainage approval /Spokane County Division of Engineering • Water district approvals /Irvin Water District and Consolidated Irrigation District • Sewer and water utility system approval /Spokane County Division of Utilities • Building permits /Spokane County Division of Building Authors and Major Contributors to the Draft and Final EISs: Draft and Final EIS Documents: Ramm Associates, Inc. Supporting Studies and Information: Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. Environalysis DEIS Date of Issuance: October 2, 1997 FEIS Date of Issuance: June 12, 1998 Time and Place of Public Hearings or Meetings: To be established Type and Timing of Subsequent Environmental Review Committed to by Lead Agency or Other Agencies: None anticipated Location of Prior EIS or Information on this Proposal: Spokane County Division of Building and Planning and Ramm Associates, Inc. South 25 Altamont Spokane, Washington 99202 509/534 -8086 Copies of the DEIS and FEIS may be obtained from the Spokane County Division of Building and Planning. The DEIS and FEIS are also available for review at the Spokane Public Library. Cost to the Public Per DEIS: Cost of reproduction Cost to the Public Per FEIS: Cost of reproduction Mirabeau Point Final EIS vi June 1998 95 -024B DISTRIBUTION LIST Note: All agencies and individuals who commented on the Draft EIS will receive copies of the Final EIS. A Notice of Final EIS Availability will be provided to agencies and individuals indicated with an asterisk. WA State Department of Ecology, Environmental Review Section (2- Copies) PO Box 47703, Olympia, WA 98504 -7703 WA State Department of Ecology, M. Vernice Santee PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504 -7600 WA State Department of Ecology, Dennis Beich 4601 North Monroe Street, Suite 202, Spokane, WA 99205 -1295 * WA State Department of Health, Tom Wells 1500 West 4th Avenue, Suite 305, Spokane, WA 99204 * WA State Department of Health, Water Supply and Waste Section Mail Stop LD -11, Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Department of Natural Resources Forest Resources Division, Natural Heritage Program 1 111 Washington St. SE, PO Box 47016, Olympia, WA 98504 -7016 WA State Department of Natural Resources, SEPA Center PO Box 47015, Olympia, WA 98504 -7015 WA State Department of Natural Resources, Northeast Regional Office PO Box 190, Colville, WA 99114 WA State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Kevin Robinette 8702 North Division Street, Spokane, WA 99218 WA State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Program North 600 Capitol Way, Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Archaeology and Historical Preservation, Robert Whitlam 1 1 1 West 21st Avenue, Olympia, WA 98504 * WA State Patrol, Captain Jim LaMunyon 6403 West Rowand Road, Spokane, WA 99204 WA State Parks and Recreation Commission, Bill Fraser 2201 North Duncan Drive, Wenatchee, WA 98801 -1007 Mirabeau Point Final EIS vii June 1998 95 -024B WA State Department of Transportation, Mark Rohwer and Keith Martin 2714 North Mayfair Street, Spokane, WA 99207 -2090 • US Department of Agriculture - Natural Resource Conservation Service, Steve Campbell - Rock Pointe Tower II, 316 West Boone Avenue, Suite 451, Spokane, WA 99201 -2349 * US Fish and Wildlife Service 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503 • US Department of Housing and Urban Development Farm Credit Bank Building, 8th Floor East, 601 West 1st Avenue, Spokane, WA 99204 -0317 • Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority, S. Edward Hayes 1 101 West College Avenue, Suite 403, Spokane, WA 99201 * Spokane County Conservation District, R. E. Baden 222 North Havana Street, Spokane, WA 99202 -4724 Spokane Regional Health District, Steve Holderby 1 101 West College Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201 * Spokane County Sheriff's Department, John Goldman 1 100 West Mallon Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201 Spokane County Division of Building and Planning, James Manson, John Pederson, and Laurie Grimes 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260 Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning, John Mercer, Paul Jensen, and Steve Davenport 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260 Spokane County Division of Utilities, Bruce Rawls 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260 -0180 Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads, Steve Stairs and Pat Harper 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260 Spokane County Division of Engineering, Bill Hemmings 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260 Mirabeau Point Final EIS viii June 1998 95 -0248 Spokane County Division of Engineering, Stan Miller Water Quality Management Program 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260 Spokane County Division of Parks, Recreation and Fair, Wyn Birkenthal 404 North Havana Street, Spokane, WA 99202 * Spokane County Prosecutor's Office, Chief Civil Deputy 1 100 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260 Spokane County Public Library - Main Branch 12004 East Main Avenue, Spokane, WA 99206 * Spokane County Fire District No. 1, Eric Olson 10319 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201 Spokane City Public Library, Main Branch 906 West Main Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201 * City of Spokane Construction Services Department 808 West Spokane Falls Blvd., Spokane, WA 99201 -3333 * City of Spokane Planning Department 808 West Spokane Falls Blvd., Room 250, Spokane, WA 99201 -3333 Historic Preservation Officer, Property Development Services 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Spokane, WA 99201- 3333 Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Glenn Miles 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard, 4th Floor, Spokane, WA 99201- 3333 * Spokane Transit Authority, Christine Fueston 1230 West Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201 Boundary Review Board, Susan Winchell 721 North Jefferson Street, Spokane, WA 99260 * Central Valley School District No. 356, Dave Jackman 19307 East Cataldo Avenue, Spokane, WA 99016 Consolidated Irrigation District, Bob Ashcraft North 120 Greenacres Road, Greenacres, WA 99016 Mirabeau Point Final EIS ix June 1998 95 -0248 Irvin Water District #6 1 1907 East Trent Avenue, Spokane, WA 99206 Valley Garbage Service 11700 East 1st Avenue, Spokane, WA 99206 Friends of the Centennial Trail, Nancy Gunn Harsha PO Box 351, Spokane, WA 99210 -0351 Geographical Services, Mike Folsom, Ph.D. West 704 Clover Court, Cheney, WA 99004 Hanson Industries, Inc., Raymond Hanson PO Box 7310, Spokane, WA 99207 Inland Empire Paper Co., Wayne Andresen 3320 North Argonne, Spokane, WA 99212 Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc., Todd Whipple 707 West 7th Avenue, Suite 200, Spokane, WA 99204 Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical, Susan Ashe, Patrick Blau, and John H. Walker 10220 North Nevada, Suite 260, Spokane, WA 99218 Lawson /Gunning Investments, LLC, Bill Lawson 202 East Trent Ave., Suite 202, Spokane, WA 99202 Mirabeau Point, Inc., Greg Bever 112 East First Avenue, Spokane, WA 99202 Preston Gates & Ellis, LLP, Jerry R. Neal 601 West Riverside Ave. Suite 1400, Spokane, WA 99201 -0636 Price Development Co., Tom Mulkey 35 Century Park Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Wayne Frost 303 East Second Avenue, Spokane, WA 99202 YMCA, Steve Jurich 507 North Howard, Spokane WA 99201 Mirabeau Point Final EIS x June 1998 95 -024B PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT SUMMARY OBJECTIVES The applicant proposes to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan for 156.8 acres of the project site and amend the Arterial Road Plan map. The proposed rezone of 111.5 acres of this area would allow development of the future land uses identified in the Mirabeau Point Master Plan. The entire master planned area consists of 236.2 acres. The area proposed for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone reclassification is currently in the Rural Comprehensive Plan category. This area was historically designated Rural to accommodate the Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo and to provide a buffer adjacent to the Zoo. The Zoo is now closed and the property owners (Inland Empire Paper Company) are planning to transfer a portion of the site (71 acres) to the Mirabeau Point Non - Profit Organization, who would develop the site's central core area. Approximately 10.8 acres within the project site were donated to the YMCA in December 1996. Other portions of the site will be transferred for private or public /private development within the context of the Mirabeau Point Master Plan. The proposal's objectives are summarized as follows: • Develop a mixed use complex that is compatible with surrounding land uses and the County's future plans and policies. • Provide open space areas for environmental protection and public recreational opportunities. • Mitigate significant off -site impacts caused by project development and increased activity on site. • Provide paved roads, pathways, and through connections as required to facilitate vehicle and pedestrian mobility. • Promote and facilitate the provision of public transit facilities within the Mirabeau Point site. • Provide an aesthetically pleasing environment in an effort to enhance the natural beauty of the site and its relationship to the Spokane River and Centennial Trail. • Provide restrictive covenants and conditions as well as comprehensive design guidelines that will assure quality control of architectural considerations and landscaping and maintenance practices. Mirabeau Point Final EIS 1 June 1998 95 -024B PROPOSED ACTION The entire Mirabeau Point Master Planned area consists of approximately 236.2 acres of mostly undeveloped land located in the Spokane Valley. The proposed action includes changing the current Comprehensive Plan designation from Rural to Urban and Major Commercial for approximately 156.8 acres of the site and amending the Arterial Road Plan map. The Arterial Road Plan map amendment includes designating a minor arterial extending north -south through the site (Mirabeau Parkway) and eliminating the planned principal arterial within the site at Evergreen Road north of Indiana Avenue. Approximately 111.5 acres are also proposed to be rezoned from the existing Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) zoning. The first rezone area encompasses 17 acres that is proposed to be rezoned to Community Business (B -2) and is located south of Euclid Avenue and north of the former Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo exhibit areas. The second rezone area consists of 94.5 acres proposed to be rezoned to Regional Business (B -3) and is located north of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and south of the former Zoo exhibit areas. This area is defined on the east by the line between Section 10 and Section 11, on the west and south by the site boundary, and on the north by Consolidated Irrigation District's current service area boundary. The central portion of the site (approximately 45.3 acres) is not proposed for a zone reclassification. Approximately 35.3 acres of this area will be permanently retained as natural open space and include an interpretive trail system. The remaining 10 to 11 acres will be donated to Spokane County for a public park. Both the northwestern and southeastern corners of the site would retain their existing 1 -2 zoning. The Mirabeau Point project consists of a mixed use master planned development, combining public and private recreational, educational, entertainment, residential, and compatible business uses in a "campus -like" setting. Future site uses may include a community complex housing a performing arts center, educational classrooms, a planetarium, a senior center, and perhaps the Centennial Trail headquarters; a 35.3 -acre natural open space area with interpretive trails and a 10- to 11-acre County park; a YMCA facility with an indoor aquatics center, teen center, and gymnasium, and an ice arena. Other potential uses include a hotel, RV park, business office park, various retail and commercial uses, recreational uses, and a residential area. Full build -out is anticipated to occur in three phases over a 10- to 15 -year period. Phase 1 includes development of the central core area including the community complex, YMCA, ice arena, and other retail and recreational uses. Development of new YMCA facilities could occur under the existing RR -10 zoning, regardless of project approval. Phase 2 includes development of the eastern portion of the site with a business office park and future recreation /business type uses. Phase 3 includes development of the northern portion of the site with a mix of commercial and residential uses including a potential RV park and a 10- to 11 -acre County park. Mirabeau Point Final EIS 2 June 1998 95 -024B Open space corridors will be developed throughout the site in accordance with the Mirabeau Point Design Guidelines and future Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Expansion of the existing trails into a soft trail system would tie the natural open space area and future County park into the Centennial Trail and former Mirabeau County park area along the Spokane River, which is noted for both its geologic and historical /archeological significance. The project includes a network of public and private roads throughout the site. The County is currently committed to administer the construction of Mirabeau Parkway, a new north -south roadway constructed to collector arterial standards that will connect Euclid and Indiana Avenues. Development of this roadway by the County also includes utility installation, construction of a new fully signalized railroad crossing along the southern site boundary, and installation of a traffic signal at the Indiana Avenue /Mirabeau Parkway intersection. Funds have been provided by the State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) for construction of Mirabeau Parkway. Pedestrian circulation is a prominent feature of the proposed project and public transit stops are included at several locations. Sidewalks are proposed to meander through landscaped areas, as well as separated from and alongside roadways. The Mirabeau Point Design Guidelines and subsequent CC &Rs will stipulate appearance and usage of buildings, open space areas, signage, storage and refuse areas, landscaping, and other aesthetic and compatibility concerns. AL TERNA TI VES Two alternatives to the proposed action are also given consideration. They include: 1) Development Under Existing Zoning, and 2) the No- Action Alternative. The following is a general discussion of impacts regarding these two alternatives. 1.0 Development Under Existing Zoning This alternative would limit future potential uses of the site to those allowed in the existing RR-10 zone for 156.8 acres of the site. The existing 79.4 acres zoned 1 -2 could still develop for future light industrial, business, office, and recreational type uses as proposed. Most of the currently permitted and conditional uses would present Tess demand for public services than the uses proposed in the B -2 and B -3 zones. However, certain permitted uses such as schools and community halls /recreation facilities and conditional uses such as hospitals would still demand an urban level of public services. Under the existing RR -10 zone the site could support development of 15 residential units at an overall density of 10 acres per dwelling unit. Lots could be developed as 10 acre parcels or clustered in one acre parcels in a Planned Unit Mirabeau Point Final EIS 3 June 1998 95 -024B Development with 140 acres in open space. A manufactured home park could also be developed through an administrative site plan approval at a density of one unit per 10 acres. The limitation on residential density would make sewering of the entire site cost prohibitive. Low density residential use would also not likely justify the provision of necessary public water system improvements within the northern portion of the site. If the site were to develop for mostly low density residential use, on -site recreational opportunities would be much more limited and no additional park areas or natural areas would be provided except in a private Planned Unit Development setting. The benefit to the larger public envisioned by the proposed public /private areas would not be achieved. 2.0 No- Action Alternative This alternative would preclude full development of the project site as proposed. In the short term, existing conditions would remain unchanged, including temporary use of the Wheelabrator building as an ice arena. Development of the YMCA would proceed since it is a permitted use within the existing zone. There would be no impact on public services and no increase in off -site traffic, except those associated with the YMCA. Stormwater run -off generation would remain almost unchanged. The potential encroachment on existing wildlife and vegetative communities would be reduced. The proposed recreational and educational opportunities due to preservation of the site's unique physical features and extension of the soft trail system would not be provided. The County would not likely acquire the 10- to 11- acre public park site. Development of the areas currently zoned 1 -2 including installation of adequate utilities and transportation could occur consistent with Spokane County regulations. Development of adjacent areas would likely require extension of utilities and roadways through the site. Since the project site is located within the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) boundary, updating the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan during implementation of the Growth Management Act will likely result in redesignation of the existing Rural Comprehensive Plan designation and RR -10 zoning classification. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1.0 Earth There are several unique physical features within the project site, primarily resulting from geological workings of the Great Flood, glacial receding action from the Ice Ages, ancient volcanism, seismology, erosion, and weathering of exposed bedrock. Exposed or shallow bedrock is located in the northern half of the site as Mirabeau Point Final EIS 4 June 1998 95 -024B evidenced by the numerous rock out- croppings. There is evidence of "kettle holes" on the shores of the river and a "pendant bar" immediately downriver which indicate the presence of rock outcrops during the Great Missoula Flood. The bedrock is igneous intrusive, granitic it nature, and has undergone metamorphic changes, which indicates that it predates Mt. Spokane. The Mirabeau Point rock outcrops were formed 45 to 50 million years ago and are the only bedrock outcroppings separated from the valley walls. The proposed natural open space area and future County park encompass the majority of the geologically significant areas identified within the site. The interpretive trail system will provide educational opportunities regarding the unique physical features of the site and adjacent areas, while protecting them within a permanently retained open space area. Design of the north -south collector arterial through the natural open space area will follow the existing road alignrnent as much as possible to avoid /reduce impacts on the adjacent rock out - crops. The site contains five separate soil types or mapping units. The majority of the site consists of the Garrison soil series, while the central portions consist of the Spokane soil series. Garrison soils are somewhat excessively drained, gravelly, or stony. Spokane series soils are well- drained and have a sandy substratum underlain by bedrock. Development constraints exist in the central portion of the site due to the significant rock outcrops. Garrison gravely loam soils (GgA) are consistent with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) criteria for prime farmland only if they are irrigated. The site is not irrigated and the remaining soils are not included on the NRCS list of prime farmland soils. The potential for erosion will increase as vegetation is removed and soil is disrupted during construction and grading activities. An erosion and sediment control plan will be required prior to the start of construction activities and will include methods to control on -site drainage and dust emissions. 2.0 Air The project site is located within the non - attainment areas for both carbon monoxide (CO) and suspended particulates (PM10). CO primarily results from burning of fuels in motor vehicle engines and tends to be concentrated where traffic is congested and air is stagnant. Other sources of CO include wood stoves and some industrial operations. The intersection of Pines Road and Mission Avenue, located approximately one -half mile to the southwest, has been identified as one of the 10 worst for air quality in the Spokane area. The CO level at this intersection was modeled by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) in June 1995. This air quality analysis revealed CO levels of 8.68 ppm, with future levels estimated at 8.96 ppm. 3oth of these levels are within regulatory threshold limits. In response to comment letters received on the Draft EIS and direction from the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC), a supplemental air quality study Mirabeau Point Final EIS 5 June 1998 95 -024B focusing on CO concentrations has been prepared and is included in Appendix A of this Final EIS. The requirement for an air quality study resulted from certain proposed transportation improvements related to project mitigation. Table 1 in the Supplemental Air Quality Study (see Appendix A) entitled "Existing (1996) Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in PPM" provides the modeling results for existing conditions. This table shows existing exceedances of regulatory threshold limits at Pines Road and Mission Avenue, Pines Road and the Eastbound Ramps, and Westbound Ramps - Pines Road and Indiana Avenue. Table 3 of Appendix A provides results of the modeling analysis with and without development of the proposed project in the year 2006. With the No- Action Alternative, the above locations will have several exceedances of regulatory threshold limits. With the Proposed Action, there is only one exceedance located approximately 150 feet south of Mission Avenue at the southeast corner of its intersection with Pines Road. Since the concentration after build -out is Tess than before the project (due to improved signal timing developed for the project), no additional mitigation is required. All other locations modeled are within the regulatory threshold. Improvement will occur between 1996 and 2006 even with a substantial increase in PM peak vehicle volumes due to the mitigating effects of federal, state, and regional regulations, improvements in vehicle technology, and planned improvements in highway capacity along Pines Road. The Mirabeau Point project incorporates a number of capacity increases and signal optimization measures in its transportation system design. This project will not result in a worsening of existing CO exceedances, nor does it create any new violations of the regulatory threshold limits for CO. The Supplemental Air Quality Study found this project to conform with the purpose of the current SIP and the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act and the State Clean Air Act. PM10 levels in the Spokane Valley typically range from 50 to 99 micrograms per cubic meter, but are periodically significantly elevated depending upon weather conditions and area activities (i.e. field /grass burning). PM10 is fine particles (mainly dust and smoke) Tess than 10 microns in size. Major sources of particulates include suspended dust from paved and unpaved roads, woods stoves, and outdoor burning. Other sources include dust storms, winter road sanding, industrial point sources, open grass /field burning, agricultural activities (tilling), and construction (grading /earth moving). Short-term air quality impacts will be mitigated using appropriate control measures including spraying of exposed soils to suppress dust and washing the wheels of trucks and equipment. All proposed roads and parking Tots will be paved and will not be a contributing factor to an increase in suspended particulates. The types of uses proposed are not typically a major contributor of CO or PM10, except for the traffic they generate. However, urban development generally results in increased CO and PM10 emissions. Mitigation of long -term impacts are incorporated into the Mirabeau Point Final EIS 6 June 1998 95 -024B proposed layout which encourages the use of alternate forms of transportation. Spokane Transit Authority (STA) bus stops, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian corridors are included and the project ties into the adjacent Centennial Trail. 3.0 Water The Spokane River flows from the southeast to the northwest along the northeastern site boundary and averages approximately 200 to 400 feet in width adjacent to the site. The state owned Centennial Trail is located between the northeastern site boundary and the river. The project site is located outside of the 200 -foot shoreline regulatory area. The difference in elevation between the river's water level and the project site at the northwestern property corner is approximately 45 feet. The river flows over the Spokane - Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer and the water quality of each water body is closely related. The river and the aquifer freely exchange water through recharge and discharge at several different locations along the river's course. The aquifer forms the principal water supply for the City of Spokane and neighboring areas of Spokane County. The addition of impervious surfaces to the site through construction of buildings, parking lots, and roads will result in the inability of water to be absorbed in the previously undeveloped areas and will alter the existing run -off characteristics. Urban pollutants will be picked up and travel with the excess run -off. Development of the project site will increase run -off volumes from pre - developed to developed conditions. Run -off from a 50 -year storm under developed conditions must be detained and released at the 50 -year storm rate for pre- developed conditions. Storm water run- off from localized on -site basins will be disposed of using "208" grass percolation areas, drywells, and other retention /disposal methods in accordance with Spokane County regulations. Most of the on -site soils appear compatible with the use of drywells and grassy swales. Storm water from roofs is proposed to be disposed of directly into drywells. Other areas such as sidewalks and recreational and landscaped areas will be designed with drainage facilities that will accommodate 10 -year storms. The final basin limits rvill be determined by the road layout and grades during final site design. The drainage swales will be inspected to insure that 50 -year storm volumes will pass through them without damage to on -site buildings. There will be no direct discharge to the Spokane River above the current pre - developed quantity. A storm water management plan outlining sediment basins and detention ponds will include identification of methods and maintenance for storm water drainage control. Review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) for this area indicates that the project site is located outside both the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplains. Review of the County wetlands map did not indicate the presence of any wetlands within or directly adjacent to the project Mirabeau Point Final EIS 7 June 1998 95 -024B site. The Spokane River is identified as a Type 1 stream which requires a minimum 250 -foot riparian buffer from the ordinary high water mark. The required 250 -foot buffer area is located completely outside the project boundary. The project site is located above the northern margin of the Spokane - Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer which is designated as a "sole source" aquifer by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Spokane - Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer underlies an area of approximately 400 square miles and varies in saturated thickness from a few feet to 500 feet or more. The central portion of the project site is dominated by steep rock outcrops which represent an "island" in the flow of the aquifer. Water table contours for the Spokane aquifer indicate that the aquifer is located at approximately 1935 feet in elevation beneath the site at its easternmost corner (the same elevation as the river) and the ground elevation is at approximately 1974 feet in elevation. Preliminary studies indicate that portions of the project site may be within the five -year capture zones (future wellhead protection areas) for the City's Rutter Avenue and Well Electric well sites located approximately four miles west of the site near Upriver Dam. Future groundwater protection strategies for these areas are unknown and may consist of current aquifer protection programs. A public water supply system is planned to serve the site with water drawn directly from the aquifer for domestic uses and irrigation of landscaped areas. The proposed project will not reduce the quantity of storm water run -off that currently percolates through the soil layers and recharges groundwater supplies, however specific recharge points will be created in lieu of the general recharge that occurs from an undeveloped site. Most of the additional water imported to the site will be discharged into the sanitary sewer system or lost to evapotranspiration and is not expected to significantly impact groundwater recharge volumes. Restrictive covenants and zone reclassifications will prohibit activities that may present an increased risk to area groundwater quality. Public sewer will be provided to all proposed uses within the project site. Future land uses will comply with Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA) Overlay Zone criteria for storage of critical materials. 4.0 Plants and Animals The County Critical Areas maps identify Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas (Urban Natural Open Space) within the project site. The Spokane River is identified as a Type I stream which requires a 250 -foot riparian buffer. The project site is located outside of the required 250 -foot riparian buffer area. The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) database revealed the presence of three types of high quality terrestrial ecosystems adjacent to the project site within the Pinecroft Natural Area Preserve. These ecosystems may also occur within the predominately Ponderosa Pine woodland area of the project site. According to the State Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), several wildlife Mirabeau Point Final EIS 8 June 1998 95 -024B species are present within the general vicinity of the project site. A Priority Habitat and Species Area encompasses approximately 40 percent (95 acres) of the project site. This delineated area appears to follow the existing treeline of the Ponderosa Pine woodland area which divides the site in half north to south. The identified species within the vicinity of the project site include wintering and nesting osprey, wintering bald eagles, wintering waterfowl concentrations, and nesting red - tailed hawk. A Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan was completed to identify valuable habitat and species and provide guide) nes and direction for their sound biological management. Four distinct vegetative communities were defined; Forb /Grass Prairie, Ponderosa Pine Woodland /Bunchgrass Community, Northern Euclid Shrub Grass Prairie, and Riparian Edge, which is located off -site to the north and east along the Spokane River. The Ponderosa Pine Woodland area supports a number of animal and bird species. A small portion of the Northern Euclid Prairie also supports important bird numbers and species diversity. The Riparian Edge supports significant fish and wildlife densities and provides important breeding habitat for birds and mammals. The Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan concludes that the site is not notably rich in mammal species or abundance. Observed or likely mammals include squirrels, rabbits, coyote, raccoon, porcupine, skunk, chipmunk, mice, shrew, gopher, rats, and voles. The site comains four distinct habitats associated with bird populations; Rocky Woodland, Prairie Transition, North Euclid Shrub and Prairie, and Southern Prairie. The Riparian Transition habitat is located off -site and corresponds to the Riparian Edge vegetative community discussed above. Other than the Riparian Transition area located off -site, most of the significant bird habitat is located within the Prairie Transition areas. These are scattered woodland areas typically 40 to 120 feet in width that merge with open forb /grassland on the north and south margins of the Rocky Woodland. The bird population in the Prairie Transition areas are at least four times higher than within the Rocky Woodland. The North Euclid Shrub and Prairie also provides some cover for quail and pheasants. None of the priority species (osprey, great blue heron, and bald eagle) were observed during field investigations. Osprey and great blue heron were observed using ';he adjacent riparian edge associated with the Spokane River. Areas proposed for development are located on relatively flat slopes within the Southern Prairie and North Euclid Prairie areas, which have limited wildlife numbers and species diversity. The removal of all existing vegetation within these areas will eliminate some functioning habitat areas used by wildlife and will be an unavoidable impact for some species that are unable to successfully relocate. Development of the vast majority o1 the Forb /Grass Prairie will not cause significant damage to important ecological functions. Development within the Prairie Transition areas would result in significant impacts to resident bird Mirabeau Point Final EIS 9 June 1998 95 -0248 populations. Development of the site as proposed is not expected to have any significant impact on the Riparian Edge/Transition areas. The proposed project permanently retains 35.3 acres as a natural open space area that will be left undeveloped to accommodate existing wildlife and preserve the higher quality habitat areas (Ponderosa Pine Woodland /Bunchgrass Community). Expansion of the soft trail system for human foot traffic only will have limited impact on the existing habitat and will provide opportunities to educate trail users. No buildings or paved areas will be constructed within the interior of the natural open space area. Standing dead snags will be preserved. Buffer zones vary between 50 and 100 feet in width along the Prairie Transition areas. Intensified use of the site may result in the loss of some wildlife species if they cannot adapt to the changed environment, even though the proposed natural open space area will accommodate a large portion of the existing wildlife. BUIL T ENVIRONMENT 1.0 Land Use The Comprehensive Plan designations for the project site are Rural, Urban, and Industrial and the site lies within the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) and Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA) boundaries. Most of the site is designated Rural; the area north of Euclid is designated Urban and the eastern portion of the site is designated Industrial. Land use within the Rural category is intended to be primarily very large -lot (10 acres per residence) with agricultural uses or open space. The immediate surrounding properties are designated Rural to the west, Urban further west to Pines Road, Industrial to the north, east, and south of the eastern portion of the site, Major Commercial to the south, and Urban south of I- 90. The existing zoning classifications within the site are Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) and Light Industrial -2 (1 -2). The 1 -2 areas correspond to the areas designated as Urban and Industrial in the northern and southeastern portions of the site. The existing 1 -2 zoning in the northern area is not consistent with its current Urban Comprehensive Plan designation. Adjacent properties are zoned RR -10, UR -3.5, and 1 -2 to the west and either 1 -2 or 1 -3 to the north, south, and east. The proposed project includes a Comprehensive Plan map amendment from the existing Rural designation to Major Commercial and Urban designations. The subsequent zone reclassifications to Community Business (B -2) and Regional Business (B -3) also proposed would implement the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map designations. The proposed phasing of the project over a 10- to 15 -year period as well as design considerations including open space corridors, prominent pedestrian circulation, and several public transit stops will mitigate impacts related to land use. The Design Guidelines implemented by the Mirabeau Point Final EIS 10 June 1998 95 -0248 future CC &Rs will provide an extra measure to address compatibility concerns and issues such as building appearances, open space areas, signage, storage and refuse areas, landscaping, and other aesthetic considerations. B -2 zoning is proposed for the northern portion of the site, which is intended to consist primarily of community shopping facilities with varied retail, service, and office establishments grouped at one location serving a trade area encompassing several neighborhoods. Since the proposed commercial uses in this 17 -acre area will be located near a residential area, they may conform to the B -2 zoning intent of accommodating "community shopping facilities." The size of the area proposed for rezoning to B -2 is less than the 20 -acre maximum suggested by the County Zoning Code. The full range of uses allowed in the B -2 zone will be limited. The majority of the zoning reclassification request (94.5 acres) is to B -3, which would provide for a wide range of retail and service businesses located nearest to future 1 -90 access in the southwestern portion of the site. Construction of Mirabeau Parkway as a five -lane collector arterial will not provide the required frontage on a minor arterial for the requested B -2 zone or on a principal arterial for the requested B -3 zone. The majority of the shoreline area adjacent to the Spokane River in the vicinity of the site is designated as Pastoral by the County Shoreline Program, with a smaller area designated as Conservancy. The project is located outside the 200 -foot shoreline regulatory area and stormwater run -off or other types of potential releases are not expected to impact this area. In areas where the site appears closer than 200 feet, the distance will be field verified prior to final design. If located outside the 200 -foot regulatory area, the project will not be required to obtain a Substantial Development Permit. All proposed development activity will be located outside of the 200 -foot shoreline regulatory area and the 250 -foot riparian buffer area (see Section 4.0 Plants and Animals). Spokane County adopted Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) boundaries in February 1997 as part of Growth Management Act (GMA) implementation. Properties included within the IUGA are generally classified as urban, which indicates their ability to be developed at urban densities with an urban level of services. Properties outside the IUGA are generally classified as rural, which limits future development to rural densities, services, and uses. The project site is located within the adopted IUGA boundary, indicating that urban land designations are appropriate for the area. The project site consists of undeveloped open spaces and some structural remnants of the Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo. An existing metal building is currently supporting ice skating activities on a temporary basis in accordance with a Temporary Use Permit. Adjacent property to the north and northeast consists of the State -owned Centennial Trail which fronts the southern shoreline of the Spokane River. Across the river is the Kaiser Trentwood aluminum rolling mill Mirabeau Point Final EIS 95 -024B 11 June 1998 operation. The new Spokane Valley Mall is located southeast of the site and south of the railroad tracks and Indiana Avenue. The Evergreen Road interchange is planned to provide a connection to Indiana Avenue directly west of the Mall site. Existing and planned industrial uses and a few residential units are located south of Indiana Avenue. Properties to the west are currently vacant, with plans for future multi - family, retirement, nursing home, RV park, and mini - warehouse facilities to the southwest. The Pinecroft Natural Area Preserve is located directly to the west, along with a few residences on large parcels. Development of the proposed project would result in a more intensive use than the existing on -site uses and those located directly to the west. With this exception, the site is surrounded by existing and planned land uses that are much more intensive than currently exists on -site. 2.0 Recreation According to the 1989 County Parks and Recreation Plan, the project site is located within the West Valley Suburban Area, which is the most densely populated in the unincorporated Spokane area. The Centennial Trail is located adjacent to the site's northeastern boundary and extends 12 miles east to Post Falls, Idaho and west to Nine Mile Falls Dam. The trail accommodates bicyclists, pedestrians, and the handicapped on right -of -way that is mostly separated from motor traffic. The former Mirabeau County Park located adjacent to the northeast is used as a rest stop along the Centennial Trail. Other recreational facilities closest to the site include Plantes Ferry and Valley Mission County Parks. The existing deficit in community park land in the West Valley Suburban Area is projected to increase to 160 acres by the year 2000 if additional land is not developed. The County Division of Parks, Recreation and Fair currently does not have adequate financial resources available for park land acquisition. The proposed project includes development of a substantial number of recreational opportunities in the Spokane Valley and may satisfy some of the existing demand. Private development of recreational opportunities as proposed is a viable way of providing recreational opportunities for the general public. The project proponent has committed to transferring ownership of approximately 10 to 11 acres of the project site to the County Division of Parks, Recreation and Fair for a public park, who envision a neighborhood style of park with gently rolling turf and large shade trees. The proposed location and types of uses identified for development of this park have been preliminarily accepted by the County. 3.0 Historic and Cultural Preservation The former Mirabeau County Park area adjacent to the project site is a significant survey site containing both historic and prehistoric evidence of past land uses and activities. Prehistoric artifacts could potentially be located within the project site near the former Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo entrance road. Mirabeau Point Final EIS 12 June 1998 95 -024B The area was used by prehistoric hunters - gatherers as a campsite approximately 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. The Mirabeau Park survey site is unique among known sites due to the variety of artifacts and features suggesting previous uses. These artifacts suggest it represents the remains of a base camp and possibly seasonal village occupations. The features and artifacts may contribute important information concerning past land use systems during the last 3,000 to 4,000 years. The area was first settled by non - Indians in about the mid- 1800s. The Draft EIS stated that development of the north -south arterial (Mirabeau Parkway) could potentially disturb the prehistoric artifacts located on -site. An increase in public awareness of the historical significance of the area could lead to unauthorized digging or removal of artifacts. The exact location of the on -site artifacts was identified on October 21, 1997 by William Andresfsky Jr. Ph.D., a consulting archeologist. Please refer to the Archeological Site Verification Study (45SP234) included in Appendix D for additional information. Review of the site area concludes that the archeological site has lost all integrity and there are no previously reported recognizable artifacts or features remaining at the site. Also included in Appendix D is "A Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Mirabeau Parkway." 4.0 Transportation The Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) included in Appendix B of this Final EIS was prepared in response to comments received on the Draft EIS. The scope of the revised TIA was determined in a process involving several meetings with Spokane County Engineering, Spokane County Division of Building and Planning, and the WA State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The Mirabeau Point TIA included in Appendix B of the Draft EIS and the Revised TIA analyzed existing and projected levels of service (LOS) at existing and future area intersections. The PM peak hour cumulative traffic impacts were the most significant and controlled the mitigation needed as a result of traffic generated by the proposed project and the surrounding area. All study intersections are currently (1996) functioning at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour except for the unsignalized intersection at Pines /Mansfield (LOS F) and the signalized intersection at Pines/Trent (LOS E). The minimum LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections within Spokane County has been defined as LOS D and LOS E, respectively. Additional traffic occurring over the next ten years from sources other than the proposed Mirabeau Point project was added to the transportation system. This additional traffic is from both proposed and approved projects, as well as expected development in the Pines /Sullivan area within the projected build -out of Mirabeau Point. In addition, a 3% per year growth rate was used to account for the natural growth in traffic from non -site specific sources. Mirabeau Point Final EIS 13 June 1998 95 -024B The Proposed Action alternative consists of development occurring in three phases over the next ten years. Primary ingress and egress will be via Mirabeau Parkway, a new arterial road connecting Indiana Avenue to the south and Euclid Avenue to the north. The No- Action alternative precludes full development of the project site. The County would not likely construct Mirabeau Parkway in its present design, and the remaining roadway network would remain unchanged except for minor improvements by others along Pines Road. Based on the analysis presented, the intersections at Sullivan Road /Indiana Avenue, Sullivan Road /westbound 1 -90 ramps, and Sullivan Road /eastbound 1 -90 ramps are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service following the opening of both the Spokane Valley Mall and the new Walmart in 1997. These intersections will continue to function at unacceptable levels with or without construction of the Evergreen Interchange and with or without the Proposed Action. Only a small number of trips from the proposed project would use Sullivan Road, therefore no impact or mitigation has been identified. The impacts from the Proposed Action and No- Action alternatives were analyzed for the years 1999, 2004, and 2006, which correspond to the three proposed development phases. The 1999 traffic impacts (Phase 1) were also analyzed with and without the future Evergreen Interchange. Without the Evergreen Interchange, in 1999 all but the three intersections discussed above, the Pines Road /eastbound 1 -90 ramp intersection, and the unsignalized intersection at Pines /Mansfield will continue to function at acceptable levels of service under the No- Action alternative. With the Proposed Action (Phase 1), two additional intersections on Pines Road will drop to unacceptable levels (LOS E). With construction of the Evergreen Interchange, all of the study intersections will function at acceptable levels of service, except for the Pines /Mansfield intersection. Widening for left turn pockets at the Pines /Euclid intersection, widening for right turn lanes at the Pines/Trent intersection, and construction of the Evergreen Interchange must be completed prior to development of Phase 1. It was assumed that the Evergreen Interchange will be constructed by Phase 2 in 2004 in order to accommodate increased traffic from future construction phases associated with the Spokane Valley Mall, other proposed projects within the area, and development of the proposed project. Construction of the Evergreen Interchange has been identified as the primary improvement that needs to occur within the project area and design has been completed by WSDOT. This analysis has highlighted that several of the intersections will show delay times and levels of service in 1999 for the No- Action alternative that are either bordering on or at unacceptable levels. With the Evergreen Interchange, these levels of service will improve to acceptable levels on Pines. Levels of service on Sullivan Road will still be at unacceptable levels. As noted in the mall TIA and supplemented by this analysis, construction of the Evergreen Interchange is necessary for any further development to proceed in the area (including Phase 1 of the proposed project) Mirabeau Point Final EIS 14 June 1998 95 -024B and to reduce existing impacts on Pines Road. Stage 1 of the interchange project (from Sharp to Indiana Avenue, with a connection to Mission Avenue) is currently estimated to cost approximately $21 million dollars. WSDOT, the State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), and private developers have committed to donate right -of -way or fund portions of this amount. The Mirabeau Point project should be responsible for contributing an appropriate fair share towards funding construction of the Evergreen Interchange. Other participants identified for contribution to the interchange construction project include WSDOT, RA Hanson, the Spokane Valley Mall owners, and Lawson /Gunning (who are proposing development adjacent to the southwestern site boundary). Final arrangements for funding construction of the interchange will need to be agreed to by both public agencies and private contributors prior to actual construction of the Evergreen Interchange. Under both the Proposed Action and No- Action alternatives for Phase 2, several intersections will drop to unacceptable levels (LOS E or F). Mirabeau Point, along with other new development in the area, will be required to participate in off site transportation improvements. The following improvements will be required at Phase 2 with the Proposed Action: • Signal timing /phasing revisions at Pines Road /Mission Avenue will improve the level of service from LOS E to LOS D. • Participation in the construction of a second eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane at the Pines Road /eastbound 1 -90 ramp, which will improve the level of service from LOS F to LOS C. • Relocation of the westbound off -ramp traffic to Indiana Avenue and installation of a signal will improve the coordination between the Pines /westbound on ramp intersection and the Pines /Indiana intersection. • Construction of an eastbound right turn lane at the Pines /Indiana intersection. The eastbound and westbound timing and phasing should be revised to a split phased configuration. • Participation in the installation of a signal at the Pines Road /Euclid Avenue intersection, which will improve the level of service from LOS F to LOS B. • Revision of the westbound approaches to include two westbound left turn lanes and one westbound through lane at the Evergreen Road /Indiana Avenue intersection will improve the level of service from LOS F to LOS C. With the No- Action alternative, in 2006 (which corresponds to Phase 3 of the Proposed Action) the levels of service at the intersections of Pines Road /Mission Avenue, Pines Road /eastbound 1 -90 ramps, Pines Road /Euclid Avenue, and Pines Road/Trent Avenue will drop to LOS E or LOS F. The intersections at Pines Mirabeau Point Final EIS 15 June 1998 95 -024B Road /westbound ramps and Pines Road /Indiana will continue to have problems with coordination due to the lack of storage space between the intersections. Ramp improvements as described in Phase 2 will be needed to improve the levels of service at these intersections. In 2006 with the Proposed Action alternative, and the improvements required for Phases 1 and 2 (including construction of the Evergreen Interchange), the levels of service for the affected intersections will be at acceptable levels. The Pines /Mansfield intersection will continue to have level of service LOS F for the westbound left turning movement, with or without development of the Proposed Action. Based on this analysis, no additional improvements will be needed for Phase 3 of the Proposed Action. Participation in the installation of a signal at the intersection of Mirabeau Parkway and Shannon /Mansfield Avenue is required when traffic warrants are met. Principal arterials in the vicinity of the site include Pines Road to the west, Sullivan Road to the east, and Evergreen Road to the south. Minor arterials include Mission Avenue and Indiana Avenue /Montgomery Drive to the south. The proposed Mirabeau Parkway will initially be constructed to collector arterial standards and could be upgraded to a minor arterial in the future. There are no other collector arterials in the site vicinity. Construction of the Evergreen Interchange will include the extension of Evergreen Road north from Sharp Avenue to Indiana Avenue. The existing railroad crossing at Shannon Road has been closed and a new crossing will be constructed approximately 1,075 feet or more to the east. Mirabeau Parkway will utilize this new crossing to connect to Indiana Avenue. Adjacent development projects will add a significant number of PM peak hour trips to the transportation system and include a variety of land uses. Both Pines and Sullivan Roads will be used to access Indiana Avenue and the Spokane Valley Mall. Development west of the project site will primarily use Pines Road for access. Sullivan Road will primarily be used for existing and future development to the east. The Spokane Valley Mall has been responsible for reconstruction of Indiana Avenue between Pines and Sullivan Roads. All three phases of the proposed project will increase the number of trips on Indiana Avenue. The Lawson /Gunning project immediately to the west will use Mirabeau Parkway to access Indiana Avenue. 5.0 Public Services and Utilities Water service in the vicinity of the project is provided by both Consolidated Irrigation District and Irvin Water District. The southern approximately two- thirds of the site is located within Consolidated's current service area boundary. The northern approximately one -third is located within Irvin's future service area, but is Mirabeau Point Final EIS 16 June 1998 95 -024B outside their current service area. Irvin's future service area boundary coincides with Consolidated's current service area boundary within the project site. Both water districts draw water directly from the Spokane aquifer. Consolidated Irrigation has existing 10- and 6 -inch water mains within the project site and an existing 16 -inch main extends east -west along the railroad tracks at the southern site boundary. Consolidated's existing wells, storage tanks, and reservoir have adequate capacity to serve potential growth in the area, including the proposed project. Irvin Water District is currently operating at peak capacity and is in the process of acquiring a new well. Addition of the new well is expected to fulfill the District's long term production needs and provide adequate capacity for development within their future service area, which includes the northern portion of the project site. The District has incorporated the applicable portions of the proposed project into their future plans to provide adequate storage capacity and fire flows during periods of peak demand. Provision of water service to the northern portion of the project site will require annexation into Irvin's current service area and may require system improvements including a second reservoir or a pumping station within or adjacent to the site. Annexation into Irvin's current service area may require approval by the Boundary Review Board (BRB) if this area is not included in the District's comprehensive water system plan. The project could provide a proportionate share of the costs for the system improvements which are directly related to on -site development. There are current limitations to sewer system and waste water treatment plant capacity that will need to be addressed to accommodate Tong -term growth within Spokane County. Without system improvements or the implementation of alternative effluent disposal methods, the County may reach its 10 million gallon per day contracted treatment plant capacity by the year 2007. Existing sewer facilities in the area include the 24 -inch North Valley Interceptor located south of the railroad tracks along the southern site boundary and an 18 -inch sewer main in Pines Road. The North Valley Interceptor (NVI) has been sized to accommodate full build -out of its service area, including the project site. The sewer main in Pines Road was constructed through developer extension and is designed to serve existing and future development along the Pines Road corridor. County Utilities has indicated that a portion of the site could be served by the Pines Road sewer subject to payment of latecomer's fees. The project site is not located within either a six- or 15 -year sewer basin, as identified by the 1996 Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Interim Update. Phases 1 and 2 of the project site would gravity flow to the south and tie into the NVI at two separate locations. The eastern portion of Phase 1 may need to pump to the west to access the gravity sewer mains. The southwestern corner of Phase 2 could gravity flow to mains within Phase 1, or could be pumped to the eastern Mirabeau Point Final EIS 17 June 1998 95 -024B connection to the NVI. Phase 3 would require construction of a pump station which would pump sewage either to the west to access the main in Pines Road or to the south and tie into either Phase 1 or Phase 2 sewer mains. Both the NVI and the Pines Road sewer have adequate capacity to serve development within the project site. The project proponent would be responsible for designing and funding construction of all necessary sewer system elements. Mirabeau Point Final EIS 18 June 1.998 95 -024B nte(stal irg olio s TV(!r1dnic 1. -I– f I i 35L x) 6C— 1 t5 fTppn �1115, -1� _ -1_! LI �n • C � 1 � � Wate1 S T erg - I T T1 '� 1 � Tnhk : �� Tank/ .ft Lail VICINITY MAP SCALE: Node DATE: August '96 1VIIRf4BEAU POINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROJECT NO: 95 -024B RAMM A s s o c — i t s i', C South 25 Washington ()tl` Spokanc, Washington 9920? FIGURE NO: 1 t n 1 ,t '�r !',Antoine Plante • `�-. .7 ;1 Ferry Site Park • \: I • • ,��r 1• X 9/0 veI Pit , .14rr1n sU. �.Y �• • -� .. • • .•'ice' • ...".t• — • i Well .%:, LNG ?0• /989 Trent A�IJ Pit: •: •1 Sch '.Myrtle ' Point 1 960 • t • I . I Mile '. '185 •••I •• • • J 1, • ••• • Well /99/ •••• ••••p- • • - ...: �� • • :Ii: • =• • h• • :('••• • fit•_ •• lii ••- \•i {1• • • •• • • • • I,• •P •t • • I I,• • .•tt• • • •u, • 111.1•_ • o • 0 • • Do •� • ••• 1985 . Sta HERN [3 M • •••••.••• 1.•.11.1• :ziL ,)▪ ....... 1111 - 1:111...- : 1111 • •••••• ��•••.•••�I 1 �1.. {�.•. • • •j • WTI,, 2/02; ..•• • -- : ;---= r Trailer - _- • Park 1 . i • i. • 0. 1994 W W W W ROAD ;••• •••: BM 202. Trentwood 2 Water Tank �! • • " j; • ■••....,„„„ 11 IIIII rll n .111JL- w 'fl fRL(NJCT0—A7 ' . 'I •• 4 LANE • MISSION BOONS (1. 1 AVE --C.---. 26,2 r.........::::...i \`� • ! • WT ::. - , o `� ._ I"i — -, • • 1 204° )111 • II- - • . • •• 0 11 • • • • o • •• • Spoka eVall Hosi'r y AVE 1 Flake Srh n• • n• • I r 90 • p _2058 `.. P RAM M ASSOC •AI I S •1/C South 25 Aluunont Spokane, Washington 99202 AREA MAP MIRABEAU POINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCALE: None DATE: August '96 PROJECT NO: 95 -024B FIGURE NO: 2 PINES ROAD 10 PR WIC/ eOuho .RT ( r1 P IC.4 LEGEND Proposed Corninercial =**•,, Proposed Urban 'VIVRE R C Si.CNTLAL DniT 144r}4.A41a1 rurt RI ropoSt co x .'rtn P.c." NIT PwECRCAT NATURAL ARCA (APPRCx. !!8 ACRES) 1 LEGEND 1—couuu+4T1' COuPttX (CCiuC. TKkuM LINTER fo1 CO•+u1+.111 COLLCC( S AN VALLEY SCHOOL C+S1RLC1S, SCHIOR CENTER, P(RrORuNG A1115 CEMI[R, CENIENHUIL 1A.AIL HEADOu.01100S) C 1 r ! 10C& (Al41A11CS CEr+1[R, TEEN C(M1-ER PLAT ARCAS, BALL Fi(tDS) ICE ANNA OPEN SPACC ou.TOL04. *RCA (DONATED 8T iKP) uS+1^4CS5 PARK (anus) HOT[L 11u101( IC CALM 1044 AND S41SdNE5S FUTURE COuu(RCLA. r� M URC M PART( r fL11u C RCSIOCN1L . CEN1(*.AL MAIL Oft X SPACE 1:14=4404J1 lo c1 l•f anaal R-4l n.trcaa A::.1 u PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT KOMTIER PELLA coHce-ml, /1, Latc1.S cfi pzr •ana 11 5.ct.chs 3. IC. 11, TO,4,r-0 2 N 11a94 44 [041 • A4. Spokane County, Washington 4,r04, S•11 .4t6 — 236 Aura Grapk1lc Scal. 200 400 100 BOO 1000 0P+4001. 11 04383 CO.= r 1iYO Cw►4C P 011 C sr* y+T [ IACYC IILSIPIC (r R CR05S+1C AS O C I A I I S 1 0+C S3ttiN 21 µicy 12202 TC. /:Cf :14 -80•34 ra.T/SC9 514 -IPSO Lt1.0 Pl�Latirr.,`, iN*.:S:.U'T Apt1111 (^TURZ Cr.CLCPU041 S( •? S Rt1JC Ci ECuHOART {rrPc) ) +v.:Z.4 SS !NOMA AVE. Came 4r,�rx1 ru1uRC R.R CROSSING ipr4 PAc c RAi-R4+'D ' fT *ID uu AVENUE R1G01[[ Cf WAY wAT —ter SPOKANE VAL LEi UAL I. PINES ROAD PRCL1£CT 8OU11T]A.Tri LEGEND Existing I -2 Existing 1-2 Existing RR-10 Proposed B -2 Existing RR -119 to Remain RR-H1 Existing R1?-10 Proposed B -3 Existing 1-2 to Reinaiiz 1-2 R►tAl 110.10t. or bTwTTD Cl rectors, PwLCRO(T NATURAL MCA (APPRO.. Eta ACRES) LEGEND L 1 COwIIIUKTT COMPLEX (EOUCATIOrui CENTER FOR C4uuIHIPI COLLECCS •1O YALLEY SCHOOL CISTRICIS, SEPaCA CENTER, PERFORI ING ARTS CENTER. CEH1EMHIAL TRAIII, HCAOOL/AR;(RS) QYuC4 (ACa.1AT1CS CENTER, TEEN CENTER PLAT AREAS, BALL FIELDS) 0 1 ICE MENA OPEN SP..CE NATURAL ARL [TSCr1AT1 D BY 1£P) sus 1+cEss PARK (OFFKESj HOTEL FUTURE RECRLAI>,O►1 »c 8115111ESS n(UTURE C t+ERCU4. rtnU[n.E R' PARK ruTURI R.CSIOCui q CCNfl,.4w. TR.U. OPN SPACE .r• tt 'ono n+ r--1 ,t s LLJ ifire. • } C rCis..ts TC TsyKrlaO 4Z-1' ss PROPOSED Z0NING MAP N&S Pri-Aiik_i Lc<ct.1 o++ ppn.onr 41 54c1 aria ]. 10, 11, Ta +'+rn,p 75 11, Rory 1[ Earl ■ Spokane County, Washington Aypros. S.tr Ar.o - 736 Acrs1 Graphic Scala 0 200 400 GOO aoo 1000 0.1140.t. T1 10.13 CO. rris 1N ,.a1a T'sr►� ►.rta tc.raw Ef+O% ---- E rLST wC fl .. CROSSANG J r° �_ tor t iI. L ins �/ rJ �+ A t1 a %` Ma� ! 4+ 1 t Sigh= i? :. ,1 V? J V6I /el I1srl [4+L • � A 55.0 C I A 1 E S I F1 C SCt1TH 75 A:1w�r.T 11 207 TEL /501 5)4 -60S1 Iair /}'°4 53. -415, ukho Py..tir1u+0 • LANCS:.APC &RCwrTCCIVIE CC4LGP 1 Ct s[xrt(s PROJECT ROu1+DAFrr FUTURE RLCRLA lOf /9US+HESS e 41. 001/1116 4 � 1c� 1. al A.�.�'L 'I ;.F �' K+ • 1 pab lain 12 UHIOH PACIFIC RA;ROA[I RiT AY - ° -• W Nutt AVENUE 111CifT Of WAY INDtMIA A"r'F • If [ rn'r b[.....4 rrT FUTURE S10FUUYED R R CR❑SSwC SPC/u+C WM,1.i7 FIALL SCALE: Graphic t.. G', I Cc T!.] 1- 0 PROJECT NO: 95 -02413 FIGURE NO: 4 MIRABEAU POINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ZONING MAP gib 700 tom SPOKANE VALLiz W4-t. sty PINES ROAD 4rqsantwaitt f.RUAE p, fFRli ru,VRE IICSOCK1aA . OP P wosi.M1 CouucAc. . 941OCa CO" rD( Pv+ECac+fT NatuRAL ARC. (APPRoz. E6 ALA(S) LEGEND r-c!}uUUMTr COuPIE: (EOUCa1)ONAL CENTER fog COuuL,+ITT COLLECES A?O VALLEY SCHOOL CISIRICI$, S(NIOA C(N1[R, PEAfOR.1NG MIS C(NIEII, C(MTENNUL TRIAL H(.AOQ WRIEAS) 1 t 1 { { 1 ralCA (AOUA CS CENT(R, TEEN ct -rER. PLAT AREAS, EINJ. f10JOS) KE AR(HA OPEN sPA.CE kA.TURAL AREA (00r01tD 47 9:P) EUS,NES5 PARK (Off10E5) H01 E1 WW1( PECRLATaCIN ue0 8 u5U+ES5 fuTuRC COuuCRCLA. rultuRE RV rM,c FIJI Vat RI SO( raw_ CooiSE aNua TRAIL O(M VAC( 4 aWI ..�. to ,.....a .."c4 >1 COH.C-U 7MCa, r.�` AMMO & 71 4470, c .Artn Pr 1 DONK r.rra Ctrowr RE I+O+•t ttLSTv4C pi CaoSSING Loto,4 pan:an. .I S.c1.cn. 1, 10. 11. To . -. *-p IS N., Rang. 11 (MA x Y. Spokane County, Washington ,;�•o.. s.1. A..v - Graphic Scale 0 200 400 400 100 1040 R M A S S 0 C I ATE 1 1 H C SJtJI1 ZS 144C�T s ;CW+E. •A.Siv.IG:C+K 9920E 1"C. /SC9 S)m -AC /u /S.^9 53+ -9151 • LAh 5.^.++?E +. CIOCCTUar CC.SLOPUCNT SEfi,C(S P RO1(CT 110UNOART [r ) UNsON PACIFIC R LRO.&O 13Cb4 O/ IrAT — — ' ftD1Ar1A AVtW%.0 * 41 Ce war Whist S+GHAUirl) II CROSSING b til 0 FIGURE NO: ti E'4 E., PL.t '*4 0 W 4 I 3 PINES ROAD 1 1 1 1 MAO 1a1OUTC►Rr 1 1 ruruRE R(51CCN11A1 Phase 3 ti OR. rIJIIr •� CCalu[ACI+1 2,, rtMTUAE C CuL,CRCut � •1 rem.. *cocci mkr-et cr. Pu+eCAOf1 k4TURA. AACA (APPROL 111 ACAE5) r r I !'aa I' 1•_JLL �J�` C�C'�9er+1I 10 az CL PROPOSED PIiAsING PLAN ©©CJL\i EPELLJL 1 ‹<\ t cal.4 a^ p 1-10 . m1 5rt.on. 3 10, 11• im•n,n,p 25 11 , Aar.. 4, Ca.! TI. W. Spokane County, Washington A,,;.npa. 5.1s Arw - 756 A.ce.. Graphic Scale 0 200 400 600 e00 10(}01 u•moz, 11 ,c—z 1ou,rtti r T i.rn carua. • S:UT$ 25 .0aa4e.1 14207 TtL /504 224 -310e1 I4J/5 4 52-4 -A +51 LARD - VW:SJAL 4ACK „E CTIJR. CC•t;DVU(1.T Si 5 LEGEND Phase 1 =�, Phase Phase 3=»., PRCut LEGEND couutn+rr (iDVCAT104AL CENTER roR couutrvrIl COLLICCS 4.140 YALlET scPOOL c1sTAec1s. S[w0A C(HTCA. PCRfCAuwC ARTS CCN]IR. C(N1ENINL 1ANL Ii .3QUrAA1ERS) ▪ ruC. (A.JU*cS CE 141(1. 1CCN CEwTEIL PUT *ALAS, 6ALL r1EL115) [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICI Mink &CA SPAC( NAT■RAI 4.A(A (oolong fir it P) BUS 174:sS PAAK (orr1 (s) HOTCt rtnuRC RYCRIATK3N 44D euseNIS.s rLTTURC COuu(ACU,1 rLrruAC Ttv PARR( rillLrRL RjS1L(N11AL, CESTEP*44 IAA& OPC14 SF'ACI ■ r =+s• n+.r're INDIANA AVE i� Cserer w,,.ea+1T La D0 4 P►Cl/YC *AL moo' •-- -w0w4A MAX RiCI4T Cy '10.1 (131IrnC sCHAUICii A C ROSSu1C SCALE: Graphic PN I- < O PROJECT NO: 95-02413 FIGURE NO: 6 MIRABE4U POINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED PHASING PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REVIEW COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The following pages represent comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mirabeau Point Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification, reproduced in the original form in which they were received. Specific comments in each letter that call for a response are numbered and corresponding responses are provided. The letters received are on the right side of the document, with numbered responses located on the left side. The responses have been prepared under the direction and coordination of Spokane County's Responsible Official. Written comment letters were received from the following agencies and individuals: 1. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife - Kevin Robinette 2. Washington State Boundary Review Board - Susan Winchell 3. Washington State Department of Transportation, 1" Letter dated October 30, 1997 - Mark Rohwer 4. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2"d Letter dated November 18, 1997 - Keith Martin 5. Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning - Steve Davenport 6. Spokane County Division of Engineering - Bill Hemmings 7. Spokane County Division of Engineering - Steve Stairs 8. Lawson /Gunning Investments, L.L.C. - Bill Lawson 9. Mirabeau Point, Inc. - Denny Ashlock, Greg Bever 10. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, 1'; Letter dated November 3, 1997 - John H. Walker 11. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, 2 "d Letter dated November 18, 1997 - John H. Walker 12. Preston, Gates & Ellis, L.L.P. - Jerry Neal 13. Hanson Industries, Inc. - Raymond A. Hanson Mirabeau Point Final EIS 25 June 1998 Response to Comments Response to Letter No. 1 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife - Kevin Robinette 1. The project site is located outside of the 200 -foot shoreline regulatory area and in most places there is over 250 feet of State -owned property between the project site and the Spokane River. Additionally, the Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance requires a 250 -foot riparian buffer adjacent to the Spokane River. No significant impacts on the Spokane River were identified in the Draft EIS. Stormwater will be managed on -site in accordance with the "208" drainage requirements and the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management (see Section 3.1 Surface /Storm Water on pages 31- 37 of the Draft EIS). As required by County regulations, the post - development run -off rate will be the same as the existing pre - development run -off rate. Page 36 of the Draft EIS states that " There will be no direct discharge to the Spokane River above the pre - developed quantity." Appendix A of the Draft EIS includes a Stormwater Drainage Analysis which addresses the proposed methods for managing stormwater on -site. 2. Recommendations included in the Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan have been incorporated in the Draft EIS as mitigating measures. Typically these mitigating measures become conditions of approval for the project after a public hearing and following consideration by the appropriate hearing body. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments LETTER NO. 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 8702 N. Division Street • Spokane, Washington 99218 -1199 • (509) 456 -4082 FAX (509) 456 -4071 October 17, 1997 John Pederson Spokane County Division of Building and Planning 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Pederson: RECEIVED SPOKANE COUNTY OCT 17 1997 D!VISLiN OF ::,U::L:N,-.:.ND PLANNING Subject: Mirabeau Point Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Habitat Management Plan The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for this project and offers the following comments. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS A discussion of the potential impacts of stormwater run -off on fish life in the Spokane River would have been appropriate in Chapter 3.0 - WATER MOVEMENT /QUALITY /QUANTITY. WDFW suggested that this be addressed in the EIS in a letter to the County dated September 17, 1996. "The Spokane River adjacent to the project site is important for resident fish populations for spawning and during low water years. This is due to the addition of aquifer water upstream from the site at Sullivan Road. When the river is low and surface water temperatures increase, the addition of aquifer water cools the river here. Resident fish are attracted to and depend on this area at these times. This area could be impacted by run off from impervious surfaces. The EIS should address this potential impact." COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HMP While Osprey, Great Blue Heron, and Bald Eagle are certainly species of concern, and are discussed at great length in the habitat evaluation, our primary concern with this project is the potential impact to this large Urban Natural Open Space (UNOS) area. For UNOS, we would expect to see more of a discussion of corridors and linkages both on and off the site. Specific comments are as follows: "Recommendations" should be stated in the form of "tasks" as these are things the project proponent will do as part of the project. FUTUhE RV PARK FUTURE RESOD-4W- (WRY r.O 4u hiEXT ■ ti ■ • •� FUTURE COuuERCIAL IllanWININWRIMMINIOLIMMILWINAMIRWRIMV ' la ay Or DG+AYE.D 4p PROP E Rill PINECROf NATURAL AREA (APPROX. 58 ACRES) co AVIAN BUFFER ZONE APPROX. 7 9 I£5 1 DOri&tED 6T n LAND DJ PRE P ;PfR C PAN9' SOURCE: MIRABEAU POINT HABITAT EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN ■ OM al i .f 1` " ' i AVIAN BUFFER ZONES SCALE: NONE DATE: JANUARY 1998 r j M1RABEAU POINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROJECT NO: 95 -0248 1 IN ASSOCIATES FIGURE NO: 1 Response to Letter No. 1 (continued) 3. Comments noted. There were no deer or other large mammals identified on- site in the Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan, although there are likely raccoons, porcupines, and other small mammals present that may cross Mirabeau Parkway. This roadway will be designated as a County arterial. The recommended "Wildlife Crossing" signs would require the County's approval if posted within the right -of -way. Signs are planned for the urban natural open space area for both educational and informational purposes. 4. The attached Avian Buffer Zones map delineates the 50- to 100 -foot avian buffers on the Concept Master Plan as requested. 5. The project site does not have frontage along the Spokane River. State - owned property and the Centennial Trail provide an open space separation between the Mirabeau Point site and the Spokane River. The Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance requires a riparian buffer 250 feet wide adjacent to the Spokane River. There may be some areas along the site's eastern edge that are within the required 250 -foot riparian buffer area, in which case they would be retained as natural open space. Future residential development north of Euclid Road will require review and approval of a preliminary plat and planned unit development plan by Spokane County. The 250 -foot riparian buffer area will be specifically identified as it relates to this portion of the site during the future platting process. 6. Mitigating measures can include implementation of the recommendations contained within the Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan as determined by the appropriate hearing body. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments John Pederson Page 2 October 14, 1997 Setting the former Walk in the Wild Zoo (Zoo) aside in permanent natural open space will be of great benefit to wildlife using this IJNOS area. It will enable wildlife to continue to move between the Pinecroft Natural Area and the Spokane River. Because the number of vehicles using Mirabeau Parkway will be at higher than historical levels, some sort of `Wildlife Crossing" signs in the area of the open space linkage would be appropriate for public safety. "Avian" Buffers between developed areas and the permanent open space area should be demarcated on the site plan for the project. Consideration of a common open space area between the Spokane River and the proposed residential development North of Euclid Road would also enable wildlife currently using the site to continue to move up and down the Spokane River corridor. All of the other recommendations in the I-HMP are sound and if implemented as written will mitigate many of the impacts of the project to this UNOS area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 625 -5545. Sincerely, Kevin Robinette Priority Habitats and Species Biologist k«T cc: Ramm Associates, Inc., 25 South Altamont, Spokane, Washington 99202 Geographical Services, West 704 Clover Court, Cheney, Washington 99004 Response to Letter No. 2 Washington State Department Boundary Review Board - Susan Winchell 1. Thank you for clarifying that the District has the option of extending water lines to provide water service without going through the annexation process since this area is included in the District's comprehensive water system plan. 2. The northern portion of the project site is within Irvin Water District's future water service area identified in the Spokane County's adopted Coordinated Water System Plan. Irvin Water District was still working on their Water System Plan at the time the Draft EIS was issued. If their approved Water System Plan does not include the northern portion of the project site, then approval of the Boundary Review Board will be required. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Washington State BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD - --� For Spokane County 721 N. Jefferson St., Rrn. 401 Spokane, WA 99260 -0040 (509) 456 -4237 FAX (509) 456 -3631 October 21, 1997 John Pederson, Senior Planner Spokane County Planning Department 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Mirabeau Point LETTER NO. 2 RECEIVED SPOKANE COUNTY OCT 22 1997 DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING BY: Dear Mr. Pederson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mirabeau Point comprehensive plan amendment and zone reclassification. have limited my review to the sections that most directly involve the Boundary Review Board. To clarify the Boundary Review Board's role in the approval process, I am directing my comments to page 118, first full paragraph: Provision of water service to the northern portion of the project site will requirel annexation into Irvin Water District's current service boundary. This annexation would require approval by the District's Board of Directors. Annexation would also require approval by the Washington State Boundary Review Board only if water service within the annexation area is not included in the District's comprehensive water system plan2. 1. The District has the option of either annexing the territory or extending water lines to provide water service. 2. Annexation to the District involves a change to its corporate boundary and under all circumstances requires approval of the Boundary Review Board. If the decision is made to extend the water service area without officially changing the corporate boundaries, approval of the Boundary Review Board is still required unless the territory is located within the future water service area as identified in Spokane County's adopted Coordinated Water System Plan AND in Irvin Water District's adopted Comprehensive Water System Plan. hope these comments are of value in finalizing the Environmental Impact Statement. Please do not hesitate to call me at 456 -4237 if you have any questions. Sincerely, / / Susan Winchell, AICP, Planner WA State Boundary Review Board for Spokane County cc Glen Talmadge, Irvin Water District Bob Ashcraft, Consolidated Irrigation District Cathy Ramm, Ramm Associates 1 2 BOARD MEMBERS: Mary Benham Robert E. Nebergall Sally R. Reynolds Lawrence B. Stone Annemarie Wiser Response to Letter No. 3 Washington State Department of Transportation, 1" Letter dated October 30, 1997 - Mark Rohwer 1. The Spokane County Division of Building and Planning extended the Draft EIS comment period an additional 15 days to November 18, 1997. Please refer to Letter No. 4. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments • Washington State IV Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation Mr. John Pederson Spokane County Planning West 1026 Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0240 Dear Mr. Pederson: LETTER_ NO. 3 :, 3 ?•A ECOU COUNTY Eastern Region 1997 2714 N. Mayfair Street OCT 3 1 1`9`f Spokane, WA 99207 -2090 (509) 324 -6 - - • • • - • •1 ^s ��•�t t October 30, 1997 Re: Nfirabeau Point Draft Environmental Impact Statement Due to the number of complex issues presented in the Mirabeau Point DEIS and the time needed to adequately address these points, we ask that the time allotted for review of this document be extended an additional 15 calendar days. We believe this request is reasonable because this report requires a longer review period as the issues are numerous and complex. In regard to the above request we will contact your department on November 3, 1997, to determine the status of this request. If this request is granted our comments will be sent to your department within these 15 calendar days. If the request is denied we will forward what comments we do have to your office on November 3, 1997. If you have any questions regarding the above request please feel free to contact either Greg Figg or myself in our Regional Planning Office at (509) 324 - 6199(7). Sincerely, KEITH MARTIN, P.E. Development Services Engineer GF: cc: Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers File By: Mark Rohwer Regional Planning Manager Response to Letter No. 4 Washington State Department of Transportation, 2 "d Letter dated November 18, 1997 - Keith Martin 1. The Revised TIA references a 10 -year build -out ending in 2006 for analysis of transportation impacts. 2. A Supplemental Air Quality Study has been completed for this project and is included as Appendix A in this FEIS. The air quality analysis shows that for those intersections scoped to be included in the study, the air quality is equal to or improved with the proposed project and related transportation improvements than without the proposed project and improvements. 3. The air quality analysis shows that the CO concentrations for all the scoped intersections will not be increased from the without project condition to the with project condition with the proposed traffic improvements. As shown in the analysis, no new CO hot spot will be created or any existing CO hot spots exacerbated by this development. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments r Washington State 'v, Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation Mr. John Pederson Spokane County Planning West 1026 Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99260 Dear lvfr. Pederson; LETTER NO. 4 Eastern Region 2714 N Mayfair Street Sookerfe. WA 99207 -2090 (5 39) 324-6000 November 18, 1997 Re: Mirabeau Point Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has completed its second review of the traffic irnpact analysis for the above referenced development, and consequently we would ask that the lead agency make the necessary revisions to the DEIS as indicated below. DEIS Comments: S -2 It is stated that this project will build out in a 10 to 1 S year time frame. The traffic analysis addresses 2006 as the build year and no analysis is provided for any time frames beyond this. This section needs to modified to reflect only a 10 year build out as the 15 year time frames are not analyzed. S -5 The capacity improvements identified in this DEIS and attached Appendix will be subject to project level Air Quality Conformity, as the Pines and Sullivan corridors are in the non - attainment areas. Reasonable analysis needs to be provided in this environmental documentation showing that these improvements can meet the conformity test. If these projects cannot pass the air quality conformity, then they 2 cannot be built as proposed, and will need to be modified accordingly. To defer this air quality analysis to a later date does not ensure to WSDOT or Spokane County that this mitigation is feasible as presented. We must insist that enough documentation is provided in this environmental documentation to show that the mitigation is feasible. In particular this documentation needs to be provided for in the proposed improvements listed in this DEIS that are not exempt from project level conformity. Page 28 Additionally, the CO concentrations listed in the second paragraph at 8.96 parts per million are for the Pines and Mission Intersection with the improvements that WSDOT constructed this past summer, but without the traffic that this or other background projects will add to this intersections. The CO level with this development and background projects very well may be above the 9.0 parts per million for the 8 hour average when this traffic is accounted for. Documentation needs to be provided showing that a new CO hot spot will not be created by this development or an existing one further exacerbated by this development. This will 3 Response to Letter No. 4 (continued) 4. This correction has been made for all conditions without improvements. 5. Since the Walk in the Wild Zoo is no longer in operation, it is not possible to count existing trips to verify trips coming to and from the site. The estimated "YMCA trips" generated were added to the Phase 1 trips. No deduction was made for any "zoo trips" which might be included in the existing counts. The Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) included in Appendix B shows that Land Use 495: Recreational Community Center from the ITE Trip Generation Manual was used to estimate the YMCA trips. 6. The SR 27 (Pines Road) /Mansfield intersection was analyzed for all conditions considered. However, as shown in the trip distribution figures on pages 39 - 42 of the Revised TIA, additional trips from the proposed project will only go through this intersection in Phase 3. 7. The proposed project will be required to re- stripe the lanes on Mission Avenue so that the EB and WB left turn lanes will line up. This will allow a permitted plus protected phasing with the left turn lanes for the EB /WB movements. This should be adequate to address safety concerns associated with the left turning movements. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Mr. Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 2 also ensure that the air quality impacts related to the transportation system created by this development are quantified and mitigated if necessary. Page 93 Pines Road at Euclid Avenue at this time does not have left turn channelization. 4 Page 96 See page 6 comments below. The previous use of this site as the Walk In the Wild Zoo is assumed to have 80 entering and 80 exiting peak hour trips for the typical weekday which will equal that of the YMCA. Without documentation the assumptive use of this rate is arbitrary. Documentation needs to be provided on how the above trip generation rate was determined. Appendix B Traffic Technical Analysis Comments: Page 1 Page 7 5 It is stated that the SR 27/Mansfield intersection was not analyzed despite our numerous requests because IPEC had determined the intersection would be minimally impacted. Regardless of the conclusion of such a statement, an analysis 6 of the SR 27/Mansfield intersection needs to be included if only to show that this intersection will be minimally impacted. Furthermore, the following should provide sufficient justification to require that this intersection be analyzed: • Significant traffic volumes from background projects (Cherry Street Apartments and Lawson/Gunning project) was assigned to this intersection according to page 26 of the DEIS. However, the ability of this intersection to accept these trips was not considered in the study. It would appear very likely these trips in actuality will use the Mirabeau/Shannon Street intersection as it will be a signalized intersection. • This intersection was identified in the previous IPEC Lawson/Gunning traffic analysis as being an intersection which would be operating at Level of Service (LOS) "F" • This development will add additional traffic to Pines Road adjacent to Mansfield further reducing the available gaps to Mansfield and creating additional delay at this intersection. • The above additional traffic will lengthen the existing queue at the southbound Indiana and Pines intersection, and this may affect the Mansfield and Pines intersection. This study recommends as future mitigation that the SR 27/Mission intersection signal timing be revised to allow eastbound and westbound protected/permitted left turns. This will be acceptable to WSDOT only if the developer is willing to provide the needed geometric changes that would sufficiently align these left turn lanes so that this left turn movement would not create a safety hazard. Response to Letter No. 4 (continued) 8. The recommendation for this intersection has been changed to have the signal timing for the SB left turning movement "protected" timing instead of "permitted /protected ." 9. The background trips from the Cherry St. Apartment project have been reassigned to go through the Pines /Indiana intersection from Mirabeau Parkway instead of through the Pines /Mansfield intersection. The level of service calculations in Appendix B have been revised due to this change in distribution. 10. The background trips from the Lawson /Gunning project have been reassigned to go through the Pines /Indiana intersection from Mirabeau Parkway instead of through the Pines /Mansfield intersection. The level of service calculations in Appendix B have been revised due to this change in distribution. 11. Included in Appendix B of the FEIS, the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, is a letter from John Konen representing Bill Lawson. In this letter is a list of land uses with amounts which are currently proposed for the Lawson site. The number of apartment units proposed is 144, as listed in Table 5 on page 25 of Appendix B of the DEIS. However, there is a different number of proposed units for the retirement apartments and mini storage area. The revised traffic impact analysis makes these corrections and deletes the trips from the animal clinic. 12. A trip generation study for the PM peak hours was performed at the Eagles Ice Arena in North Spokane. The Eagles facility has two sheets of ice with a mix of public skating, figure skating, and ice hockey uses. The rates counted at this facility have been used for the proposed ice skating rink discussed in Appendix B. 13. Steve Jurich of the YMCA indicated that it would be appropriate to use Land Use 495 from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The projected size of the building is 42,000 square feet. See also response to comment #5 above. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Mr. Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 3 Page 7 This study recommends as future mitigation that the SR 27/Eastbound ramp terminal intersection signal timing be revised so that the southbound left turn movement would be permitted/protected. Documentation showing how this improvement can be accommodated geometrically as well as the safety aspects need to be provided. 8 Page 24 The Cherry Street Apartments consisting of 233 units are listed here as a background project, and the study indicates that this traffic will be assigned to the intersection of Mansfield and Pines. No analysis is provided to show that this intersection will be able to accommodate this additional traffic. If capacity does not exist, the entering and exiting Left turn movements will need to be re- assigned to the 9 ShannonfMirabeau Point Drive intersection where the signalization option would appear to be available. Any changes in distribution will need to be reflected in the level of service calculations. Page 25 The draft Lawson/Gunning study routed much of the traffic the project generated to the Pines and Mansfield intersection with a traffic signal being installed. It should be noted that our comments on that draft traffic study stated that this • intersection was not an intersection that WSDOT deemed appropriate for signalization. It was recommended that this development's traffic use the Shannon 10 Street/Mirabeau Point Drive intersection. The traffic distribution for this development again needs to be shown without a traffic signal being present at the Pines and Mansfield intersection. With the above distribution changes the level of service at the affected intersections needs to be re- analyzed. Page 25 Based on our last meeting at Spokane County Bill Lawson indicated that the number of apartment units he planned to construct was 208 and that the plans that were submitted were in error, and would be corrected in the final draft. Documentation needs to be provided showing that Mr. Lawson only intends to construct 144 apartments, or the study needs to include background traffic from the full 208 units. Page 30 "It is assumed that junior hockey teams will use this facility during the PM peak hours. Assume one change over from one team practicing to another practicing during the PM peak hour per sheet of ice and that 10 vehicles per team will make the trip to the facility." The above is based on assumptions, and field data or documentation from the owner /operator needs to be provided to ensure that the facility is used in accordance with the information presented. Will public skating and pro -shop services be offered in these time frames? Page 31 Please attach the supporting documentation provided by the YMCA to document the trip generation assumptions indicated in the study. 11 12 13 Response to Letter No. 4 (continued) 14. There is no owner /operator for the performing arts auditorium, the educational complex, or the planetarium. The planning for these facilities is still in the concept stage. However, Ron Tan, an architect who has been involved in the planning to date, has written a letter concerning the projected uses of these facilities. A copy of this letter is included in the third section of the Technical Appendices to the TIA (Appendix C) under Letters Regarding Trip Generation. 15. The reason that the counts taken in 1997 were significantly higher than the existing counts shown in the traffic study is that several significant projects have been constructed and occupied since the existing counts were taken. Two projects, the Spokane Valley Mall and the Walmart project, have been completed and opened their doors for business during the summer of 1997. Both of these projects were included as background projects and were added to the existing counts. Traffic counts were obtained from the County which were taken on October 29, 1997 for intersections on Sullivan to compare if the projected traffic using the existing counts in the study and adding background trips since build -out roughly equal the traffic now. The intersection at Mission and Sullivan was used for comparison. It was assumed that at the time of the traffic counts only 60% of the Spokane Valley Mall was leased and therefore only 60% of the trips were added. Also the Walmart project was part of a study called the Spokane Valley plaza which included other retail. Only 40% of the trips anticipated from this study were used to estimate the Walmart trips. When comparing the totals of October 29, 1997 counts vs. the traffic predicted using existing counts plus background trips which have been built, it shows that the actual October 29, 1997 counts are overall less than what was predicted. Therefore, the base volumes plus the estimated background trips are a conservative estimate of predicted traffic on Sullivan. It should be noted that the Mirabeau Point project will distribute very little traffic to Sullivan in this area. Most of the traffic will use Evergreen Road and Pines Road to go to /from destinations south of 1 -90. 16. The 5th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Manual in Land Use 310 (Hotel) lists the average rate of vehicle trip ends vs. occupied rooms on a weekday for the PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic as 0.76. This is the same rate as shown in Appendix B of the DEIS, Table 8 on page 32. The 6th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Manual in Land Use 310 (Hotel) lists the average rate of vehicle trip ends vs. rooms on a weekday for the PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic as 0.61. The rate is 80% of the rate used for trips vs. occupied rooms which verifies our assumption that approximately 80% of the rooms are occupied. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Mr. Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 4 Page 31 Documentation needs to be submitted from the owner /operator stating that the use of the performing arts, educational complex, planetarium, and senior center will not 14 include activities in the PM peak times of 4:00 -6:00 p.m. other than what is listed. Figure 4 This figure shows "Existing" turning movement counts for the Sullivan Corridor. The volumes used were based on 1995 counts, and WSDOT has made counts available that were taken in June of 1997. These current volumes differ greatly from the "Existing" counts used in this study. Some movements had as great as 15 50% more volume (389 trips) in our more current counts. In order to accurately represent existing conditions, this study must adopt the more current volumes for its existing base scenario. If accurate base scenario volumes are not used, then all future scenarios will also be inaccurate. Table 8 This table states that the hotel trip generation was based on only 80% occupancy. We reiterate our previous objection to this method because we believe that this study should analyze the `worst -case scenario' 100% occupancy. It does not seem reasonable that the hotel operator would build 20% more rooms than could be reasonably occupied. Furthermore, the exp: anation that the 1TE Trip Generation 16 Manual recommends a 20% reduction would not seem applicable in this case. The section in which the ITE manual proposes such reductions is concerned with far larger developments (4 -15 million SF), and it states that smaller developments (like the one in question) are much less likely to need such reductions. Table 9 A commercial area is listed here for 50 KSF, but no supporting text is provided on page 37 for this use; only that for an office park. This section needs to modified 17 along with the correct trip generation rate to reflect the intended property usage. Table 9 Residential Apartments are listed as having a trip generation rate of .49 peak hour trips per unit compared to .63 for standard apartments. Greater detail needs to be 18 provided on why these apartments will generate this lesser rate instead of the more common higher rate. Is field data available to document this trip rate? Page 49 Page 58 The second paragraph needs to be modified to reflect the fact that due to the trip generation of Phase 1 of this project, left turn channelization will be warranted at the Pines and Euclid intersection. As a result left turn channelization will be required as a Phase 1 improvement. The text and the recommendations section need to be modified to reflect the need for this improvement. 19 In addition to the above improvement, it is identified that at the intersection of Pines and Euclid the east leg of Euclid needs to be widened to provide one left and 20 one right turn lane. This improvement needs to be added to the recommendations section of the study. Response to Letter No. 4 (continued) 17. Page 37 of the Draft EIS is discussing trip distribution, not trip generation as in Table 9. The commercial area in Phase 3 as shown in Table 9 is for office park use with a trip generation rate of 1.51 trips per thousand square feet of office space (Land Use 750). 18. Land Use 220 in the 5th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Manual on page 322 shows a category for Apartments, post -1973 for vehicle trip ends vs. dwelling units for weekday PM peak period of adjacent street traffic. The rate given for this category is 0.49 trips per dwelling unit which is the rate shown in the report. On page 309 of the manual, it explains that separate trip generation summaries are provided for data collected after 1973 which is what was used in the study. No field data is available. 19. Existing volumes for southbound left turning movement and opposing northbound traffic indicate that a left turn pocket is warranted. Phase 1 with project traffic volumes also warrant a southbound left turn pocket. Revisions are included in Appendix B. 20. For Phase 2, the Pines /Euclid intersection needs to be signalized. Widening for a westbound left turn lane will be required at this intersection for Phase 1. Revisions are included in Appendix B. 21. Two westbound left turn lanes are needed at this intersection. An alternative configuration which is recommended in Appendix B will be to use the existing lane width, but to provide channelization to permit only one westbound through lane with two westbound left turn lanes. This configuration will provide adequate levels of service. 22. Appendix C includes a conceptual design for this northbound right turn lane that will be located within available right -of -way. 23. Appendix B has been revised to include this recommendation. 24. Appendix B has revised the word "participate" to "providing" those improvements for which the Mirabeau Point project is responsible. 25. All deductions for right turns on red have been taken out in calculating levels of service. The calculation sheets have the full volume of right turning movements (see Appendix B). 26. Both WSDOT and Spokane County provided input on a traffic simulation of Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Mr. Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 5 Page 64 Page 64 Page 64 Page 64 It is recommended that the Evergreen Interchange be modified to provide for a second westbound left turn lane at the Indiana and Evergreen Intersection. Design of this intersection is nearly complete and this lane has not been provided for. If 21 this improvement cannot be provided for, either now or in a future alternate, mitigation needs to be proposed. It is recommended that a right turn lane be installed at Pines on the eastbound ramp terminal. Is sufficient right of way available for this improvement? If not, how will 22 the needed right of way be secured? The analyses in the appendix considers the Mirabeau Point Drive and Shannon Street intersection to be signalized, but no recommendation is included to provide 23 for this signal. The term "Participate" is used predominantly in this section —what is meant exactly by this term? The improvements (excluding Evergreen Interchange itself - where private and public dollars are being spent) listed in the DEIS need to be provided in 24 a timely manner as identified in the DEIS. RTOR While it is true that deductions can be made for right turns on red which will benefit the one intersection where they occur, they have a negative affect on downstream intersections. This negative affect is due to the degradation to progression that occurs with random arrivals that right turns on red produce. Any time a coordination plan is proposed the level of service and signal timings need to reflect this affect. The SYHNCRO analysis program has a limited ability to deal with this affect with our additional input. When this adjustment for right turns on red is made the program must also be adjusted. 25 General The ability of intersections to function in coordination is related to many different factors which include: separation, channelization lengths, progression, volumes, right turns on red, left turns, etc. Any of these can reduce an intersection's ideal capacity. The Pines corridor suffers from all of the above, and these elements need 26 to be considered to determine lithe level of service and coordination plan presented is reasonable An analysis such as what is available in Net -Sim needs to be provided to ensure the coordination plan and level of service identified in the study can reasonably be achieved in the field. Technical Intersection Analysis Comments • Will the additional traffic added to the intersections studied in this DEIS require that any of the left and right turns lanes be lengthened to accommodate the increased traffic and resultant queue length? 27 Response to Letter No. 4 (continued) the Pines and Evergreen corridors. This traffic simulation takes into account progression between signals, queue length available, right turns on red and coordination between the signals on the corridor. The proposed traffic improvements for these corridors have been "agreed to" by both WSDOT and Spokane County. 27. Technical Intersection Analysis Comments 1s` paragraph - Queue lengths are discussed in Appendix B. Existing queue lengths will not need to be lengthened due to the project. However, there are some new left and right turn lanes that will provide additional storage for turning movements. 2"d paragraph - Phasing has been revised in Appendix B. 3rd paragraph - All of the State controlled intersections have been revised to have a minimum 5 second green time except at the Trent /Pines intersection for Phase 3 (2006) traffic. The southbound movement is a very minor movement, handling only 2% of the traffic through the intersection. This movement received only 8 seconds for green, yellow, and all red time on its split phase. WSDOT has indicated that sometimes for minor movements they do allow Tess time than their standard. 4th paragraph - Timing was revised to allow four seconds of yellow plus one second of all red time for all intersections on SR 27 with the exception mentioned previously. J" paragraph - Phasing was revised on the SR 27 (Pines Road) corridor. 6" paragraph - The phasing for these two intersections was revised to be modeled as pre -timed intersections with and without capacity improvements. To eliminate some of the coordination problems between these two close intersections, the westbound off -ramp traffic is to be relocated to Indiana Avenue in Phase 2 per Appendix B. 7' paragraph - The Sullivan corridor analysis has been revised. S`" paragraph - Right turning movements on Evergreen Interchange were revised to be analyzed as free right turning movements. 9" paragraph - The analysis for the intersection at SR 27 & SR 290 (Trent & Pines) was revised to be modeled as an actuated - uncoordinated Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Mr. Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 6 • The phasing used for coordinated corridors is non - standard. Phases 2 and 6 should be the mainline phases, and standard NEMA numbering should be used. • Certain movements are analyzed with 4 seconds maximum green time. Our general practice is to use 5 seconds as the minimum green time for any specific movement. Please analyze state controlled intersections according to this minimum green time. • All SR 27 mainline movements should be analyzed with four seconds of yellow plus one second of all -red time as this is our standard timing. • • It appears that the SR 27 corridor intersections were analyzed as actuated - coordinated, but the reference phases are non - standard and in at least two cases the reference phase is an unused phase. Please explain these discrepancies. The SR 27/Indiana and SR 27 /westbound ramp terminal intersections should be modeled as one pre -timed intersection with overlap phases for the Indiana intersection. Currently this is handled in the field with 4 different overlaps and one controller. This will require that certain phases be extended farther than the simulation shows is necessary (i.e.: eastbound and westbound on Indiana are actually one phase, so when we give a green we also overlap it with the green for southbound at the westbound ramp to facilitate the movement.). This will provide a more accurate analysis than modeling this as two separate actuated- coordinated intersections. • The coordinated phase is not the same throughout the Sullivan corridor. Please explain these discrepancies or revise the Sullivan corridor analyses. • Right turn volumes should be modeled as a free movement on the Evergreen V V interchange. • The intersection of SR 290 and SR 27 was modeled as a coordinated intersection. This intersection currently operates separately from any coordination, and should be modeled in this way. Response to Letter No. 4 (continued) intersection (see Appendix B). Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Mr. Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 7 We would ask that the above comments and revisions be incorporated into this document prior to the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. If you should have any questions regarding these comments please feel free to contact either myself, Greg Figg, or Matt Albrecht in our Planning Office at 324 -6197, 6199, or 6196. GF:mca cc: Cathy Ramm, Ramm and Associates Steve Stairs, Spokane County Engineers Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Project File: 027 - 087 -03 Sincerely, J Gy 4., ITH MARTIN Development Services Engineer Response to Letter No. 5 Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning - Steve Davenport 1. The following factors involving Evergreen Road were considered during the design process for the Concept Master Plan: • The County's Arterial Road Plan shows a future principal arterial alignment for Evergreen Road extending from the future Evergreen Interchange location northward, crossing the Spokane River, bisecting the Kaiser Industrial Plant site, and connecting to Trent Avenue. During our initial investigation and design process, both the Spokane County Division of Building and Planning and Division of Engineering staffs indicated that this section of the Evergreen Arterial would not be realized due to several factors: 1) the need for a new bridge crossing over the Spokane River, 2) the railroad crossing grade issue, 3) design plans for Evergreen and Indiana will not work with the elevations required for extension northward, and 4) Kaiser's opposition to an arterial bisecting their industrial plant site. • The location and design plans for the Evergreen Interchange and Indiana Avenue were taken into consideration early on in the planning process for Mirabeau Point. Design plans for Indiana Avenue and the Evergreen Interchange were already too far along to consider extension of Evergreen north of Indiana at the time the project engineers were contacted, as they were designing the roads for scheduled construction of Indiana Avenue in 1996 -97. It was not feasible to stop the design process and redesign both the Evergreen Interchange and Indiana Avenue to accommodate the extension of Evergreen Road north of Indiana. • There is no established right of way for Evergreen Road between Interstate 90 and Trent Avenue. • The only existing railroad crossing along the southern edge of the project site (at McDonald /Shannon Road) was scheduled to be closed by action of the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) and the Union Pacific Railroad. Project proponents worked closely with the Spokane County Division of Engineering, Union Pacific Railroad, and the WUTC to demonstrate the need for another railroad crossing since closure meant loss of access to Indiana Avenue. All options were considered for a safe crossing location. Again, the grade difference (between Indiana and Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments DIVISION OF LONG RANGE PLANNING JOHN W. MERCER, AICP, ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR memorandum Date: November 3, 1997 To: CC: • LETTER NO. 5 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIRECTOR John Pederson, Division of Building and Planning John Mercer, AICP Laurie Grimes From: Steve Davenport, AIC RE: Review Comments for the Mirabeau Point DEIS The following review comments are respectfully submitted: 1. 4.2.b Arterial Road Plan, Significant Impacts, page 109 Removing Evergreen Road as a Principal Arterial Removing Evergreen Road as a principal arterial could have significant impacts on future circulation in the area. While extending Evergreen to the north may not be feasible as a near term traffic improvement, it could provide a major circulation route at some future date. If the Evergreen principal arterial designation is removed it could make very difficult or preclude future development of this route due to commercial or industrial facilities being built on the alignment. To purchase these facilities at some point in the future to allow an arterial crossing could substantially increase right of way acquisition costs to the County. Pines Road and Sullivan Road are currently experiencing low levels of service for traffic indicating that the option for a future principal arterial should not be abandoned. Creating a Minor Arterial (Mirabeau Parkway and Euclid Avenue) The proposed arterial road plan amendment would Zink Indiana Avenue to Pines Road with a minor arterial. Significant traffic volumes can be anticipated on the proposed arterial as it will be used as a shortcut to bypass the congested Pines Road and 1 -90 intersection area. The alignment of the arterial will create difficult pedestrian movements by bisecting the planned community facilities. Pedestrians moving from the ice arena or YMCA to the community complex would be required to cross the arterial. Also, pedestrians must cross the arterial to get from the proposed park to the centennial trail. Design alternatives should be considered that would improve pedestrian access and safety (see comment on 4.2.c in this letter). An additional concern is the impact to Trent elementary school which is located adjacent to the Pines Road and Euclid Avenue intersection. A further analysis of impacts to the school, and mitigating measures should be considered. 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 -0240 (509) 456 -2294 • FAX (509) 324 -7663 • TDD: (509) 324 -3166 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 Response to Letter No. 5 (continued) the UP railroad tracks) on the eastern area prohibited an at -grade crossing and an underpass would not work with the elevations needed to be matched at Indiana Avenue. The railroad crossing and intersection of Mirabeau Parkway and Indiana Avenue was approved by Spokane County, Union Pacific Railroad, and the WUTC at the general location shown on the Concept Master Plan. • Once the railroad crossing was approved, the proponents for Mirabeau Point coordinated with the Spokane County Division of Engineering and Simpson Engineering (design engineers for Indiana Avenue) to provide a future at -grade intersection for Mirabeau Parkway and Indiana Avenue at a feasible location west of the Evergreen alignment. Design engineers revised road plans for Indiana Avenue and raised the elevation to provide a transition on Indiana which would allow a future at -grade intersection with Mirabeau Parkway at the initially planned location. Indiana Avenue is now fully constructed. • The Spokane County Engineers have obtained Transportation Improvement Area funding as well as private funding for Mirabeau Parkway and the new signalized railroad crossing. The initially planned right -of -way for Mirabeau Parkway has been surveyed, preliminary road plans have been completed, and deed documents have been prepared for the transfer of right -of -way. When considering these factors, it is apparent that extension of Evergreen Road north of Indiana Avenue as a principal arterial is clearly not feasible in the near or long term. Removing the principal arterial designation for Evergreen would not have significant impacts on future circulation in the area. 2. Please refer to Appendix B Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for information regarding traffic volumes and circulation. Design of the primary roads on -site was challenging due to the site's topographic features, the need for a railroad crossing, and the desire to have the primary non - profit uses such as the YMCA and Community Complex adjacent to open space and trails, yet still meet the required road frontage and access needs. The road alignment north of the YMCA and Community Complex is dictated by the topography. The road alignment south of these facilities is dictated by the general location of the approved railroad crossing and right -of -way considerations at the intersection with Indiana Avenue. An integral part of the Concept Master Plan is the connections provided from the Mirabeau Point site to the Centennial Trail and the Spokane River. Other design alternatives explored Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Response to Letter No. 5 (continued) would have typically required more roads to provide frontage and access. The situation is somewhat similar to Riverfront Park where some uses back up to the open space but others require pedestrian crossings on adjacent streets. Lighted and stripped pedestrian crossings will be provided along Mirabeau Parkway. The Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads is currently working toward establishing the right -of -way for Mirabeau Parkway. Adjustments to the right -of -way alignment have been made due to site topography, right -of- way constraints at the intersection with Indiana Avenue, and negotiations with the Mirabeau Point Non - Profit Organization. The intersection of Mirabeau Parkway and Indiana Avenue could potentially be located approximately 400 feet to the east of its location shown on the Concept Master Plan. In its extension to the north, Mirabeau Parkway may curve to the northeast toward the Spokane River and then curve to the northwest, while still maintaining a separation from the Spokane River of at least 250 feet. The community complex would then be located west of Mirabeau Parkway, directly adjacent to the YMCA. The Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads has prepared preliminary road plans for Mirabeau Parkway (see attached). 3. The intersection of Pines Road and Euclid Avenue was scoped and is included in Appendix B Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for Mirabeau Point. No further analysis regarding impact to Trent Elementary School is required. Widening for left turn pockets at the Pines Road /Euclid Avenue intersection must be completed with development of Phase 1. Phase 2 and construction of the Evergreen Interchange would result in level of service F if this intersection remains unsignalized. Mitigation for Phase 2 includes signalization of the Pines Road /Euclid Avenue intersection, which would bring the level of service up to LOS B. With Phase 3 and construction of the Evergreen Interchange, the signalized intersection of Pines Road and Euclid Avenue would result in level of service C. Depending on the timing of other development in the vicinity of Pines Road /Euclid Avenue which may occur prior to Phase 2 of Mirabeau Point, the intersection improvements may be warranted earlier. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments ©©Rircrum@efr uhvio SPoMIs Couizry w I PROJECT VICINITY For Consiruclion of: COUNTY ROAD PROJECT No. 2730 MIRABEAU PARKWAY T.I. n. No. 9E- 032(006) -1 SUMMARY OF OUANTITIES SHEET 2 TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTIONS SHEET 3 PLANS SHEET 4 THROUGH 7 EROSION PROTECTION PLAN SHEETS 8 SIGNING /STRIPING PLAN SHEETS 9 THROUGH 10 MIRABEAU PARKWAY DEER PARK M1I.LW00D SPOKANE CIIENEY SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS SPOKANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E. COUNTY ENGINEER WILLIAM A. JOHNS, P.E. PROJECT ENGINEER GARY S. NELSON, P.E. FIRST DISTRICT JOHN ROSKEI.LEY SECOND DISTRICT M. KATE MCCASLIN THIRD DISTRICT PHILLIP D. HARRIS APPROVED: CHAIRMAN WARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dale: . _ PRELIMINARY APPROVED: _ COUNTY ENGINEER Dale:. _- _ -- SIIF :I :T __1 or 10 101[0011 _ !•' Oalaa. sr _ Ai. ►s .i , .1 V I •. -O. 10 I in _ r. 1.o. t --V-;;M-3,.- .;:n7faSTIRNICEEZTIFAZTEXTerffil 1 Cf0'.1 CC4C C010 7..1 Y' u' 3S• 1i' •- ..11 I 107 ►t+ I: • - uw•ESS 00411+14 SHC040 .t TYPICAL SECTION St. 10•38 TO St. 21.290' L - - - 61 .I' 1 Oh 1 1r 11010(0 1 S: •.: 7- I — '6' ►. ►-. (..•' 3333 .._...: irr I I . ?• .. [pOp�Q� 71 vv y� �y� p,J `a 4fV:.N> \:.`.r '73`j .5)YI� ') ; '7- 'n;i5.3 "ri".li•�r rr r.., 2.7.tPti i /•.i .. a' • .i • '- cow., COIL. C1A0 r..c •e' 77• 39• 12• sr 1 III 0 )3 AIPIIA1t COacO[R PA1[K•If • 0 00' CIU1740 0011.0++0 OAS[ COURSE IV TYPICAL SECTION 7r .1' rl s.L it worn. �[• [Affl.tl0 r 7J' eoAa■ 1 73' 10' -1 7' L i , I • $1...f..c•1 , �� •.f 'j I7 :,�. ,i : i :% .� as �:3...r$.2. r 71 i �� T I ' C1•7I CO'2 CW. s1A 21.29 57 10 St. 30•00 51A 40.0210 10 St. 06.9704 14 f• �L TYPICAL SECTION 000' C409.E11 S411A006 DAM GOWN 711 7, � y• i• EAS[KI■ 10'1001006 _ - _ ▪ 7• _ - 1.-: I I 1 .>!rf i 1 >sw,� r, 7a is�r a47..,A. +K.. r �i:Y •y �`IA ?113; 1 011 AS" 'L' COK10I7 .0V0 W., 0 S0' c1US4') Ws, *04.0 O•S0 COU/SE 1.• lAS[KMf 10. 0010(0 10• - - M •r!tir • r `i))a ,l St. 30•OO TO St. 13.0 2 14 Ou.s Sy 1L2iLi! v 0 09 /_n/L) CMc600 ay M Data 9. DI Aw_ Olds. SCALE ,40mzoNTAt OCOOCA&: Spgkene Ity Public or Engineering end oe s Division 1026 west 8.000201 AR ^us Sp01.o*s. wA 99290 -01)0 ty6 -3630 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 456 -8000 ONE CALL NUMBER 48 FIR. NOTICE REOUIREO Eli.� �� '10 APPROVED:._- P,AVS • C12N1nACt (Nowfta COUNTY ROAD PROJECT No. 2730 MIRABEAU PARKWAY fnov INO'ANA Rom) N J: r,i TO EUCLID Av- 1 I II PRojf C t - 032(006) r.)I. 3of10 Response to Letter No. 5 (continued) 4. A minor arterial status is needed for Mirabeau Parkway and Euclid Avenue. These roads would be developed initially to serve as collector arterials, with the section of Mirabeau Parkway that extends approximately 1300 feet north of Indiana Avenue developed with four lanes and turn lanes. Please refer to typical sections for Mirabeau Parkway County Road Project No. 2730 on the following pages. Eventually, traffic may warrant that these roads be upgraded as minor arterials. Construction of Mirabeau Parkway as a five -lane collector arterial will be the same as many minor and principal arterials are constructed. However by name (collector arterial) it does not provide the required frontage on a minor arterial for the requested B -2 zone or on a principal arterial for the requested B -3 zone. The zoning proposed along the south side of Euclid (17 acres) is Community Business (B -2) and the uses allowed are limited to those types of uses considered compatible with the recreational /entertainment type uses proposed for Mirabeau Point. Please see Section 1.1 Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans on pages 66 -67 of the Draft EIS for a discussion of the B -2 zone and the types of uses considered to be compatible. The mitigation proposed limits the types of uses allowed in the B -2 zone, which clearly does not set a precedent for strip commercial use along Euclid Avenue. Other rezone proposals for undeveloped land along Euclid Avenue would be required to demonstrate to Spokane County that they are compatible with adjacent land uses and the County's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for major commercial does not extend beyond the boundary shown on the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Figure No. 3 of the Draft EIS). 5. The Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan recognizes Mirabeau Parkway and the proposed improvements depicted on the Spokane County Public Works Plans. The aerial photograph used in the Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan was provided by Spokane County Division of Engineering and shows the initially proposed right -of -way alignment and width of Mirabeau Parkway. Potential adjustments to the Mirabeau Parkway alignment (see response to comment #2 above) may lesson impacts on the Avian Buffer Zone (see response to Letter No. 1, comment #4). The results of the Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan conclude: "We also find that the Mirabeau Point Master Plan, as modified according to our recommendations, contains satisfactory plans for managing an area of valuable woodland habitat. As a result, Geographical Services supports the acceptance of the proposed Master Plan as modified by our recommendations." The first paragraph of the Recommendations states that "The existing north -south road, to become Mirabeau Parkway, will be widened and paved, as depicted in the Spokane County Public Works Plans." Please refer to the response to Letter No.1, comment #3 regarding wildlife crossing the road. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Land Use Impacts from the Proposed Minor Arterial The area along Euclid Avenue is generally undeveloped. Development of the proposed arterial and proposed commercial uses would establish potential for strip commercial development of Euclid Avenue. From an area -wide perspective, and considering the existing traffic problems, the need for commercialization of Euclid is not demonstrated. Significant amounts of undeveloped commercial property are currently available in the general vicinity. Environmental Factors As noted in the Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan, the proposed natural area and the riparian area adjacent to the river are environmentally sensitive areas. An arterial bisecting these areas would have impacts to wildlife habitat and would limit the ability for wildlife to migrate between the riparian area and the upland area. 2. 4.2.c Arterial Road Plan, Mitigating Measures, page 109 Mitigating measures for the above identified impacts include the following as design alternatives which may be considered by the Planning Commission: 1. Design Euclid Avenue and Mirabeau Parkway so they do not provide through access (an emergency vehicle lane could be constructed however). A parking and access area at both the north and south terminus' of the roadways could be provided. This option would create a cohesive park system including the centennial trail, the nature area trails, and the proposed park. 2. Realignment of Mirabeau Parkway so that all of the community facilities are located on one side of the road or the other. This would increase pedestrian safety and create a more campus -like atmosphere. 3. Grade separated pedestrian facilities could also be considered as a way to mitigate impacts to pedestrian movements. 4. Retention of the Evergreen Road as a future arterial should be reflected in the design of the proposal. 3. 1.1.b, Land Use, Comprehensive Plan, Goal 6.1, page 56 Goal 6.1 is stated as, "Promote development of commercial land in a manner which is complementary and compatible with adjacent land uses and the surrounding environment." The proposal requests Major Commercial Comprehensive Plan designations on two separate areas of the site. The southern proposed commercial area is generally compatible with adjacent and uses and land use trends in the immediate area. This area is proximate to the Interstate 90 and Pines Road interchange and has access to Indiana Avenue. The northerly proposed commercial area is generally not compatible with the adjacent land uses and could establish a precedent leading to commercial strip type development along the entire length of Euclid Ave. The land surrounding this area is currently undeveloped to the north and preserved as a natural area to the south. The commercial uses proposed along Euclid Avenue can be readily found along Trent Avenue, Pines Road and Indiana Avenue. From an area -wide perspective, and considering the existing traffic problems, the need for commercialization of Euclid is not demonstrated. Page 2 of 4 4 5 6 7 Response to Letter No. 5 (continued) 6. The suggested Design Alternatives are not necessary to mitigate impacts of the proposal. Please refer to response #7 below. 7. Both the Urban and Major Commercial categories were initially reviewed for the northerly proposed commercial area. Due to the types of uses desired (primarily recreational /educational related) and the County's current Zoning Code, most of the uses proposed require the B -2 zone. The B -2 zone implements the Major Commercial category of the Comprehensive Plan and is not supported by the Urban category. To mitigate the potential of incompatible land uses in the proposed B -2 zone, the full range of uses will not be allowed. In the B -2 zone the following types of uses are considered to be compatible for this area of the Mirabeau Point site: antique store; indoor archery, rifle, pistol, or gun range; art gallery /studio; bicycle sales and service; bowling alley; ceramics shop; church; colleges (public and private); community hall; club or lodge; community transit center; day care center; emergency clinic; entertainment /recreation facilities (bingo hall, dance hall, skating rink, etc.); exercise facility /spa; fire station; florist shop; general personal service; gift shop; hobby shop; library; medical office; museum; nursery /greenhouse (retail /wholesale); office (business and /or professional); public or private park; post office; recreational vehicle park (with a conditional use permit); rental shop; restaurant (drive -in, nonalcoholic); specialized training /learning schools or studios (dance, gymnastics, martial arts, etc.); and trade schools. 8. The B -2 zone is not supported by the Urban category. A recreational vehicle park is allowed in the B -2 zone by conditional use permit but not in the B -1 zone. Other uses excluded in the B -1 zone which are of particular interest to Mirabeau Point include those more recreational and educational in nature such as: archery, rifle, pistol, gun range or club; bowling alley; entertainment recreation facilities; exercise facility /spa; museum; recreational vehicle park; rental shop; specialized training /learning schools or studios (CUP only); and trade schools. Therefore, the proposal includes the B -2 zone with limits on uses and a Comprehensive Plan amendment for Major Commercial to support the B -2 zone. 9. The suggested mitigating measures are not acceptable to the applicant since the proposed application was prepared under consultation with the Spokane County Division of Planning regarding appropriate comprehensive plan amendments to support the proposed zoning. The appropriate comprehensive plan category will be determined by the Spokane County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments 1.1.b, Land Use, Comprehensive Plan, Goal 6.1, page 56 - continued A more appropriate Comprehensive Plan category for the area south of and adjacent to Euclid is Urban. The Urban category would be compatible with adjacent existing Comprehensive Plan categories and with the existing and proposed uses in the area. The Urban category also would still permit locally serving neighborhood business uses at an appropriate scale. 4. 1.1.c, Land Use, Comprehensive Plan, Mitigating Measures, page 67 Based on the above identified impacts, the proposed Major Commercial category adjacent to Euclid Avenue is not consistent with the goals and policies of the Major Commercial category of the Comprehensive Plan. Appropriate mitigation should include revision of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the project design to reflect development of this area under the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed measure of limiting business use to only certain specified uses does not adequately mitigate the potential impacts of setting commercial precedent for strip development. 5. 1.1.b, Land Use, Comprehensive Plan, Goal 6.1, Objective 6.1.b, page 57 Objective 6.1.h is stated as, "Provide for aesthetics of development along County Arterials and State Highways or Freeways." The analysis of this objective in the DEIS refers to the use of design guidelines as a mitigation tool to control aesthetic and compatibility issues for future development. The design guidelines are proposed through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs). The use of CC &RS for this purpose is somewhat misleading because CC &Rs are solely developed by the owner of the property and Spokane County would have no involvement in developing or enforcing the CC &Rs. Since CC &Rs can be easily modified or changed they may not be effective for insuring consistency with this objective. A more specific control measure, which could be implemented as a mitigating measure (1.1.c), would be to require a more specific master plan; or require site specific project review, through a public hearing process. Site specific review could be required in areas of the master plan which currently have unspecified uses. This tool has been frequently used in the past to address compatibility and land use issues as they relate to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 6. 1.1.b, Land Use Comprehensive Plan, Goal 6.1, Objective 6.1.d, page 58 Pedestrian safety and access is a concern. See comments in item # 1 and 2 of this letter. 7. 1.1.b, Land Use, Comprehensive Plan, Goal 6.1, Objective 6.1.h, page 59 Objective 6.1.h is stated as, "Light industry should be allowed to locate in well - designed cluster areas with commercial activities when they are compatible.' Please see comments in item # 5 above concerning the use of CC &R's to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 3 of 4 8 9 10 11 12 Response to Letter No. 5 (continued) 10. Comment noted. The Spokane County Zoning Code provides regulations controlling some degree of aesthetics in terms of landscaping and signs. The Design Guidelines for Mirabeau Point provide an extra measure beyond the County Zoning Code to control aesthetics and compatibility issues for future site development. Please refer to Proposed Action on pages 11-12 of the Draft EIS. The Design Guidelines would be enforced through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) which are recorded at the Spokane County Auditor's Office. CC &Rs typically involve restrictions that go beyond the minimum zoning regulations and they are privately enforced. The County is not involved in developing or enforcing them because they are not within the County's control authority. Site - specific project review will be provided to Spokane County as areas of the Mirabeau Point property are formally segregated through future binding site plans and plats. Some of the larger parcels, such as the YMCA, may not be included in such a formal segregation process. However, the YMCA will still be required to submit a detailed site plan and engineering plans to obtain the required building permits. Review of specific site plans will involve the County departments with permitting jurisdiction such as the Divisions of Building and Planning, Engineering, and Utilities. The County Hearing Examiner could also require site specific site plan review at a public hearing. 1 1 . Please refer to the response to comment #2 above. 12. The Tight industrial (1 -2) zoned property which is shown on the Mirabeau Point site is already in place and consistent with the Industrial category of the County Comprehensive Plan. No rezone for industrial property is proposed as part of the current action under consideration. 13. The type of commercial uses envisioned for the northern area along Euclid Avenue are different than the types of commercial uses existing along Pines and Trent. Please refer to the response to comment #4 above. 14. Comment noted. Deed restrictions will be recorded for the common open space and this will also be addressed in the CC &Rs for Mirabeau Point which are a type of "deed restriction." The County Hearing Examiner and the Board of County Commissioners could impose deed restrictions as mitigating measures. 15. Please refer to the response to comment #10 above. 16. Please refer to the response to comment #10 above. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments 8. 1.1.b, Land Use, Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.1, Objective 6.1.i, page 60 Objective 6.1.i is stated as, "Encourage business districts in scale with the needs of the 13 population throughout the County." Of concern is the need for the Major Commercial category of the Comprehensive Plan along Euclid Avenue. Considering that the surrounding area is vacant and considerable community serving commercial uses already exist along Trent Avenue, Pines Road and Indiana Avenue; the need for additional commercial uses in this area is not warranted. Approval of the Commercial category along Euclid Avenue could establish a precedent for further strip development along this road which would be inconsistent with adjacent Comprehensive Plan categories and with existing and proposed uses for the area. See mitigating measures under item # 4 above. 9. 1.1.b, Land Use, Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.1, Objective 6.1.j, page 61 The analysis under this objective proposed the use of deed restrictions to provide permanent protection of the habitat area. The use of deed restrictions for this purpose should be included as a mitigating measure under 1.1.c on page 67. The deed restrictions should include provisions for permanent preservation of the open space. 10. 1.3.c, Relationship to Growth Management Act, Mitigating Measures, page 72 Please see comments in item # 5 above concerning the use of CC &R's to serve as a mitigation tool and to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. 1.4.c, Relationship to Existing /Future Land Uses, Mitigating Measures, page 76, 77 Please see comments in item # 5 above concerning the use of CC &R's to serve as a mitigation tool and to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 4 14 15 16 Response to Letter No. 6 Spokane County Division of Engineering - Bill Hemmings 1. Comment noted. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Pederson, John From: Hemmings, Bill Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 1:30 PM To: Pederson, John Cc: Harper, Pat; Franz, Dean; Kimball, Sandy; Engelhard, Scott Subject: Mirabeau Point IES 11 -3 -97 I received the above referenced project application on Oct. 3, 1997. We accept the 208 swale /drywell concept that is proposed for this project. I consider this proposal to be technically complete. I recommend using the standard drainage condition. G�CL' c fnt 4a LETTER NO. 6 1 Response to Letter No. 7 Spokane County Division of Engineering - Steve Stairs 1. The Revised Traffic Impact Analysis in Appendix B, has included some discussion regarding the adequacy of existing storage lengths in the section on queue lengths. 2. In Appendix B, an additional calculation sheet has been added for each intersection in each condition for the Synchro calculations which show which lanes are shared. 3. The intersection of Pines and Mansfield Avenue has been analyzed and the results are included in Appendix B. 4. The Ridgeview Estates Apartments project required a traffic study which was used for background distribution. This study used a more conservative trip generation rate from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The Cherry Street Apartments project did not require a traffic study, so no previous information on background trips had been developed. The 5th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual (page 322) shows a category for Apartments, post -1973 for vehicle trip ends vs. dwelling units for weekday PM peak period of adjacent street traffic. The rate given for this category is 0.49 trips per dwelling unit which is the rate shown in the report. On page 309 of the Manual, it explains that separate trip generation summaries are provided for data collected after 1973 which is what was used for trip generation for these apartments. 5. The ice rink trip generation was revised per a trip generation study at the Eagles Ice Arena in North Spokane. Land Use #495 from the ITE Trip Generation Manual was used for the YMCA. 6. Those residents in the neighborhoods near Sullivan Road and Wellesley Avenue will use the Trent Avenue and Pines Road route to get to the project site instead of the Sullivan Road and Indiana Avenue route. From the Sullivan/Wellesley intersection, the Trent Avenue and Pines Road route has three signals, including a proposed signal at Pines Road /Euclid Avenue to get to the site. The Sullivan Road and Indiana Avenue route has eight signals to get to the site. Since both routes are approximately the same distance, a much shorter travel time will be achieved by using the Trent Avenue and Pines Road route. Therefore no trips were assigned to Sullivan Road. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments LETTER NO. 7 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 18, 1997 TO: Pat Harper CC: /John Pederson, Spokane County Planning Greg Figg, Washington State Department of Transportation Tim Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. FROM: Steve Stair �T35 SUBJECT: Mirabeau Point DEIS comments SPOKtA COLNTY I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, DEIS, for the Mirabeau Point project and have noted the following comments. 1. The LOS documentation shows queue lengths and possible upstream blocking conflicts which is not discussed in the report. These occurrences need to be examined and discussed, particularly since queuing is not related to the LOS calculations, but does play an important role in intersection operations. It should also be noted that many of the turn pockets are inaccurately shown to extend for the entire Zink length. For example, the EBR lane at the intersection of Pines and Trent shows a length of 2000 ft. when it actually is no more than 75 ft. in length. 1 2. The existence of turn movements and through movements using shared lanes can not be verified from the LOS print -outs included in the appendix of the report. A more detailed print- 2 out showing the presence or absence of these shared lanes should be provided. The intersection of Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue was requested to be included in the scope of the traffic analysis as stated on page 1 of Appendix B, however, the consultant did not analyze this intersection because "only a minor amount" of project trips would use it. With the Evergreen Interchange, it was reported that Sullivan Rd. will not receive any project traffic, yet LOS calculations are shown throughout the report. Why did the consultant choose to the exclude this intersection after being requested by an agency of review? 4. In Table 4, why does the Ridgeview Estates Apartments generate trips at 0.63 trips /unit and the Cherry St. Apartments generate trips at 0.49 trips /unit. The difference results in 22% fewer trips for the Cherry St. Apartments. 3 5. Table 7, on page 30, shows several land uses that do not have trip generation data in the ITE manual. The method of establishing trip generation, assuming person trips and vehicle occupancy, for these land uses is extremely weak. A better approach would have been to 5 examine similar facilities in the Spokane area (Eagles Ice Arena, YMCA, etc.) and report their actual, observed volumes. Many of the trip generation estimates in this table seem to be extremely low. 6. Although I would expect the volumes to be low, it doesn't seem realistic that no project traffic will travel to /from Sullivan Rd. north of the Spokane River. The most likely trips to use this 6 Response to Letter No. 7 (continued) 7. The following intersections are the intersections referred to: Trent /Pines Intersection - The eastbound right turn is only a free right turn until four to five cars back up on the right through lane. When the queue for that lane is greater than four to five cars, vehicles have to wait until the eastbound movements receives green time from the signal. The traffic impact analysis was revised to show this and a permitted plus protected turning movement for all without project conditions. Evergreen /Eastbound Ramps Intersection - The traffic impact analysis was revised to show the eastbound right turning movement as permitted plus protected instead of a free right turn. Evergreen /Westbound Ramps Intersection - The traffic impact analysis was revised to show the southbound right turning movement as permitted plus protected instead of a free right turn. Evergreen /Indiana Intersection - The traffic impact analysis was revised to include recommendations that provide adequate turning radius for the westbound left turn vehicles into two lanes which will provide a lane for the eastbound right turning movement to remain as a free right turn. 8. For this analysis, no volume deduction was taken for the right turn on red (RTOR) volumes even though the Synchro program has help notes which tell the user deductions for RTOR are allowed. Synchro also recommends that to model RTOR volumes, the phasing in the Synchro program data may be set to "permitted plus overlap" or "protected plus overlap." For this analysis, the phasing for the right turn lanes was modeled using the "permitted plus overlap" condition which models RTOR during the left turning movement of the cross streets, but allows no right turns on any other phases. 9. Signalized intersections are generally evaluated on the overall intersection delay time rather than for individualized movements as in unsignalized intersections. The individual movement delay varies based on the amount of green time given that movement. Therefore overall intersection delay time is used. In the revised calculations for the proposed improvements for Phase 3 (2006), there are no intersections on the Pines and Evergreen corridors with a V/C ratio greater than 1.00. The intersections on the Sullivan corridor have V/C ratios greater than one. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments route would be associated with the residential neighborhoods in the Sullivan Rd. & Wellesley Ave. area. 7. For all of the Evergreen Rd. & Indiana Ave. capacity analyses, the EBR volumes were omitted. This movement has a substantial volume as shown in figuresl4 - 19 of Appendix B and should be included in the LOS calculations. The appendix does show a reduction of 150 turns for right turn on red, RTOR. Additionally, the lane configurations used in the LOS calculations for this intersection do not match those described in the Key Intersection Configuration section. 8. The methodology employed with the RTOR and the Synchro software is overemphasizing the RTOR movements. Synchro overstates the green time in its LOS calculation by adding additional green time to right turns when they could be made on red. This is found by computing the g/c ratio for the right turns based on the timing splits provided in the print- outs. By deducting the RTOR observed in the field and adding extra green time, the RTOR reduction is overcounted. 9. In the build -out year, 2006, many of the intersections are showing v/c ratios greater than one. These intersections show adequate overall levels of service, however, many of the individual movements are failing. 8 9 10. Page 59 of Appendix B states that a signal will need to be installed at the intersection near the proposed YMCA to maintain adequate levels of service. No analysis was provided demonstrating this need for a signal and it was not I7sted in the recommendations section of 10 the report. Additionally, some discussion as to funding and construction should be presented as this signal is not in the current plans submitted to TIB for funding. 11. This report states in several places that Mirabeau Pkwy. is being constructed by Spokane County and that this could be considered a County project. It should be noted that Spokane County has committed to provide a portion of the funding, along with several others, and has 1 1 applied for and received acceptance for TIB funds. However, the TIB and County funds are set at a maximum limit. Any additional funding needed to complete construction of Mirabeau Pkwy. will be the responsibility of this project. 12. The parcel of land between the railroad tracks and Indiana Ave. is not currently owned by Spokane County or the sponsors of the Mirabeau Point project. This land must be acquired 1 2 before construction of Mirabeau Pkwy can be started. 13. The DEIS states that this project will be built out over a ten to fifteen year period, however, Appendix B uses 1996 as a baseline for the analyses and shows 2006 as the build -out year. 13 Therefore, once accepted, I recommend that this study be updated by December 31, 2006. I would ask that these comments be addressed and incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Statement. If you have any questions regarding the review of the DEIS. please feel free to bring them to my attention. 2 Response to Letter No. 7 (continued) 10. Justification for the signal on Mirabeau Parkway at the intersection near the YMCA is included in Appendix B, along with a discussion on when it is needed and who is responsible. Future projects proposed within the Mirabeau Point project site and nearby projects that would add traffic to Mirabeau Parkway will require review. When a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection on Mirabeau Parkway, those projects using the east -west street contributing to the need for signalization should participate in the funding. 11. Mirabeau Parkway is currently under design by Spokane County. Mirabeau Parkway will be deeded to Spokane County in 1998 for establishment of public right -of -way for future development of the arterial road. The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) application for arterial road funding includes private participation for partial funding of Mirabeau Parkway improvements, specifically related to the proposed railroad crossing. Additional funding beyond public funds that is needed to complete the construction of this roadway will be the responsibility of the proposed project. 12. The parcel referred to is a narrow strip of land between the railroad tracks and Indiana Avenue. Only a small portion of this parcel, the far eastern edge (7226 square feet), would be needed for Mirabeau Parkway right -of -way at its location shown on the Concept Master Plan. The parcel is currently owned by Hanson Industries, Inc., who were previously contacted regarding the needed right -of -way. Since a purchase agreement for this sliver of land has not been achieved, the project proponents and Spokane County are currently working toward establishing Mirabeau Parkway right -of -way approximately 400 feet to the east to avoid the property owned by Hanson Industries, Inc. See also response to Letter No. 5, comment #2. 13. References to a 15 -year build -out period are revised to a 10 -year build -out period. If the build -out of this project does not occur prior to December 31, 2006, the traffic study should be updated. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Response to Letter No. 8 Lawson /Gunning Investments, L.L.C. - Bill Lawson 1. Comment noted. 2. Inland Empire Paper Company is currently negotiating with Lawson /Gunning Investments to determine the best location for access between their site and the Mirabeau Parkway arterial. The following letter to Lawson /Gunning Investments, LLC from Wayne Frost of Thomas Dean & Hoskins summarizes the agreed on understanding formulated at the last meeting of the parties and documents the agreement regarding access approval. 3. The Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) approved the new railroad crossing location which is approximately 1075 feet east of the closed Shannon /McDonald Road railroad crossing. Mirabeau Parkway will include development of a fully signalized railroad crossing and signalized intersection of Mirabeau Parkway and Indiana Avenue. Detailed plans and construction coordination for the new railroad crossing will require approval by the WUTC, Union Pacific Railroad, and Spokane County. Mirabeau Point Final EIS Response to Comments June 1998 Lawson /Gunning Investments, L.L.C. 202 E. Trent Avenue Suite 202 Spokane, WA 99202 (509) 624 -1170 fax (509) 624 -1255 October 29, 1997 Mr. John Pederson Spokane County Division of Building and Planning 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Mirabeau Point Dear Mr. Pederson, LETTER NO. 8 RECEIVED SPOKANE COUNTY NV/ 03J / DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING er: Please be advised that the adjoining property owners to the southwest of the Mirabeau Point proposal are generally in agreement with the plans and objectives provided in the Draft EIS of the Mirabeau Point request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification. The proposed Lawson/Gunning development will be using Shannon Avenue to access Pines Road via Houk and Mansfield. The Lawson/Gunning development will also need to be served by dedicated access to proposed Mirabeau Parkway by extension of Shannon Avenue easterly to connect with said new collector arterial. This connection through the Mirabeau Point project is needed to improve neighborhood circulation, provide a second access for fire and emergency vehicles, and direct a portion of the new traffic to the future Evergreen Interchange. The relocation of the railroad grade crossing to the east to serve Mirabeau Parkway necessitates a reasonable connection between existing Shannon Avenue and the new arterial. Lawson and Gunning are currently negotiating with Inland Empire Paper Company to secure an interim agreement to provide for this connection. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, cc: Ted Gunning 1 2 3 Thomas, Dean Sc Hoskins, Inc. TD Engineering Consultants Bill Lawson Lawson/Gunning Investments, LLC 202 E. Trent Avenue, Suite 202 Spokane, WA 99202 RE: Mirabeau Point/Shannon Avenue Project Dear Mr. Lawson: January 30, 1998 At the request of Inland Empire Paper Company, this letter is written to summarize our understanding of our meeting of January 8, 1998. As you know, Inland Empire Paper Company is currently in the process of rezoning that land known as Mirabeau Point. For that purpose, it is appropriate to document our agreement regarding the access approval to your Shannon Avenue project. During our January 8th meeting, approval was given by Inland Empire Paper Company for roadway access to your Shannon Avenue project. We understood that you were going to confirm acceptance of the terms of the agreement with Mr. Gunning and respond back to us. Specifically, these terms included: 1. Roadway access would be provided westerly of the proposed Mirabeau Parkway, approximately midway from the railroad right -of -way to the new intersection at the southeast corner of the new YMCA site. 2. The access roadway would extend westerly in a straight alignment to the common property line, with any necessary curvature falling within your ownership. 3. If your needs dictate the construction of the access prior to the needs of Inland Empire Paper Company or the concerned site's subsequent owner, the construction of the roadway would be at your expense. The roadway would be constructed to a standard acceptable to Spokane County and Inland Empire Paper Company and would include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, curb and gutter, lighting and drainage systems. 4. The value of the land within the access right -of -way would be determined and mutually acceptable consideration would be given to Inland Empire Paper Company. 303 East Second Avenue • Spokane, WA 99202 • (509) 622 -2888 • FAX (509) 622 -2889 Mr. Bill Lawson January 30, 1998 Page We are currently awaiting your response as to whether these terms are acceptable. You may make your reply either to me or to John Hay or Wayne Andresen at Inland Empire Paper Company. We are looking. forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC. i Wayn= A. Frost, P.E. Vice President Cc: Wayne Andresen/John Hay Inland Empire Paper Company John Pederson Spokane County Planning S97 -65(2) Response to Letter No. 9 Mirabeau Point Inc. - Denny Ashiock and Greg Bever 1. The 35.3 acres proposed for natural open space are intended to be used for passive recreation. The existing improvements are recognized as remnants of the former Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo, as is the existing trail system and road. These areas could be enhanced with sitting areas, improved trails, and nature interpretive signs. Any use within this area would need to be consistent with those uses allowed in the RR -10 zone, which also applies to the future County park area directly north of the natural open space area. A youth recognition platform and wall, a passive park, and an interpretive center would appear to be compatible with the proposed natural open space area, as well as consistent with the RR -10 zone. Uses such as an amphitheater and planetarium, if commercial in nature, would require location within a 8-2 or B -3 zoned area. The previous Concept Master Plan for Mirabeau Point did have an amphitheater located north of the natural open space area. However, when the Mirabeau Point Non - Profit Group decided this area would be better for a future County park, the amphitheater was removed. Since a park would be allowed in the existing RR -10 zone, the proposed B -2 zone boundary was reduced. A commercial amphitheater is not identified or analyzed in the Draft EIS as a proposed future use for the Mirabeau Point site. The future County park area might be able to incorporate a small non - commercial amphitheater in the public park (similar to Pavillion Park at Liberty Lake) if the County agrees. The concept of a planetarium was analyzed as part of the Community Center within the 16 acre area which is proposed for B -3 zoning (refer to Table 1 on page 9 of the Draft EIS). 2. There are currently some paved trails and remnants left from the former Walk - in- the -Wild Zoo improvements that are primarily along the southern edge of the 35.3 acre natural area. The soft trail system within the interior of the natural open space area will be limited to foot traffic to maintain the passive nature of the area. Some, but not all, of the trail area within the natural open space area needs to be paved to provide for handicap access. If all of the interior trails were paved, unless specifically controlled and monitored, they would be available for use by bicyclists, rollerbladers, and skateboarders. This would defeat the purpose of a natural interpretive area with preservation of habitat. It should be feasible to maintain existing paved areas for handicap access as well as provide some additional paved area to access an interpretive center and youth platform and wall. The topography within the interior portion of Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1.998 Response to Comments November 3, 1997 John Pederson Spokane County Division of Building & Planning 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Mr. Pederson: Mirabeau Point, Inc. is concerned about two points in the Mirabeau Point Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification Environmental Impact Statement. LETTER NO. 9 • "The proposed project permanently retains 35.3 acres as a natural open space which would be left undeveloped to accommodate existing wildlife and preserve the higher quality nabitat areas (Ponderosa Pine Woodland/Bunchgrass community." This particular set -aside is actually setting land in reserve which was previously developed by Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo. The land immediately to the west of proposed Mirabeau Point Boulevard contains the site of the demolished Zoo office building and numerous zoo exhibits which were not left in a natural state. Mirabeau Point, Inc. would like these lands available for future development which could include a planetarium, a youth recognition platform and wall, a outdoor amphlitheater, a Universal Accessible Park (Handicap accessible park) or /and interpretive center. Mirabeau Point, Inc. applauds the planning to accommodate existing wildlife and preserve the higher quality habitat, but lands have been include which do not meet this criteria and conflicts with future plans. • "Expansion of the soft trail system for human foot traffic only will have limited impact on the existing habitat and will provide opportunities to educate trail users. No buildings or paved areas will be constructed within the interior of the natural open space area." i 2 Response to Letter No. 9 (continued) the 35.3 acre natural area includes numerous rock outcroppings and steep areas which would not be able to meet ADA grade requirements. There are numerous opportunities for paved trails and connections to the Centennial Trail within the Mirabeau Point site. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1.998 Response to Comments Mirabeau Point, Inc. may want to improve the soft -trail system to be accessible to ADA specifications which could include paving to Centennial Trail Specifications (hard surfaced/12 feet wide and approved ADA grade). The soft trail could negatively impact air quality by increasing air -born particulates (dust). Thank you for allowing these comments. Sincerely, Denny Ashlock mikume . :.- Response to Letter No. 10 Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, 1" Letter dated November 3, 1997 - John H. Walker 1. Comment noted. Spokane County extended the comment period on the Draft EIS to November 18, 1997. A copy of the Draft EIS was mailed to Susan Ashe, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation on October 2, 1997 at the same time all copies of the Draft EIS were mailed and distributed. Please refer to the Distribution List on page D -4 of the Draft EIS. 2. Comment noted. 3. The impacts of the proposed Mirabeau Point project on the Kaiser Trentwood operations, employees, and Kaiser's ability to compete in the highly competitive world aluminum market are not required to be addressed under SEPA. The 1983 SEPA amendments resulted in the Department of Ecology establishing a "list of elements of the environment" to which mandatory EIS coverage is limited. The purpose of restricting the definition of environment, and hence mandatory EIS coverage, through the listed elements of the environment was to limit compulsory inclusion of so called socioeconomic impacts. SEPA contemplates that the general welfare, social, economic, and other requirements and essential considerations of state policy will be taken into account in weighing and balancing alternatives and in making final decisions" (WAC 197-11-448(1)). SEPA states that "The term "socio- economic" is not used in the statute or in these rules because the term does not have a uniform meaning and has caused a great deal of uncertainty" (WAC 197-11-448(2)). The 1983 SEPA amendments clearly indicate that economic competition and social policy analysis need not be discussed in an EIS (WAC 197 -11- 448(3)). The Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation property is separated from the Mirabeau Point site by State -owned property and the Spokane River. The total area of separation varies in width from approximately 400 to 700 or more feet, providing a substantial buffer between the two properties. The analysis of impacts in the Draft EIS appropriately addresses issues identified during the scoping process and focuses more on those properties directly adjacent which share property boundaries and roadway access with the Mirabeau Point site. The Draft EIS adequately recognizes and identifies potential impacts on adjacent land uses. No potential impacts on the physical or built environment were found to be probable or significant on the Kaiser property. No information has surfaced indicating that the probable impacts of the proposal Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments LETTER NO. 10 COUNTY KAISER ALUMINUM K A I S E R A L U M I N U M & C H E M I C A L C O R P O R A Tt %0 N November 3, 1997 Mr. John Pederson Spokane County Division of Building & Planning 1026 W Broadway Avenue Spokane WA 99260 RE: Mirabeau Point Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Pederson: NOV 3 1997 By this letter, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation requests an extension in the time within which to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mirabeau Point Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification dated October 2, 1997 ( "DEIS ") which reviews the potential impacts of the proposed Mirabeau Point 236.2 acre mixed use master planned development project (the "Project "). Kaiser Aluminum's Trentwood plant, which is located adjacent to the Project site on the northern side of the Spokane River, is the largest neighboring landowner to the Project. Unfortunately, however, Kaiser did not receive a copy of the DEIS until the week of October 20, 1997. Although Kaiser has completed a cursory review of the DEIS, Kaiser respectfully requests the maximum additional time allowable to comment on the DEIS. This request for an extension is not intended, and should not be construed, as an objection by Kaiser to the Project or other development in the araea. Kaiser is only seeking an opportunity to more thoroughly review the DEIS, particularly with respect to certain potential impacts that, as stated more fully below, Kaiser is concerned may not have been adequately or sufficiently reviewed in the DEIS. I understand that you spoke with Susan Ashe from Kaiser and that your agency will consider an extension in the comment period, provided that Kaiser states its request in writing and outlines certain of the issues in the DEIS about which it may be concerned. This letter is intended to serve that dual purpose. As you know, Kaiser Aluminum's Trentwood facility is one of Spokane County's largest employers. Based on its preliminary review of the DEIS, Kaiser is concerned that the DEIS does not adequately review or consider the impacts of the Project on Kaiser's Trentwood operations, in terms of the impacts to the company's operations, employees TRENT WOOD WORKS F 0 Box 15108 Spokane Washinoton 99215 -5108 5x- 92 = -150 1 2 3 Response to Letter No. 10 (continued) would significantly alter or diminish the physical, built environment of the Kaiser property. 4. The Traffic Impact Analysis was scoped to include intersections and arterials anticipated to be impacted by the increase in traffic generated from the proposed Mirabeau Point project. The Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared to establish mitigating measures which address the impacts resulting from the Mirabeau Point project. In order to establish the impacts and related mitigation that are directly attributable to the proposed project, the improvements which are now or will be necessary in the future without development of the proposed project must be identified first. The Revised Traffic Impact Analysis in Appendix B addresses traffic queues and lane storage as well as other comments received on the Draft EIS Traffic Impact Analysis. Traffic improvements may be required under any of the following three conditions. First, the existing traffic conditions and characteristics may indicate elements of the transportation system which are operating below acceptable standards. These existing conditions may require improvements, however it is important to note that the need for these improvements is independent of the Mirabeau Point rezone proposal under examination in the Traffic Impact Analysis. The second condition where traffic improvements may become necessary in the future is with the increases in traffic anticipated from sources other than the Mirabeau Point proposal. The final condition where the need for improvements can arise in a Traffic Impact Analysis is when the traffic from the Mirabeau Point proposal is added to the transportation system. This third and final condition establishes the mitigating measures which are directly attributable to the proposed project. In some cases, a proposal under consideration could further degrade an existing situation which is below acceptable standards. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Mirabeau Point project properly identifies portions of the transportation system which are not functioning at acceptable levels of service under each of these conditions. Mitigation for the project is only put forward for the third condition, the actual deficiencies requiring mitigation due to the increase in traffic from the Mirabeau Point project. This is in accordance with acceptable practices and is the goal of any traffic impact analysis. 5. When the Draft EIS was scoped it was determined that a detailed air quality analysis would be more appropriate at the individual project level and not with Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Mr. John Pederson November 3, 1997 Page 2 and ability to compete in the highly competitive world aluminum market. Although the DEIS notes that Kaiser's Trentwood plant is adjacent to the Project site, the DEIS appears to consider impacts of the Project only on some adjacent properties (located east and west of the Project site) and not on the largest adjacent landowner located north of the Project site. Kaiser would like to more carefully review the DEIS to consider whether the DEIS sufficiently or adequately addresses aggregate or cumulative impacts that are neither remote nor speculative but can be reasonably discussed in light of known existing and expected future uses of property in the entire surrounding area. One example of impacts that Kaiser may want to more thoroughly review and comment on relates to traffic and transportation. The ability to efficiently ship products and receive materials and for employees to safely and conveniently commute to and from the plant is essential to Kaiser's continuing operations as a major employer in the County. While the traffic analysis prepared for the DEIS appears to provide a good overview of the existing traffic situation and potential impacts in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, it does not appear to provide a comprehensive analysis of the surrounding arterial and freeway system or the relationship of intersections and interchanges near the Project site to the impacts of traffic queues backing through other intersections, the sufficiency of turning lane storage capacities or freeway capacity and operations. In addition, the traffic analysis in the DEIS does not appear to consider the impacts of the Project on the ability of emergency vehicles to move freely through the area. Kaiser is concerned that the DEIS may fail to take a systematic approach that considers the physical constraints that exist because of the proximity of the major traffic areas. These types of analyses may be necessary to fully consider the impacts of the Project on all surrounding landowners and property uses, including Kaiser's Trentwood plant and other affected industrial operations. Another impact that Kaiser is concerned about may not be adequately discussed in the DEIS relates to air quality. The DEIS recognizes that the Project site is within an area that is one of the ten worst for air quality in the region and that, based on a two -year study, the CO levels are expected to rise almost to the regulatory threshold limit without development of the Project. During the extended comment period, Kaiser would like to review the DEIS to consider whether cumulative impacts from the Project, in terms of increased generation of both CO and PM10, and known and reasonably anticipated air quality impacts from surrounding land uses have been sufficiently addressed in the DEIS. Again, the air quality section of the DEIS does not appear to review the aggregate impacts of the Project on air quality throughout the area, including all surrounding landowners. There may be modeling or other more detailed analyses that should be conducted to more adequately review air quality impacts than the limited and somewhat speculative discussion in the current DEIS. 3 4 5 Response to Letter No. 10 (continued) the rezone which includes only a "concept master plan." Air quality conformity reviews for affected arterial intersections would be required when final designs of transportation related improvements are completed (refer to Section 2. 1 Air Quality on pages 28 -30 of the Draft EIS). However, an air quality study was determined to be necessary for the Final EIS due to the transportation improvements required to mitigate impacts from the Mirabeau Point project. The scope of the air quality study was determined after meeting with representatives from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC), Spokane County Division of Engineering, and Spokane County Division of Building and Planning. The Supplemental Air Quality Study is included in Appendix A. 6. The impacts on land uses in the immediate area are addressed in the Draft EIS in Section 1.0 Land Use and in Section 2.0 Transportation. The Draft EIS analyzed area land use and the potential cumulative land use impacts on adjacent properties. The analysis was based on existing land uses, as well as proposed land uses and zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations which may support development of higher intensity uses. The proposed zone reclassifications include 17 acres to be rezoned to B -2 and 94.5 acres to be rezoned to B -3. Commercial zoning is considered to be generally compatible with industrial zoning. The existing 1 -2 zones located within the Mirabeau Point site include an area north of Euclid Avenue and the eastern portion of the site. These areas are not proposed to be rezoned. The 1 -2 zoned area located north of Euclid Avenue is designated Urban on the County's Comprehensive Plan. The Mirabeau Point rezone proposal includes a Concept Master Plan which is used as the basis for the environmental analysis. Please refer to Table 1 of the Draft EIS section entitled Proposed Action and Alternatives for the estimated types of uses, areas, and building square footages used for the Draft EIS analysis. Without detailed project site plans, the Concept Master Plan provides the basis for analysis at this conceptual stage. Later, when detailed site plans and building plans are required, the County may have the individual site proposals undergo further SEPA review. When detailed site plans and building plans are submitted along with an environmental checklist, the County will determine if there have been any significant changes to the proposal or if new potentially significant environmental impacts may occur which have not been addressed in this EIS. At that time the County will issue a threshold determination and could require preparation of an Addendum or Supplemental EIS as deemed appropriate. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Mr. John Pederson November 3, 1997 Page 3 Finally, Kaiser is concerned that the land use discussion in the DEIS may focus too narrowly on land uses to the east and west of the Project when considering compatibility and cumulative impacts. Although the DEIS notes that Kaiser's Trentwood plant is adjacent to the Property site, it does not appear to consider Kaiser's industrial uses of that adjacent property in determining compatibility under Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan with the zoning changes proposed for the Project or the cumulative impacts on Iand use in the area. In addition, the DEIS does not appear to attempt to quantify or detail the anticipated volume or types of users of the Project site. Even at this stage of the Project there may be volume and quantification data and analyses, including models and information from similar developments, that could be included in the DEIS to more adequately consider the impacts of the Project. These are issues that Kaiser would like to review in more depth during the extended comment period. As noted above, the principal purpose of this letter is to request additional time within which to comment on the DEIS. The overview of potential impacts and issues that Kaiser would like to consider in greater detail as set forth above are provided at your request and are based on a very limited review of the DEIS. If on further review Kaiser believes such impacts should receive more detailed comment, Kaiser will provide such comment prior to the expiration of the extended comment period. I appreciate your consideration of an extension in the comment period. Please do not hesitate to contact Carl Foltz at 927 -6364 or Susan Ashe at 468 -5865 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Jo H. Walker Vice President & General Manager Flat - Rolled Products JHW/te cc: Kate McCaslin, Spokane County Commissioner John Roskelley, Spokane County Commissioner Phil Harris, Spokane County Commissioner Dennis Scott, Spokane County Public Works Director Carl Foltz, Kaiser Trentwood Susan Ashe, Kaiser NW Public Affairs 6 7 Response to Letter No. 10 (continued) If the proposed project is modified, the lead agency must determine if further SEPA analysis is required using the same criteria as a new project. An addendum is used to add information or analysis about a proposal but does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. An addendum cannot be used if new significant impacts or new alternatives are identified. Since an addendum does not contain "significant" new information, a public comment period is not required. However, an addendum to an EIS must be circulated to the recipients of the initial EIS and should be sent to interested persons (WAC 197 -11 -625). A supplemental EIS would address probable significant adverse environmental impacts that were not addressed in the initial EIS. A supplemental EIS is prepared in the same way as a draft and final EIS except that scoping is optional (WAC 197- 11- 620(i)). The use of "phased review" is perfectly acceptable under SEPA. According to SEPA, phased review is appropriate when "the sequence is from an environmental document on a specific proposal at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a subsequent environmental document at a later stage (such as sensitive design impacts)." WAC197- 11- 060(5)(c)(ii). SEPA also encourages the "preparation of EISs on private proposals at the conceptual stage rather than the final detailed design stage" (WAC 197-11- 055(4)). 7. Comment noted. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Response to Letter No. 11 Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, 2 "d Letter dated November 18, 1997 - John H. Walker 1. Please see the response to Letter No. 10, comment #6. According to SEPA (WAC 197 -11- 405(3)), a final EIS (FEIS) shall revise the DEIS as appropriate and respond to comments as required in 197 -11 -560. An FEIS shall respond to opposing views on significant adverse environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives which the lead agency determines were not adequately discussed in the DEIS. The lead agency shall issue a FEIS as specified by 197-11-460. This Final EIS includes a Revised Traffic Impact Analysis and a Supplemental Air Quality Study in response to comments received on the Draft EIS. 2. Additional studies were prepared for the traffic impact analysis and air quality impacts to respond to comments received on the Draft EIS. This additional information is included in the Summary and in appendices to the Final EIS. This new information does not result in substantial changes or significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. A supplemental EIS would be required as an addition to either a draft or final statement if: (a) There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; or (b) There is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts (WAC 197 -1 1- 405(4)). Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 19.98 Response to Comments KAISER ALUMINUM LETTER NO. 11 nV 1 R. 1997 K A I S E R A L U M I N U M & C H E M I C A L C O R P O R A T I O N November 18, 1997 Mr. John Pederson Spokane County Division of Building & Planning 1026 W. Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Comments on Mirabeau Point Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Pederson: Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation appreciates the approval by your department of an extension in the time in which to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mirabeau Point Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification ( "DEIS "). The following are Kaiser's comments on the DEIS, given in accordance with WAC 197 -11 -550. Kaiser requests that the County revise the DEIS and issue a final environmental impact statement ( "FEIS ") that supplements, improves or modifies the analysis and the proposed action in the DEIS pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -560 and WAC 197 -11 -405. Kaiser is concerned that the DEIS does not adequately address the probable adverse impacts of the proposed Mirabeau Point 236.2 acre mixed use master planned development project (the "Project ") on two elements of the environment: transportation and air. As stated more fully below, Kaiser respectfully suggests that the FEIS for the Project should include additional data and analyses, including computer modeling studies, relating to transportation and air impacts and that the FEIS should reflect any modifications to the Project that may be called for based on the results of such additional data and analyses. In the alternative, Kaiser suggests that the additional transportation and air analyses referenced below should be conducted and a supplemental environmental impact statement, reflecting new information relating to the Project's probable significant adverse environmental impacts gained from such analyses, should be prepared and issued for comment in accordance with WAC 197 -11 -600 and WAC 197 -11 -620. In either case, Kaiser is seeking to ensure that the FEIS reasonably discusses and substantiates the environmental effects of the Project as required under the law and that the County's decisions relating to the Project are based on complete disclosure of all environmental consequences at the earliest possible stage. V;GPKS F C E :x 1510E 92`1E E•r: Response to Letter No. 11 (continued) 3. A 3% annual growth rate was used for the background growth of traffic for this study. However, this comment suggests that this 3% includes all the identified projects which have been included in the report as background projects. If background projects are included to determine a total annual growth rate, some intersections would see an annual growth rate of approximately 5% with some turning movements at an annual growth rate of 10% during the 10 -year period without the proposed project. A detailed look at the report will show the reader that a 3% growth rate of traffic was used in addition to the trips anticipated from background projects. 4. Only improvements which WSDOT has programmed into their budget were included in the study. 5. The Evergreen Interchange must be built for not only all phases of this project to maintain adequate level of service for traffic in the area, but it is also needed for other development to occur in the area such as phases 2 & 3 of the Spokane Valley Mall. The County has maintained that the project will not go forward until adequate funds are committed for construction of this interchange. 6. WSDOT and Spokane County both provided input and agreed on proposed improvements for the Pines corridor. The improvements were modeled with a traffic simulation program in Synchro, version 3.2 and were determined to provide adequate levels of service and operation. Please refer to the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis included in Appendix B. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Mr. John Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 2 Although the DEIS contains a relatively detailed traffic impact analysis, this analysis concentrates only on existing traffic patterns and potential impacts of the Project in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The traffic impact analysis combines existing traffic information with an annual three percent growth factor anticipated for the Project. This does not appear to reflect the actual growth that is occurring in the area, particularly the growth related to development of the recently - opened Spokane Valley Mail and Plaza Shopping facilities. These types of development create a very high travel demand and attract additional growth in commercial and related activity. The area along. Sullivan Road, Mission Avenue and Indiana Avenue can expect to have substantial growth in traffic. The impact analysis mentions that the Spokane Valley Mall will add significant PM peak hour trips to the transportation system, however, it appears that only the three percent growth factor was used to estimate future background traffic, which does not reflect the growth trends for the area. The industrial area on Sullivan Road and north of Indiana is a rapidly growing area that will use Sullivan Road as a primary means of access to 1-90 and the rest of the Spokane area. The growth of this area combined with the commercial development will create very high traffic growth in the affected area of the proposed Mirabeau Point project. The traffic impact analysis in the DEIS assumes that many improvements which are essential to the operation of the arterial and freeway system in the area will already be in place. Without these improvements, even the existing traffic operations and background growth will not be adequate, and will result in significant adverse impacts from the Project. The DEIS traffic impact analysis states that the Washington Department of Transportation has programmed improvements for Pines Road and that intersection improvements were completed in the fall of 1997 by the Spokane Valley Mall commercial developments. In addition, the traffic impact analysis discusses the preliminary agreement for funding a portion of the Evergreen Interchange. Because this interchange is the basis for the development of Phases 2 and 3 of the Mirabeau Point project, adequate funding should be a requirement for implementing these phases. The Evergreen Interchange is vital to any level of growth in the affected area. The improvements of the interchange and related extensions of the arterial system are assumed in the analysis of Phases 2 and 3 of the Project. Unless funds are actually committed, it is difficult and premature to conclude that they will be available to provide capacity to the transportation system The analysis of traffic in this area is complex because of the need to evaluate the operations as a complete and integrated system. Based on the information available in the DEIS and the traffic impact analysis, the following factors do not appear to be adequately addressed or analyzed in the DEIS: 5 1. Traffic queue overflow is a significant element to determine how the street system and intersections are working. When queues overflow available storage and back -up into other lanes or intersections, congestion and delay occurs. The method of analysis used '6 in the DEIS traffic impact analysis (SYNCHRO) does not have the capability to model this condition. Therefore, individual intersections are reported at better level of Response to Letter No. 11 (continued) 7. The review agencies have agreed with the use of the Synchro program and the traffic simulation program attached in Synchro 3.2. 8. WSDOT and Spokane County have agreed with the recommended improvements as discussed in Appendix B. Performance of queues was considered in the operation of the Pines Road corridor. The Sullivan Road corridor will not be improved by this project. 9. As stated in addressing previous comments, all deductions for right turns on right have been eliminated in the Revised TIA. 10. As stated in addressing previous comments, the right turns on red were coded as permitted plus protected even though Synchro program notes mention that deductions for right turn on red volumes is appropriate. 11. The weaving sections between the Pines, Evergreen, and Sullivan interchanges were evaluated and this information is included in the Revised TIA. For the build -out year (2006) WSDOT may consider installing a ramp metering system to control the "platooning" of vehicles onto the freeway. Another document which may be of interest regarding freeway operations is WSDOT's EIS on 1 -90 from Four Lakes Interchange to the State Line. The Traffic Impact Analysis for Mirabeau Point indicates the Evergreen Interchange will be needed prior to further development in the area. Once the Evergreen Interchange is constructed, there will be some improvement of the traffic conditions on Sullivan Road and the Sullivan Interchange but the level of service will remain unacceptable. 12 through 18. The Traffic Impact Analysis has been revised to address comments received on the Draft EIS and is included in Appendix B. A Supplemental Air Quality Study was performed for those intersections scoped by SRTC and is included in Appendix A. The new and revised analyses were within the scope of the EIS and were prepared under the direction of Spokane County. Some new impacts and associated mitigating measures were identified, but do not require any changes to the Proposed Action. None of the impacts are unavoidable or adverse and all will be mitigated as discussed within this Final EIS. Therefore a Supplemental Draft EIS is not required. See also response to comments #1 and #2 above. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments Mr. John Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 3 service than is actually attained. A better method of analysis is to evaluate the arterial as a total system. 2 Kaiser's traffic experts have recommended the use of TRANSYT-7F as a substitute for the SYNCHRO method used in the DEIS. TRANSYT -7F is a program that looks at a series or grid system of intersections to determine the combined operation of the arterials. Pines Road and Sullivan Road with all of the intersections should be analyzed as a system. The system -wide performance measured by TRANSYT -7F will provide a more reliable measure of level of service by taking into account the effects of queues backing through adjacent intersections. 3 The spill -back of queues should be considered in determining the performance for the arterial system. The delays that are created by this condition is a significant factor in the areas on either Pines Road or Sullivan Road from Mission Avenue to Indiana Avenue. 7 8 4 The DEIS traffic impact analysis used right- turn-on -red (RTOR) field counts for a fifteen minute period and multiplied by four to get one hour peak traffic. The RTOR 9 data should be based on current full hour or greater time period counts. 5. Kaiser's traffic experts have informed me that the preferred method to treat RTOR is to code the right turn phase as an overlap in the SYNCHRO program. This will ensure consistence and treat RTOR accurately, particularly in cases where the right - turn movements are shared with through movements. In the shared lane condition, if the first vehicle is a through movement, there can be no RTOR movement possible in the cycle. The traffic impact analysis reduced the right -turn volumes to account for the possible RTOR. It is better to code the traffic movements into the program and allow it to handle this operation. This approach is also appropriate for the TRANSYT-7F program. 6. Freeway operation is another essential element in the analysis of traffic operations. The addition of Evergreen Interchange is based on a brief statement that there is adequate capacity when an auxiliary lane is added between the interchanges. This again does not evaluate the performance as a total system considering the effect of ramp operation at both the arterial end and the freeway entrance. The substandard 11 distance between the proposed Evergreen Interchange and the existing Sullivan Interchange should be analyzed using a system program that considers the cumulative effects of all of the freeway operations. Kaiser is concerned that the DEIS is inadequate as written due to the failure of the traffic analysis to consider the secondary and cumulative impacts of the Project, particularly in light of the surrounding arterial and freeway system and the physical constraints resulting from the Project's proximity to major traffic areas. Kaiser's lawyers have advised me that the State Supreme Court 12 has held that the adequacy of an EIS is a question of law and courts will review an EIS to determine whether a project's environmental effects are reasonably disclosed, discussed and substantiated based on an analysis of ultimate probable consequences, including secondary and 10 Mr. John Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 4 cumulative impacts. The DEIS traffic analysis should be supplemented, improved or modified as suggested above to comprehensively disclose, discuss and substantiate the full range of probable effects of the Project on transportation in the area. The scope of the Project should be reevaluated and modified to ensure that all adverse transportation impacts, including secondary and cumulative impacts from the Project, are avoided, reduced and/or mitigated. Unlike the traffic impact analysis, the DEIS does not contain a detailed analysis of the impacts of the Project on air quality in the vicinity of the Project. The issue of air quality impacts is essential, especially given that Spokane is in a non - attainment area for both carbon monoxide (CO) and fine particulate (PM -10), and the potential that the cumulative effects of the Project may compromise the federal air quality attainment status of the Spokane area must be considered. Unfortunately, however, the limited review in the DEIS of air quality impacts of the Project contains unsubstantiated projections that, even with increased traffic over time, improved vehicle fleet design "would tend to indicate that air quality will not be significantly degraded by the additional vehicle trips generated by the proposed project." DEIS pg. 29. In addition, despite earlier statements in the DEIS that the proposed commercial and residential uses and associated traffic impacts of the Project could contribute to a worsening of air quality, the DEIS, again without substantiation or supporting data, appears to conclude that air quality impacts from the Project are not likely to be adverse because of the types of uses proposed and the "campus style" layout of the Project. These conclusions are reached despite the recognition in the DEIS that an intersection in the vicinity of the Project has been identified as "one of the ten worst intersections for air quality in the Spokane area." DEIS pg. 82. The review of air impacts in the DEIS does not include any data or analyses assessing the probable consequences of the Project, in terms of cumulative or secondary impacts or otherwise, on future ambient CO and PM -10 concentrations in the area. The only references in the DEIS to air quality analyses are the computer model prepared in 1995 by SRTC and general historical trends for the entire Spokane region documented by the Department of Ecology. Neither of these analyses considered the impacts of the Project on air quality or the cumulative impacts on air quality of the Project and increased traffic in the vicinity of the Project resulting from recent development in the area, including completion of the first phase of the Spokane Valley Mall. Moreover, the SRTC model referenced in the DEIS shows that the CO concentration in the area in 1995, prior to the recent rapid increase in traffic congestion, was already 8.68 parts per million (ppm), which was only 3.5% below the federal regulatory threshold limit of 9 ppm. The 1995 SRTC model projected "future" CO levels of 8.96 ppm, only 0.4% below the limit. This projection of future levels was not based on conditions in the area as they currently exist or projected future development such as the Project, and future phases of the Spokane Valley Mall project. Due to these deficiencies in the 1995 SRTC model and the lack of any data or analysis assessing current air quality conditions in the area or the probable primary, secondary and cumulative consequences of the Project on both CO and PM -10 levels in the vicinity, the DEIS appears to be inadequate. I have been advised that the Washington Supreme Court has stated that a 13 14 15 Mr. John Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 5 consideration of EIS adequacy refers to the legal sufficiency of the environmental data contained in the impact statement. In this case, the environmental data are insufficient because they do not address or consider the probable consequences of the Project on air quality in the area. Indeed, I have been informed that one approach to analyzing air impacts of the Project, utilizing the 1995 SRTC model and the traffic counts estimated in the DEIS, results in a finding that the CO regulatory threshold limit of 9 ppm will be exceeded at key intersections, even during Phase 1 of the Project, due to increased traffic anticipated from the Project. If the Project is, in fact, likely to cause exceedances in the CO standard, thereby jeopardizing Spokane's federal air quality attainment status, this is a substantial adverse environmental impact that must be addressed through modification of the Project. Because the DEIS does not contain any data or analyses of the probable impacts of the Project on air quality, it is not possible for the County to conduct a fully informed review of the Project and its environmental consequences. Although the DEIS notes that "future air quality analysis will likely be necessary," there is no indication that a future EIS will be prepared to consider the air impacts of the Project. Moreover, I have been informed that Washington courts will allow a "piecemeal" EIS only in limited circumstances, which do not appear to exist in this case. My understanding is that piecemeal review will be permissible if the first phase of the project is independent of the second and if the consequences of the ultimate development cannot be initially assessed. In this case, there are sufficient data regarding the Project and the existing air quality conditions in the area to be able to conduct an assessment at this time of the probable impacts of the Project on air quality. Furthermore, Kaiser's legal advisers have informed me that the State Supreme Court has stated that one of SEPA's purposes is to provide consideration of environmental factors at the earliest possible stage to allow decisions to be based on complete disclosure of environmental consequences. I understand that the Supreme Court has acknowledged the risks associated with postponing environmental review and the possibility that projects can snowball. As a result, the decisionmakers, such as the County in this case, need to be apprised of the environmental consequences before the project picks up momentum, and not afterwards. Kaiser respectfully suggests that a detailed professional evaluation of the Project's probable air quality impacts can and should be conducted and made part of the FEIS. Such an evaluation should include development of a computer modeling study that calculates the peak ambient CO and PM -10 concentrations at each traffic intersection on which the Project may have an impact. Assumptions and inputs for the computer model should be clear and the model should be calibrated by using either actual measured values recorded by air monitors at the worst intersections or conservatively protective assumptions. The different Project phases and various intersections should all be considered and modeled, evaluating potential positive or negative impacts resulting from possible modifications to the Project. Not only should the computer model be incorporated into the FEIS or issued for comment as part of a supplemental EIS in order to disclose, discuss and substantiate the probable consequences of the Project on air quality in the area, but the data gathered from the computer model should be used to reevaluate and modify the 15 16 17 Mr. John Pederson November 18, 1997 Page 6 Project to ensure that all adverse air impacts, including secondary and cumulative impacts from the Project, are avoided, reduced and/or mitigated. As stated in the SEPA regulations, "review, comment and responsiveness to comments on a draft EIS are the focal point of the act's commenting process because the DEIS ... serves as the basis for the final statement." WAC 197 -11 -500. Because of the insufficient data and unsubstantiated discussions in the DEIS relating to the Project's probable impacts on transportation and air quality, Kaiser respectfully suggests that the DEIS should be revised to include the improved transportation and air evaluations recommended above and to modify the Project as appropriate to address the adverse traffic and air impacts that may be disclosed through such improved evaluations. In the alternative, Kaiser respectfully requests that a supplemental EIS be prepared and issued to address the new information that may be discovered through the recommended evaluations. Kaiser appreciates your consideration of these comments. If you would like further information or to receive citations pertaining to the legal analysis that I have referenced above, Kaiser will be pleased to arrange for Kaiser's attorneys to contact you or your legal advisers. Please do not hesitate to contact Carl Foltz at 927 -6364 or Susan Ashe at 468 -5868 if you have any questions or comments. Sinc rely, ,) xf John H. Walker Vice President & General Manager Flat- Rolled Products cc: Kate McCaslin, Spokane County Commissioner John Roskelley, Spokane County Commissioner Phil Harris, Spokane County Commissioner Dennis Scott, Spokane County Public Works Director Carl Foltz, Kaiser Trentwood Susan Ashe, Kaiser NW Public Affairs 18 Response to Letter No. 12 Preston, Gates & Ellis LLP - Jerry Neal 1. Please see response to Letter No. 11, comment #1. 2. The project is described by phases in the Draft EIS on pages 30 through 32 and in Tables 7, 8, and 9 of Appendix B, Traffic Impact Analysis. These tables show proposed land uses for each phase. A Conceptual Master Plan is included in the Draft EIS and on page 22 of this Final EIS. 3. The Revised Traffic Impact Analysis included in Appendix B discusses the future levels of service for the Pines, Evergreen, and Sullivan Interchanges. Comparisons are made between phases for the "without project" scenarios and the "with project" scenarios. Transportation improvements are recommended to maintain adequate levels of service for the Pines and Evergreen corridors. All the intersections which have been scoped by WSDOT and Spokane County for inclusion in the analysis have been evaluated. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments P R E S T O N G A T E S & E L L I S L L P ATTORNEYS November 13, 1997 Spokane County Division of Building and Planning 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Attention: John Pederson, Senior Planner Dear Mr. Pederson: LETTER NO. 12 - - . t — .-.._ • • NOV 1 1997 The attached comments are submitted by Hanson Industries, Inc. pursuant to WAC 197- 11 et seq., in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Mirabeau Point Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification. Transportation Anal<:sis The adequacy cf an environmental impact statement is tested under the rule of reason. For an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be adequate under the "rule of reason ", the EIS must present decision makers with a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences of the action. Klickitat County Citizens Against Imported Waste vs. Klickitat County, 122 Wn.2d 619, 860 P.2d 390 (1993). The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the level of detail in an EIS be commensurate with the importance of the environmental impacts and plausibility of alternatives. Id. An EIS must analyze a proposal in light of its significant adverse impacts and discuss alternatives to the proposal, any mitigation measures and the unavoidable impacts. Adams vs. Thurston County, 70 Wn. App. 471, 855 P.2d 284 (1993). The DEIS fails to reasonably disclose the probable impacts of the project on traffic patterns in the Spokane Valley in general, and on the Pines, Sullivan and Evergreen Interchanges in particular. Initially, the DEIS does not fully describe the project. WAC 197 -11 -440 (5) requires that the proposal be identified. The DEIS fact sheet describes the Mirabeau Point project as consisting of 236.2 acres. The proposed zoning for the project authorizes a wide variety of uses. The project proposes 79.4 acres of I -2, 45.3 acres of R -10, 17 acres of B -2 and 94.5 acres of B -3. While the proposal identifies three particular zoning actions, the DEIS analyzes only a limited number of uses among several uses permitted by the applicable zoning designations. The project as identified is not limited to any specific use, therefore, any use authorized by the zone would be allowed. Accordingly, the DEIS does not meet the "rule of reason" requiring an DEIS to present a reasonably thorough discussion of the environmental impacts of the proposal. 1 2 Second, the DEIS does not reasonably discuss mitigating measures that would significantly mitigate the projects traffic impacts. See WAC 197 -11 -440 (6). The DEIS fails to 3 A LI\IITt-D LINBILITI P\RT\ERSIIIP INCLUDING OTHER LI\IITED LI.IBILITI ENTITIES J: U R Na13. j 403-00 001 \5801206.000 A \('HOk \GI: • lul l R D Al.kNE • H1,\n Ku '.. • I.u. AN, ,1-11 • Pukrl .,D • Si \TTI I • Srul, ‘..1 • V . s,ii' ;in' . D C 601 WEST RI\ERSIDE AVENUE SUITF_ 1400 SPOKyNii. W.\SIIINGTo 99201•0636 509.62 -1•2I00 Fx: 509.456.0146 m.ww.presion`ate,.corn Response to Letter No. 12 (continued) 4. The Mirabeau Point participation towards funding construction of the Evergreen Interchange is substantial. Spokane County has letters of commitment from private parties to help fund the Evergreen Interchange which amount to several million dollars for each of the participants. Participants include the Spokane Valley Mall, Hanson Industries, Inland Empire Paper Company, and Lawson /Gunning Investments. 5. The Revised TIA provides additional trip generation data. A trip generation study was performed for the ice skating rink. Land Use 495 was used for the YMCA trip generation. Letters regarding the use of proposed facilities are included in the Revised TIA. The estimate of 3% background growth was agreed to by both Spokane County and WSDOT. This background growth rate does not include the background trips which have been included in the "without project" scenarios. If the background trips are included in the growth rate, the projected rate of growth for some movements is up to 10% per year. 6. The trip distribution information obtained from previous traffic studies was used to prepare anticipated additional turning movement volumes generated from projects which have been approved, but which have not completed, constructed, or occupied. 7. Please refer to Letter No. 5, response #1. 8. Comment noted. 9. Comment noted. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments reasonably evaluate any mitigation of the traffic impacts to the Evergreen Interchange and other major transportation routes near the project. While the DEIS at page S -13 discusses the construction of the Evergreen Interchange, the DEIS does not discuss the specific impacts the project will have on that Interchange. The DEIS also fails to discuss the project impacts on the north, south, east and west routes connecting to the Interchange. While he DEIS at page S -14 acknowledges that the Mirabeau Point project should be responsible for contributing an appropriate fair share toward funding the construction of the Evergreen Interchange, it does not provide the necessary information to evaluate the level of participation and the projects obligation to mitigate its impacts to the Evergreen Interchange and to the associated collector road systems. Other Deficient Transportation Analyses The DEIS provides trip generation data but the data potentially underestimates the total trips generated upon final build -out of the project. The technical documentation asserts that trip rates from ITE's TRIP GENERA77ON were used, but there is no documentation as to which land uses (i.e., ITE's numerical land uses) were used. The estimates of background traffic begin with the assumption of 3% per year growth rate whereas Spokane County has indicated they normally experience a 4 +% annual growth rate on arterials. The technical documentation provides summaries of the studies used in developing the estimates of background traffic from approved projects, but it does not clearly document how they were used to develop the estimates. In Figure 15 and on page 109, the DEIS recommends the elimination of that portion of Evergreen Road between Indiana and just north of the Spokane River. Such a recommendation would eliminate what could be a key element in diverting traffic from both Pines and Sullivan for both the proposed project and the projects south. Habitat Evaluation and Management Analysis The Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan dated September 15, 1997 is attached as Appendix C. While the purpose of the Plan was to provide guidelines and directions for the management of the project's properties, it should be understood that the Plan's recommendations should be limited to the Mirabeau Point property. The Plan reflects the environmental and economic decisions made by the Mirabeau Point proponents. The recommendations contained in the Plan should not set a precedent for other properties along the river that have different development guidelines and goals. While the project proponents can be applauded for their willingness to set aside land for habitat preservation, the Plan does not provide data to conclude that a smaller habitat area also can reasonably protect the areas plants and animals. 3 4 5 6 7 8 While the Plan notes that two of three protected avian species were observed from the Mirabeau Point property, it notes, at page 7, that "None of the three species of special focus were 9 J URM37403 -00 001\5601206 DOC Response to Letter No. 12 (continued) 10. Comment noted. 11. Comment noted. 12. The area set aside as open space will be an urban natural area. 13. Comment noted. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments observed on the project site, and only two were actually observed using the adjacent riparian edge associated with the Spokane River; Osprey and Great Blue Heron ". The Plan also notes, at page 13, that "There is no evidence of Heron rookery lying within or adjacent to the Mirabeau Point project area." The Plan also notes, at page 12, that only one Osprey nest was sited in Section 10, on the eastern shore of the Spokane River, and, notes at page 10 14, that no bald eagles were observed during the site visit and no evidence of nesting activities were observed. The PIan also notes the presence of other mammals, vegetation, trees and plants, all of which are generally common to the Spokane Valley. None of these plants and animals were identified as being threatened or unique. 11 It should also be noted that the Mirabeau Point property is in the Urban category of the County's Interim Urban Growth Area Boundary. An Urban area is defined by RCW 3 6.70A. 03 0(14) as "Urban growth" refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, 12 or the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically requires urban governmental services. "Characterized by urban growth" refers to land having urban growth located on it, or to land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth." Therefore, in order to accommodate the urban growth designation it must be recognized that more intensive land uses may be made of nearby or adjacent properties. The Plans policies and goals should be limited to the Mirabeau Point property. JRN : sg J VRN\374C300 00115601206 DOC Very truly yours, PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP 13 Response to Letter No. 13 Hanson Industries, Inc. - Raymond A. Hanson 1. Mirabeau Parkway will be constructed with both private and public funding. The County received Transportation Improvement Account (TIA) funding and developer contribution for design and improvement of Mirabeau Parkway and the signalized railroad crossing. The total site area proposed for rezone includes 111.5 acres (47% of the site). 2. The Mirabeau Point project will be a key contributor toward substantial road improvements in the area including the Evergreen Interchange, Mirabeau Parkway, and other area road improvements. Please refer to the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis in Appendix B. 3. Vehicular traffic volumes within the site vicinity are included as background trips for analysis per the scope of this EIS. It should be noted that Spokane County is not funding the construction of Mirabeau Parkway but is responsible for administering the design and construction of the roadway. Mirabeau Parkway is funded with both private and public funding as noted in response #1 above. 4. It should be emphasized that construction of the Evergreen Interchange is needed before there is further development in the area. The 1985 Supplemental EIS for Sullivan Park Center outlines traffic mitigation needed for Phase 2 and 3 of that project. Spokane County has applied for and received funds from the Transportation Improvement Account for the Evergreen Interchange. 5. Comment noted. The source of the traffic study referenced is not disclosed. The referenced study is not included as part of this EIS. 6. Comment noted. 7. Comment noted. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments HANSON INDUSTRIES, INC. Nese 15102 Ea.:; Inaiar; Avrn.ao. °oQ•1+ =. WA »: (soe) 622.5252 • c6x i5O :) 022.5751 nttp :l recere.flllr5cnin4.com October 30, 1997 Spokane County Division of Building and Planning 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 RE: MIRABEAU POINT LETTER NO. 13 RECEIVED SPOKANE COUNTY NOV 19 199? DIVISION 8UILDING AND PANNING Dear Mr, John Pederson: First, I strongly support the Mirabeau project and the development around it. However, what lumps out of it to me is that they are asking to re -zone the better part of 236 acres and the County is building 1,300 feet of five lane and 1,300 feet of three lane north from our Indiana Avenue to Euclid. Twelve years ago, when we proposed Sullivan Park Center, our mixed use development on 226 acres, we were required to build two miles of five lanes with five traffic lights and do a lot 2 the work at the Sullivan and Pines connections, complete with sidewalks, curbs, landscaping, land, sprinkler systems, island signs, striping and lighting. The total cost of this, not including , exceeds five million dollars. Additionally; in the twelve years since our plans were approved, the County permitted the building of more than a million square feet of new construction in a five mile radius from our property, all of which has affected the traffic on Pines and Sullivan. In the past, Vv-DOT has referred to the Evergreen Interchange as being developer driven 4 therefore was not needed and would not help traffic at Sullivan and Pines. More recently has come forward and agrees that it will help traffic on Sullivan and Pines. One traffic study states that with the Mission to Sprague connection that to access reenreeway. 5 interchange would become the preferred route for traffic from the south f Realizing the sales tax, property tax and gas tax generated by the complete build -out of the 1.1 million square foot shopping in center and a like amount by Hanson Industries, Inc. the interchange 6 is a bargain. Add to that the million or two square feet of retail space the County has allowed to be built and 7 which must have some financial obligation to mitigate traffic, I could easily conclude I have paid ET AOH Response to Letter No. 13 (continued) 8. Comment noted. Mirabeau Point Final EIS June 1998 Response to Comments my share already with constructing Indiana and it's connections. In summation I think the County should put up the money to build the Interchange and we will , agree to furnish bond for 4.8 million. In a year or so after the Evergreen P Interchange the israffic and operational, the County should do a complete traffic analysis which would inc the value of Indiana and we would pay our fair share. Sincerely a. Raymond A. Hanson E • l.l,E :'T .r., t:-.T A PPENDICES Appendix A: Supplemental Air Quality Study Appendix B: Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Appendix C: Technical Appendix to the TIA Appendix D: Archeological Site Verification Study of (45SP234) "A Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Mirabeau Parkway" Appendix A Supplemental Air Quality Study Supplemental Air Quality Study for the Mirabeau Point Master Plan Project Prepared for Inland Pacific Engineering Spokane, WA. Prepared by Environalysis Seattle, WA Revised May 1998 Revised June 1998 Air Quality INTRODUCTION This study is an analysis of the impacts upon air quality resulting from the Mirabeau Point Master Planned project located in the Spokane Vallee. This report is submitted as a supplement to the Air Quality chapter contained in the Mirabeau Point draft Environmental Impact Statement. Regulatory Issues The US. Environmental Protection Agency established National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) for a limited number of pollutants with the enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the Amendments of 1975 and 1977. These six compounds are termed "priority pollutants" and two categories of standards for them. "primary standards" to protect human health and "secondary" standards to protect human welfare and the environment. These standards, known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or NAAQS, are defined in terms of maximum allowable concentrations. Figure 1 summarizes the NAAQS. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act established what are known as the "Conformity Requirements" in which the guidelines for reviewing the air quality impacts of transportation projects were established. These requirements apply to significant transportation projects (defined as those being part of the regional transportation network) which are located within, or affect, the non - attainment areas or areas in attainment but subject to maintenance plan requirements. The Mirabeau Point project is a project affecting a significant arterial and is located within the CO and PM 1 0 non - attainment areas. Consequently. conformity analysis is required. Conformity is demonstrated when three conditions are met: • The project does not increase the severity or frequency of existing exceedences of the CO standards • The project does not cause new exceedances of the CO standards • The project does not delay the attainment of the CO standards Areas of the state exceeding the NAAQS for a given pollutant are classified as non - attainment. The urbanized portions of Spokane County (including the project site) are currently classified as being in non - attainment for carbon monoxide and particulate matter (PM 10) but are in attainment for ozone. The status of the project site in terms of the new PM2 5 and 8 -hour ozone standards is unknown at this time. The pollutants of interest for a project whose air quality impacts are primarily generated by motor vehicle transportation will include carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide. and lead from engine emissions, ozone and the particulate matter which is entrained into the air from roadway surfaces, from wood burning and from construction activities. 1 Figure 1. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS POLLLTA -NT NATIONAL PRL\LARY NATIONAL SECONDARY WASHINGTON STATE PUGET SOUND REGION CARBON MONOXIDE 8 Hour Average 1 Hour Average 9 ppm 35 ppm - 9 ppm 35 ppm 9 ppm 35 ppm Particulate Matter (P:1110) Annual Arithmetic Average 24 Hour Average (a) 50 ug/m3 150 ugm3 50 ugim3 150 ug•m3 50 ug m3 150 ug m3 50 ug m3 150 ug m3 Particulate Matter (PML2.5) Annual Arithmetric Average 24 Hour Average 15 ug'm3 50 ugim3 -- 15 ugrm3 50 ugim3 15 ug m3 50 ug. m3 OZONE 1 - Hour Average (b) 8 - Hour Average (c) 0.12 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.08 ppm SULFUR DIOXIDE Annual Average 30 Day Average 24 Hour Average 3 Hour Average 1 Hour Average (d) 1 Hour Average 5 Minute Average (e) 0.03 ppm -- 0.14 ppm --- -- - - -- --- -- - - -- 0.50 ppm 0.02 ppm -- 0.10 ppm ----- 0.25 ppm 0.40 ppm - -- 0.02 ppm 0.04 ppm 0.10 ppm (c) 0.25 ppm (c) 0.40 ppm (c) 1.00 ppm LEAD Calendar Quarter Average 1.5 ug,m3 1.5 ug m3 -- - -- 1.5 ue m; NITROGEN DIOXIDE Annual Average 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm Notes: ppm = parts per million ug m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Annual standards never to be exceeded. short - term standards not to be exceeded more than once a year unless noted. (a) Standard attained when expected number of days with a 24 hour concentration above 150 ug/m3 is one or less. (b) Standard attained when expected number of days with an hourly average above 0.12 ppm is equal to one or Tess. (c) This will replace the 1 -hour ozone standard when EPA approves a state or local agency's ozone SIP. (d) Not to be exceeded twice in 7 days. (e) Not to be exceeded more than once in 8 hours. Existing Air Quality Please refer to the Mirabeau Point Environmental Impact Statement for a discussion of existing air quality in the project vicinity. Methodology The methodology in this study uses computer programs developed by EPA to model CO concentrations. One model. MOBILE 5a, is used to develop the composite emission rates of a typical mix of vehicle types (passenger cars, trucks and motorcycles). The program's default vehicle mix was considered typical of the region and was utilized. The output from MOBILE 5a forms part of the input into another EPA model. CAL3QHC, which calculates pollutant concentrations at specific prediction sites or receptors. Traffic volume data and information regarding roadway configuration, signal timing and traffic congestion were provided by the traffic consultant. Wind direction was varied in 10° increments to find the direction giving the highest concentration at each receptor. The CAL3QHC model output represents the "worst case" concentrations during a one hour period. In this region it is the 8 -hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard which is more likely to be exceeded -- consequently EPA provides guidance that the worse case concentration over an 8 -hour period will be 70% of one -hour levels. The Mission + Pines Rd. and Eastbound Ramps + Pines Rd intersections are within 500 feet of each other. This is sufficiently close for the carbon monoxide emissions from one to be detectable at the other. Consequently these intersections Nvere included in the same model. The westbound ramps + Pines Road intersection is currently approximately 760- north of the Eastbound ramps and the Indiana + Pines Rd. intersection is 900- north of the Eastbound ramps. The westbound ramps + Pines Road intersection and the Indiana + Pines Rd. intersection are also included in this model. The Trent Rd. + Pines Rd. intersection is over a mile away and was modeled separately. The following assumptions were used in the modeling of both current (1996) and future year (2006) scenarios and are based upon the Spokane Regional Transportation Council and Dept. of Ecology's current modeling practices: Proportion of vehicles subject to the Emissions testing program Wind speed Atmospheric Ceiling Height Stability class Ambient temperature during high CO events Location of receptors Persistence factor Assumed Background CO Level 77.5% 1.0 meter /sec ( 2.2 mph) 1000 meters "E" most stable daytime class 34.5 °F 10 feet from edge of roadways, 10'( "corner "). 75'( "mid- queue ") and 150' ( "mid- block ") back from cross streets. 0.7 3.0 PPM during PM peak hour The results of modeling the existing conditions are presented in Table 1. The four receptors Nvith the highest concentration are listed for each intersection. Exceedences of the CO standard are shown in bold type. Table 1. Existing (1996) Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in PPM 8 -Hour Intersection & Receptor: Average Pines Rd. + Trent Ave. 10. NW corner 19. North of NE mid -queue 7. NE corner 1. SE corner Pines Rd. + Mission Ave. 4. SE mid -queue 7. NE corner 3. SE mid -block 12. NW mid -block Pines Road + Eastbound Ramps 21. SE corner 22. SE mid -queue 23. SE mid -block 24. NE corner Westbound Ramps -Pines Rd + Indiana 17. West of NW midblock • 16. West of NW midqueue 13. South of SE midblock 1. SE corner 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.2 12.4 10.9 10.8 10.7 9.3 9.3 8.8 8.8 12.8 11.4 10.4 9.7 National Ambient Air Quality Standards: 9.0 Environmental Impacts INTRODUCTION A project's impacts upon air quality fall into two categories: the long -term impacts of the project's operation during its lifetime and the short-term impacts during the construction phase. Long -term impacts of a project of this type are the result of increased automobile traffic and the use of fireplaces or woodstoves. This report will focus primarily upon the impacts of project - generated vehicle traffic. Table 2 illustrates the pollutants associated with a generic variety of development activities. Activity: Traffic Heat /power Electricity from: Coal Hydro Natural as Propane Wood Construction Activities Earth - moving Burning debris Table 2: Air Quality Impact Matrix Emissions: CO, PAH. 03. PM10- CO2 CO, 03, CO2 PM10 no air emissions CO, SO.,. CO, NOx CO. SO`, CO,;',NOx PM 10, P2OM, CO. CO2 PM2 PM10. CO PM10. POM. CO. CO2. PM2 5 Affected Area: traveled roadways Centralia region no affected airshed local vicinity local vicinity local vicinity local vicinity local vicinity note: PAH = polvcyclical aromatic hydrocarbons, HAP = hazardous air pollutants, VOC = volatile organic compounds, POM = polvcyclical organic matter For a discussion of the land uses and activities proposed in the Mirabeau Point Master Plan and the types of pollutants expected to be emitted, please refer to the Environmental Impact Statement. IMPACTS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES The Preferred Alternate and the future year No Action were assessed for air quality impacts at the year of project buildout. 2006. The Preferred Alternate assumes development of a mixture of residential, mixed use retail space. commercial and light industrial uses. Table 3 summarizes the results of the modeling analysis. Exceedences of the CO standard are shown in bold type. A complete tabulation of the modeling results for all receptors is included in the Appendix. 4 Table 3. 8 -Hr. Average CO Concentrations in the Year 2006 2006 2006 Intersection & Receptor: No Build Preferred Alternate Pines Rd. + Trent Ave. 10. NW corner 19. North of NE mid -queue 7. NE corner 1. SE corner Pines Rd. + Mission Ave. 1. SE corner 4. SE mid -queue 7. NE corner 3. SE mid -block 12. NW mid -block Pines Road. + Eastbound Ramps 21. SE corner 22. SE mid -queue 23. SE mid -block 24. NE corner Westbound Ramps -Pines Rd + Indiana 37. SE midque 40. NE midblock 52. NE corner 50. SW corner National Ambient Air Quality Standards: 7.4 7.7 8.9 7.2 8.9 9.7 8.4 8.6 8.6 7.6 7.4 7.6 7.1 9.9 10.5 9.6 8.3 6.9 6.7 7.6 6.8 8.8 9.5 8.4 8.4 8.1 7.5 6.9 6.5 67 8.7 4.9 3.9 3.9 9.0 9.0 Note: The difference in concentrations is not necessarily due to mitigating effects of the project. Receptor locations are not identical in the No Build and Preferred Alternate model runs- although receptors 1 -36 are in the same general areas in each model. Changes Between 1996 Existing Conditions and 2006 No Action A comparison of Tables 1 and 3 shows that on average, there is a noticeable decrease in the 1996 Existing Conditions and the 2006 No Action concentrations of carbon monoxide. This improvement occurs even though there is a substantial increase in PM peak vehicle volumes over this same period and is due both to s the mitigating effects of federal, state and regional regulations, improvements in vehicle technology and due to planned improvements in highway capacity along Pines Road. Changes Between the Preferred Alternative and 2006 No Action In the Preferred Alternate the CO concentrations decrease compared to the 2006 No Action levels. One of the receptors ( #4 on the SE side of Pines Rd. 150' south of Mission) exceeds the 8 -hour standard of 9.0 PPM in both scenarios. However the concentration after project buildout is less than before the project (due to the optimized signal tinning developed for the project) and thus no additional mitigation will be required. Mitigating Measures MITIGATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS Preferred Alternative There are three basic approaches to the mitigation of vehicular pollution all of which are applicable to this project. The first method is highway engineering. which increases the carrying capacity of the road system. One effective method of increasing the effective carrying capacity is to optimize the timing of an intersection's signals to allow a less impeded traffic flow. The second method is efficiency engineering, which increases the ratio of people to vehicles and thus reduces the number of vehicles using the existing road system. The third approach. responsible for significant declines in emission rates, consists of improvements to individual vehicles. All of these methods have the potential to reduce pollutant concentrations. The Mirabeau project incorporates a number of capacity increases and signal optimization measures in its transportation system design. As shown in Table 3 this project will not worsen existing CO exceedences nor does this project create any new violations of the NAAQS for CO. Consequently. this project is found to conform with the purpose of the current SIP and the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and the Washington Clean Air Act. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The Mirabeau project will cause no new exceedences of the carbon monoxide standard or worsen existing exceedences. Thus the project will have no unavoidable significant air quality impacts due to traffic. 6 Appendix CAL3QHC Input Files CAL3QHC Output Files Summary of Modeling Results Summary of Modifications to Signal Timing Mirabeau Point A.Q. Modeling Revised 6 -3-98 Receptor 1 -Hour Averages Mission +Pines EB & WB Ramps +Pines Indiana + Pines 1996 2006 No Project 2006 with Revised Trips and Timing 1 14.5 12.7 12.6 2 14.4 12.2 11.9 3 15.4 12.3 12.0 4 17.5 13.8 13.6 5 11.5 10.5 10.0 6 10.5 9.5 9.1 7 15.5 12.0 12.0 8 10.2 9.9 9.6 9 10.7 10.1 9.6 10 14.2 13.0 11.6 11 13.8 12.4 11.6 12 15.3 12.3 11.5 13 12.2 11.2 10.9 14 9.1 10.9 9.8 15 12.8 10.3 10.0 16 8.8 10.8 10.1 17 9.2 8.6 7.9 18 7.2 7.7 7.2 19 13.3 10.6 10.5 20 9.0 11.3 11.0 21 13.3 10.9 10.7 22 13.3 10.6 9.9 23 12.5 10.9 9.3 24 12.6 10.2 9.6 25 11.4 9.7 9.1 26 10.8 9.5 8.9 27 8.4 7.5 7.5 28 7.1 6.2 6.1 29 10.8 8 8 30 11.7 8.6 31 10.6 9.1 32 10.7 9.1 33 10.5 9.4 34 11.5 6.6 35 11.5 5.6 36 10.6 8.6 37 14.2 12.4 38 10.8 7.5 39 11.8 7.3 40 15.0 7.0 41 8.7 10.0 42 7.9 89 43 7.2 7.9 44 6.1 7.2 45 7.2 6.2 46 6.3 7.2 47 9.1 6.2 48 8.1 61 49 11.3 8.2 50 11.8 5.6 51 10.6 8.0 52 13.7 5.5 53 10.8 5.1 54 10.1 4.7 55 7.8 4.6 56 6.6 58 57 6 .1 Pines+ Trent with Phase 2 1996 2006 No Project Improvements 10.3 10.2 10.1 8.9 8.8 8.7 12.7 9.0 7.5 10.5 8.8 7.2 7.2 7.0 8.3 8.7 8.0 7.2 11.0 9.8 9.7 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.1 10.8 7.5 6.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 6.7 6.5 8.0 8.2 7.3 6.7 9.6 8.1 Mirabeau Point A.Q. Modeling Revised 6 -3-98 8 -Hour averages Pine + Mission & EB Ramps + WB Ramps + Indiana Pines + Trent 2006 Revised Trips With Phase 2 Receptor 1996 2006 No Project Revised Timing 1996 2006 No Project Improvements 1 10.2 8.9 8.8 7.2 7.2 6 8 2 10.1 8.5 8.3 6.0 7.1 5.6 3 10.8 8.6 8 4 4.5 7,1 5.7 4 12.3 9.7 9.5 6.0 6.2 5.7 5 8.1 7.4 7.0 5.6 6.2 5.8 6 7.4 6.7 6.4 5.0 6.1 5.7 7 10.9 8.4 8.4 7.3 8.9 7.6 8 7.1 6.9 6.7 4.8 6.3 5 3 9 7.5 7.1 6.7 4.1 5.3 4.6 10 9.9 9.1 8.1 7.7 7.4 6.9 11 9.7 8.7 8.1 4.6 6.2 6.9 12 10.7 8.6 8.1 4.0 5.0 7 1 13 8.5 7.8 7.6 4.9 5.0 4 7 14 6.4 7.6 6.9 4.7 4.9 4.6 15 9.0 7.2 7.0 6.7 5.8 5.6 16 6.2 7.6 7.1 6.8 6.1 5.7 17 6.4 6.0 5.5 5.0 5.6 5.1 18 5.0 5 4 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.7 19 9.3 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.7 6.7 20 6.3 7.9 7.7 21 9.3 7.6 7.5 22 9.3 7.4 6.9 23 8.8 7.6 6.5 24 8.8 7.1 6.7 25 8.0 6.8 6.4 26 7.6 6.7 6.2 27 5.9 5.3 5.3 28 5.0 4.3 4.3 29 0.0 7.6 6.2 30 0.0 8.2 6.0 31 0.0 7.4 6.4 32 0.0 7.5 6.4 33 0.0 7.4 6.6 34 0.0 8.1 4.6 35 0_0 8.1 3.9 36 0.0 7.4 6.0 37 0.0 9.9 87 38 0.0 7.6 5.3 39 0.0 8.3 5 1 40 0.0 10.5 4.9 41 0.0 6 1 7.0 42 0.0 5.5 6.2 43 0.0 5.0 5.5 44 0.0 4.3 50 45 00 5.0 4.3 46 0.0 4.4 5.0 47 0.0 6.4 4.3 48 0.0 5.7 4.3 49 0.0 7.9 5.7 50 0.0 8.3 3.9 51 0.0 7.4 5.6 52 0.0 9.6 3.9 53 0.0 7.6 36 54 0.0 7.1 3.3 55 0.0 5.5 32 56 0.0 46 4.1 57 0.0 na 4.3 Average No. Receptors > 9.0 8.36 7.13 6.10 11 5 1 Mirabeau Pt. Signal Timing 8 V/C Ratios Scenario Year 2006 No Project Comparison of V/C Ratios If Movement(s) is (are) Lane # Lane # V/C Synchro Model CAL3QHC Permitted does it (each) per Synchro Reset to 1 Notes Modified with Link Secs. Red Secs. Red Have its (their) own lane? Synchro CAL3QHC Timing New Timing Movement Type v/c v/c 2 Pines NB 0 Lft. 90 90 0.31 1 0.34 3 Pines NB Q Thru -Rt 53 Shared- Pm +Ov 53 No 0.9 2 0.85 6 Pines SB Q. Left 82 82 0.84 2 0.84 7 Pines SB thru -Rt 45 Shared- Pm +Ov 45 No 0.98 2 0.91 10 Mission WB Lft. 88 88 1.25 1 1.27 11 Mission WB Thru 77 77 0.82 1 0.78 12 Mission WB Q. Rt. na Pm +Ov 77 Yes 0.95 1 1.58 Note 1 65 0 97 15 Mission EB Lft. 88 88 1.4 1 1.52 16 Mission EB thru -Rt 77 Shared- Pm +Ov 77 No 0.87 1 0.88 19 Pines NB Thru -Rt. 41 Shared - Permitted 41 No 1.12 2 1.06 22 Pines SB O. Lft. 88 88 1.32 1 1.46 23 Pines SB Thru -Rt 29 Pm + Ov 29 No 0 61 2 0.58 26 EB Ramps Q. Rt. 71 Permitted 71 Yes 1.06 2 1.07 27 EB Ramps Q. O. 71 71 1.06 1 0.91 30 Pines NB Q. Lft. 74 74 0.78 2 0.73 31 Pines NB Thru 21 21 0.39 3 0.34 34 Pines SB Thru Rt 47 Shared - Permitted 47 No 0.97 2 0 87 37 WB Ramps WB Thru -Lft 79 79 0.88 1 0.87 40 Pines NB Thru 50 50 0.82 2 0.71 41 Pines NB O Lft. 81 81 0.65 1 0.65 42 Pines NB Q Rt. 50 free 50 0.09 1 0.16 45 Pines SB 0 Lft. 88 88 0.72 1 0.77 46 Pines SB thru -Rt. 57 Shared - Permitted 57 No 0 7 2 0.64 49 Indiana EB Thru. Rt. 62 Pm +Ov 62 No 0.9 1 0.83 50 Indiana EB Q. Lft. 62 Permitted 62 Yes 0.23 1 0.11 Note 2 80 0 24 53 Indiana WB Q. Thru 62 62 0.31 1 0.1 54 Indiana WB Q. Lft. 92 Permitted 92 Yes 3.37 1 3.36 56 Indiana WB Q. Rt. 62 Pm +Ov 62 Yes 0.31 1 0.56 Note 1 40 0.34 Trent + Pines Model 2 Pines NB Q Lft 63 63 1.17 1.16 3 Pines NB Thru -Rt 63 Pm + Ov 63 1.55 1.53 6 Pines SB Thru -Rt 80 Pm + Ov 80 0.69 0.77 9 Trent WB O. Lft 65 65 1.02 1.02 10 Trent WB thru -Rt 56 PM + Ov 56 0.58 0.54 13 Trent EB Thru -Rt 62 Pm + Ov 62 1.77 1 59 14 Trent EB 0 Lft 71 71 0.02 0 02 Notes Note 1- CAL3QHC should be given Tess red time Note 2- CAL3QHC should be given more red time Pm + Ov" means "permitted plus overlap with another turning movement" Mlrabeau Pt. Signal Timing & VIC Ratios Scenario Year 2006 With Project Comparison of VIC Ratios If Movement(s) Is (are) Lane # Lane N VIC Synchro Model CAL3QHC Permitted does it (each) per Synchro Reset to 1 Notes Modified with Link Secs. Red Secs. Red Have Its (their) own lane? Synchro CAL3QHC Timing New Timing Movement Type vlc vlc 2 Pines NB O. Lft. na Permitted 92 Yes 0.51 1 0.51 3 Pines NB O. Thru -Rt 52 Shared- Pm +Ov 52 No 0.95 2 0 89 6 Pines SB Q. Left 82 82 0.84 2 0 84 7 Pines SB Ihru -RI 34 Shared- Pm +Ov 34 No 0.88 2 0.82 10 Mission WB Lft. 90 P &P 90 Yes 0.95 1 1.69 Note 1 85 0.92 11 Mission W8 Thru 76 76 0.78 1 0.74 12 Mission WB Q Rt. na Pm +Ov 57 Yes 0 93 1 0.77 Note 2 65 0.97 15 Mission EB Lft. 90 P&P 90 Yes 1.07 1 2 02 Note 1 85 1.1 16 Mission EB thru-Rt. 76 Shared- Pm +Ov 76 No 0.83 1 0.83 19 Pines NB Thru 41 hared- Permitted 41 No 0.99 2 0.94 20 Pines NB RI. na Permitted 41 Yes 0.36 1 0.36 23 Pines SB Q. Lft 87 87 No 1.19 2 1.3 24 Pines SB Thru -RI 28 Pm + Ov 28 Yes 0 67 2 0.63 ok 27 EB Ramps Q. RI. na Permitted 65 Yes 0.89 2 1.11 Nole 1 65 0 86 28 EB Ramps Q. Lft. 72 72 0.89 2 0.55 31 Pines NB Q. Lft. 75 75 0.81 2 0.77 32 Pines NB Thru 0 3 0.34 3 0.3 35 Pines SB Thru RI. 25 hared - Permitted 25 No 0 88 2 0.79 39 Pines NB Thru 55 55 0.89 1 0 82 40 Pines NB Q. Lft 82 82 0 69 2 0.7 41 Pines NB Q. Rt. 81 free 5 0 17 1 0.18 44 Pines SB Q. Lft 88 88 0.72 1 0.77 45 Pines SB Ihru -Rt. 61 Pm +Ov 61 No 0.8 2 0 73 48 Indiana EB Thru. 87 87 0 89 1 0.13 49 Indiana EB Q. Lft. 87 87 0.4 1 0.42 50 Indiana EB R1. na Pm + Ov 65 Yes 0.9 1 3.02 Note 1 65 0.88 53 Indiana WB 0 Thru 70 70 0 87 1 0.13 54 Indiana WB Q. Lft. 70 70 0.86 1 1.49 56 Indiana WB Q. Rt. na Pm +Ov 64 Yes 0 56 1 0.13 Nole 1 64 0.59 58 Indiana NB Rt. 70 Permitted 70 Yes 0 17 2 0.13 ok 59 Indiana NB Q. Lft. 25 70 0.86 1 0.65 61 Indiana WB Thru 25 25 0.34 2 0.3 64 Indiana EB Q. Thru 25 Pm +Ov 25 0.12 2 0.11 Trent + Pines Model 2 Pines NB 0 Lft 67 67 3 Pines NB Thru 67' Pm + Ov 67 4 Pines NB Q. Rt. 45 45 7 Pines SB Thru-RI-Lft 82 Pm + Ov 82 10 Trent WB 0 Lft 63 63 11 Trent WB thru -RI 41 PM + Ov 41 14 Trent EB Thru 58 Pm + Ov 58 15 Trent EB Q. Lft 80 80 16 Trent EB Q. Rt 10 0 Notes Note 1- CAL3QHC should be given Tess red time Note 2- CAL3QHC should be given more red time Prn + Ov' means "permitted plus overlap with another turning movement' Pm +Ov free 0 91 0.89 0.91 0.88 0.89 0.9 0.97 1.15 1 01 1.01 0.39 0.36 098 092 004 004 0.4 0.45 'Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98' 60. 175. 0. 0. 56 .3048 1 1 1 'REC 1 SE Corner ' 46.0 -28.0 6.0 'REC 2 SE midqueue ' 46.0 -93.0 6.0 'REC 3 SE midblock ' 46.0 -168.0 6.0 'REC 4 SW Corner -46.0 -28.0 6.0 'REC 5 SW midqueue ' -46.0 -93.0 6.0 'REC 6 SW midblock ' -46.0 -168.0 6.0 'REC 7 NE Corner 46.0 40.0 6.0 'REC 8 NE midqueue ' 46.0 105.0 6.0 'REC 9 NE midblock ' 46.0 180.0 6.0 'REC 10 NW Corner -46.0 40.0 6.0 'REC 11 NW midqueue ' -46.0 105.0 6.0 'REC 12 NW midblock ' -46.0 180.0 6.0 'REC 13 SSE midqueue' 111.0 -28.0 6.0 'REC 14 SSE midblock' 186.0 -28.0 6.0 'REC 15 SSW midqueue' -111.0 -28.0 6.0 'REC 16 SSW midblock' -186.0 -28.0 6.0 'REC 17 NNW midqueue' -111.0 40.0 6.0 'REC 18 NNW midblock' -186.0 40.0 6.0 'REC 19 NNE midqueue' 111.0 40.0 6.0 'REC 20 NNE midblock' 186.0 40.0 6.0 'REC 21 SE Corner ' 40.0 442.0 6.0 'REC 22 SE midqueue ' 40.0 377.0 6.0 'REC 23 SE midblock ' 40.0 302.0 6.0 'REC 24 NE Corner 40.0 504.0 6.0 'REC 25 NE midqueue ' 40.0 569.0 6.0 'REC 26 NE midblock ' 40.0 644.0 6.0 'REC 27 SSE midqueue' 105.0 442.0 6.0 'REC 28 SSE midblock' 180.0 442.0 6.0 'REC 29 SE Corner 58.0 1208.0 6.0 'REC 30 SE midqueue 58.0 1143.0 6.0 'REC 31 SE midblock ' 58.0 1068.0 6.0 'REC 32 SW Corner -46.0 1208.0 6.0 'REC 33 SW midqueue -46.0 1143.0 6.0 'REC 34 SW midblock ' -46.0 1068.0 6.0 'REC 35 NE Corner ' 58.0 1252.0 6.0 'REC 36 NE midqueue ' 58.0 1317.0 6.0 'REC 37 NE midblock ' 58.0 1392.0 6.0 'REC 38 NW Corner -46.0 1252.0 6.0 'REC 39 NW midqueue ' -46.0 1317.0 6.0 'REC 40 NW midblock ' -46.0 1392.0 6.0 'REC 41 SSE midqueue' 111.0 1202.0 6.0 'REC 42 SSE midblock' 186.0 1202.0 6.0 'REC 43 SSW midqueue' -111.0 1202.0 6.0 'REC 44 SSW midblock' -186.0 1202.0 6.0 'REC 45 NNW midqueue' -111.0 1252.0 6.0 'REC 46 NNW midblock' -186.0 1252.0 6.0 'REC 47 NNE midqueue' 111.0 1252.0 6.0 'REC 48 NNE midblock' 186.0 1252.0 6.0 'REC 49 SE Corner ' 52.0 1342.0 6.0 'REC 50 SE midqueue ' 52.0 1277.0 6.0 'REC 51 SE midblock ' 58.0 1202.0 6.0 'REC 52 NE Corner 52.0 1410.0 6.0 'REC 53 NE midqueue ' 52.0 1475.0 6.0 'REC 54 NE midblock ' 52.0 1550.0 6.0 'REC 55 SSE midqueue' 105.0 1342.0 6.0 'REC 56 SSE midblock' 180.0 1342.0 6.0 'All Intersections No Build' 56 1 1 'c' 1 'Pines NB. Appr. 'AG' 24.0 -1000. 24.0 0. 1373. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines NB. Q.Left' 'AG' -6.0 -18.0 -6.0 -200. 0. 12.0 1 100 90 2.0 36 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Pines NB. Thru' 'AG' 24.0 -18.0 24.0 -1000. 0. 24.0 2 100 53 2.0 1337 299.4 3681 2 3 1 'Pines NB.Dep. 'AG' 24.0 0. 24.0 270. 1920. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Pines SB. Appr. 'AG' -24.0 270. -24.0 0. 2105. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines SB. Q.Left "AG' 0.0 30.0 -0.0 200. 0. 24.0 2 100 82 2.0 417 299.4 3539 2 3 2 'Pines SB Thru' 'AG' -24.0 30.0 -24.0 200. 0. 24.0 2 100 45 2.0 1688 299.4 3632 2 3 1 'Pines SB Dep. 'AG' -24.0 0. -24.0 -1000. 1653. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Mission WB Appr.' 'AG' 1000. 12.0 0. 12.0 930. 16.6 0. 44. 2 'Mission WB Lft. 'AG' 36.0 0.0 200. 0.0 0. 12.0 1 100 88 2.0 179 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Mission WB Thru "AG' 36.0 12.0 200. 12.0 0. 12.0 1 100 77 2.0 276 299.4 1863 2 3 2 'Mission WB Q.Rt. 'AG' 36.0 24.0 1000. 24.0 0. 12.0 1 100 65 2.0 475 299.4 1583 2 3 1 'Mission WB Dep.' 'AG' 0. 12.0 200. 12.0 591. 14.0 0. 32. 1 'Mission EB Appr.' 'AG' -1000. -12.0 0. -12.0 514. 14.0 0. 32. 2 'Mission EB Lft ' 'AG' -36.0 0.0 -200. 0.0 0. 12.0 1 100 88 2.0 214 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Mission EB Thr -Rt' 'AG' -36. -12.0 -200. -12.0 0. 12.0 1 100 77 2.0 300 299.4 1801 2 3 1 'Mission EB Dep.' 'AG' 0. -12.0 1000. -12.0 758. 16.6 0. 32. 1 'Pines NB Appr.' 'AG' 18. 270.0 18.0 470.0 2126. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines NB. Thru -Rt' 'AG' 18.0 452.0 18.0 270.0 0. 24.0 2 100 41 2.0 2126 299.4 3644 2 3 1 'Pines NB.Dep. 'AG' 18.0 470. 18.0 730. 2210. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Pines SB. Appr. 'AG' -18.0 730. -18.0 470. 1649. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines SB. Q.Left "AG' 0.0 488.0 0.0 688. 0. 12.0 1 100 88 2.0 206 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Pines SB Thr' 'AG' -18.0 488.0 -18.0 688.0 0. 24.0 2 100 29 2.0 1443 299.4 3725 2 3 1 'Pines SB. Dep.' 'AG' -18.0 470. -18.0 270. 2289. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'EB Ramps EB Appr' 'AG' 0. 464.0 -1000. 464.0 1242. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'EB Ramps Q. Rt.' 'AG' -30.0 464.0 -200. 464.0 0. 24.0 2 100 71 2.0 846 299.4 3167 2 3 2 'EB Ramps Q. Lft' 'AG' -30. 482.0 -230.0 482.0 0. 12.0 1 100 71 2.0 396 299.4 1745 2 3 1 'EB Ramps Dep.' 'AG' 0. 470. 1000. 470. 518. 14.0 0. 32. 1 'Pines NB. Appr.' 'AG' 24. 730. 24. 1230. 1984. 14.0 0. 56. 2 'Pines NB. Q.Left' 'AG' 0. 1218. 0. 1018. 0. 24.0 2 100 74 2.0 571 299.4 3539 2 3 2 'Pines NB. Thru' 'AG' 30.0 1218. 30.0 1018. 0. 36.0 3 100 21 2.0 1413 299.4 5588 2 3 1 'Pines NB.Dep. 'AG' 30.0 1230. 30.0 1300. 1413. 14.0 0. 56. 1 'Pines SB. Appr. 'AG' -24.0 1230. -24.0 1300. 1573. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines SB Thru -Rt.' 'AG' -24.0 1242. -24.0 1442. 0. 24.0 2 100 47 2.0 1573 299.4 3670 2 3 1 'Pines SB Dep. 'AG' -24.0 1230. -24.0 730. 1674. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'WB Ramps WB Appr.' 'AG' 1000. 1230. 0. 1230. 262. 14.0 0. 32. 2 'WB Ramps WB Thr -Lf' 'AG' 48.0 1230. 248. 1230. 0. 12.0 1 100 79 2.0 262 299.4 1775 2 3 1 'WB Ramps WB Dep.' 'AG' 0.0 1230. -1000. 1230. 572. 14.0 0. 32. 1 'Pines NB Appr.' 'AG' 18.0 1300. 18.0 1370. 1508. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines NB. Thru' 'AG' 18.0 1352. 18.0 1152. 0. 24.0 2 100 50 2.0 1219 299.4 3725 2 3 2 'Pines NB Lft.' 'AG' 0.0 1352. 0.0 1152. 0. 12.0 1 100 81 2.0 173 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Pines NB Rt.' 'AG' 36.0 1352. 36.0 1152. 0. 12.0 1 100 50 2.0 116 299.4 1583 2 3 1 'Pines NB.Dep. 'AG' 18.0 1370. 18.0 2370. 1586. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Pines SB. Appr. 'AG' -18.0 2370. -18.0 1370. 1032. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines SB. Q.Left "AG' 0.0 1400. -0.0 1600. 0. 12.0 1 100 88 2.0 108 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Pines SB Thr -Rt' 'AG' -18.0 1400. -18.0 1600. 0. 24.0 2 100 57 2.0 924 299.4 3707 2 3 1 'Pines SB Dep.' 'AG' -18.0 1370. -18.0 1300. 1560. 14.0 0. 32. 1 'Indiana EB Appr' 'AG' 0.0 1358. -1000. 1358. 515. 14.0 0. 32. 2 'Indiana EB Thr -Rt' 'AG' -30.0 1358. -230. 1358. 0. 12.0 1 100 62 2.0 448 299.4 1595 2 3 2 'Indiana EB Lft' 'AG' -30.0 1370. -230.0 1370. 0. 12.0 1 100 80 2.0 67 299.4 1770 2 3 1 'Indiana EB Dep.' 'AG' 0. 1358. 1000. 1358. 243. 14.0 0. 32. 1 'Indiana WB Appr' 'AG' 0.0 1382. 1000. 1382. 594. 14.0 0. 32. 2 'Indiana WB.Thr.' 'AG' 42.0 1382. 242. 1382. 0. 12.0 1 100 62 2.0 59 299.4 1684 2 3 2 'Indiana WB Q.Lft' 'AG' 42.0 1370. 242.0 1370. 0. 12.0 1 100 62 2.0 235 299.4 1770 2 3 1 'Indiana WB Dep.' 'AG' 0.0 1382. -1000. 1382. 260. 14.0 0. 32. 2 'Indiana WB.Rt.' 'AG' 42.0 1394. 242. 1394. 0. 12.0 1 100 40 2.0 300 299.4 1583 2 3 1.0 00. 5 1000. 3. 'Y' 10 0 35 CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0 Dated 95221 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 DATE : 6/ 5/98 TIME : 11:20: 5 The MODE flag has been set to c for calculating CO averages. SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES RUN: All Intersections No Build VS = .0 CM /S U = 1.0 M/S LINK VARIABLES LINK DESCRIPTION VD = .0 CM /S CLAS = 5 (E) 1. Pines NB. Appr. 2. Pines NB. Q.Left 3. Pines NB. Thru 4. Pines NB.Dep. 5. Pines SB. Appr. 6. Pines SB. Q.Left 7. Pines SB Thru 8. Pines SB Dep. 9. Mission WB Appr. 10. Mission WB Lft. 11. Mission WB Thru 12. Mission WB Q.Rt. 13. Mission WB Dep. 14. Mission EB Appr. 15. Mission EB Lft 16. Mission EB Thr -Rt 17. Mission EB Dep. 18. Pines NB Appr. 19. Pines NB. Thru -Rt 20. Pines NB.Dep. 21. Pines SB. Appr. 22. Pines SB. Q.Left 23. Pines SB Thr 24. Pines SB. Dep. 25. EB Ramps EB Appr 26. EB Ramps Q. Rt. ZO = 175. CM ATIM = 60. MINUTES LINK COORDINATES (FT) Y 1 X2 Y2 24.0 -6.0 24.0 24.0 -24.0 .0 - 24.0 - 24.0 1000.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 .0 - 1000.0 - 36.0 - 36.0 .0 18.0 18.0 18.0 - 18.0 .0 - 18.0 -18.0 .0 - 30.0 MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 3.0 PPM * LENGTH BRG TYPE * * (FT) (DEG) PAGE 1 VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE (G /MI) (FT) (FT) (VEF - 1000.0 24.0 .0 * - 18.0 -6.0 -35.7 * -18.0 24.0 -211.6 * .0 24.0 270.0 * 270.0 -24.0 .0 * 30.0 .0 123.3 * 30.0 -24.0 237.7 * .0 -24.0 - 1000.0 * 12.0 .0 12.0 * .0 552.3 .1 * 12.0 152.3 12.0 * 24.0 260.1 24.1 * 12.0 200.0 12.0 * - 12.0 .0 -12.0 * .0 -924.6 -.2 * - 12.0 -177.8 -12.0 * - 12.0 1000.0 -12.0 * 270.0 18.0 470.0 * 452.0 18.0 213.7 * 470.0 18.0 730.0 * 730.0 -18.0 470.0 * 488.0 .0 1291.5 * 488.0 -18.0 602.3 * 470.0 -18.0 270.0 * 464.0 - 1000.0 464.0 * 464.0 -194.2 464.0 * 1000. 18. 194. 270. 270. 93. 208. 1000. 1000. 516. 116. 224. 200. 1000. 889. 142. 1000. 200. 238. 260. 260. 803. 114. 200. 1000. 164. 360. AG 180. AG 180. AG 360. AG 180. AG 360. AG 360. AG 180. AG 270. AG 90. AG 90. AG 90. AG 90. AG 90. AG 270. AG 270. AG 90. AG 360. AG 180. AG 360. AG 180. AG 360. AG 360. AG 180. AG 270. AG 270. AG 1373. 14.0 723. 100.0 851. 100.0 1920. 14.0 2105. 14.0 1317. 100.0 723. 100.0 1653. 14.0 930. 16.6 707. 100.0 618. 100.0 522. 100.0 591. 14.0 514. 14.0 707. 100.0 618. 100.0 758. 16.6 2126. 14.0 659. 100.0 2210. 14.0 1649. 14.0 707. 100.0 466. 100.0 2289. 14.0 1242. 14.0 1140. 100.0 .0 44.0 .0 12.0 .34 .9 .0 24.0 .42 9.8 .0 44.0 .0 44.0 .0 24.0 .42 4.7 . 0 24.0 .46 10.6 .0 44.0 .0 44.0 .0 12.0 1.27 26.2 .0 12.0 .78 5.9 .0 12.0 .97 11.4 .0 32.0 .0 32.0 .0 12.0 1.52 45.1 .0 12.0 .88 7.2 .0 32.0 .0 44.0 .0 24.0 .53 12.1 .0 44.0 . 0 44.0 .0 12.0 1.46 40.8 .0 24.0 .29 5.8 .0 44.0 .0 44.0 .0 24.0 .53 8.3 27. EB Ramps Q. Lft 28. EB Ramps Dep. 29. Pines NB. Appr. 30. Pines NB. Q.Left 31. Pines NB. Thru 32. Pines NB.Dep. * 33. Pines SB. Appr. * 34. Pines SB Thru -Rt. * 35. Pines SB Dep. * 36. WB Ramps WB Appr. * 37. WB Ramps WB Thr -Lf * 38. WB Ramps WB Dep. 39. Pines NB Appr. 40. Pines NB. Thru 41. Pines NB Lft. 42. Pines NB Rt. 43. Pines NB.Dep. 44. Pines SB. Appr. -30.0 482.0 -207.5 482.0 * .0 470.0 1000.0 470.0 * 24.0 730.0 24.0 1230.0 * .0 1218.0 .0 1102.7 * 30.0 1218.0 30.0 1163.9 * 30.0 1230.0 30.0 1300.0 * - 24.0 1230.0 -24.0 1300.0 * - 24.0 1242.0 -24.0 1444.0 * - 24.0 1230.0 -24.0 730.0 * 1000.0 1230.0 .0 1230.0 * 48.0 1230.0 175.8 1230.0 * .0 1230.0 - 1000.0 1230.0 * 18.0 1300.0 18.0 1370.0 * 18.0 1352.0 18.0 1185.5 * .0 1352.0 .0 1275.4 * 36.0 1352.0 36.0 1320.3 * 18.0 1370.0 18.0 2370.0 * - 18.0 2370.0 -18.0 1370.0 * 178. 1000. 500. 115. 54. 70. 70. 202. 500. 1000. 128. 1000. 70. 167. 77. 32. 1000. 1000. 270. AG 90. AG 360. AG 180. AG 180. AG 360. AG 360. AG 360. AG 180. AG 270. AG 90. AG 270. AG 360. AG 180. AG 180. AG 180. AG 360. AG 180. AG 570. 100.0 518. 14.0 1984. 14.0 1189. 100.0 506. 100.0 1413. 14.0 1573. 14.0 755. 100.0 1674. 14.0 262. 14.0 634. 100.0 572. 14.0 1508. 14.0 803. 100.0 650. 100.0 402. 100.0 1586. 14.0 1032. 14.0 .0 12.0 .91 9.0 .0 32.0 .0 56.0 .0 24.0 .37 5.9 .0 36.0 .11 2.7 .0 56.0 .0 44.0 .0 24.0 .44 10.3 .0 44.0 .0 32.0 .0 12.0 .87 6.5 .0 32.0 .0 44.0 .0 24.0 .36 8.5 .0 12.0 .65 3.9 .0 12.0 .16 1.6 .0 44.0 .0 44.0 PAGE 2 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 RUN: All Intersections No Build DATE : 6/ 5/98 TIME : 11:20: 5 LINK VARIABLES LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (FT) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (FT) (DEG) (G /MI) (FT) (FT) (VEF * * 45. Pines SB. Q.Left * .0 1400.0 .0 1456.6 * 57. 360. AG 707. 100.0 .0 12.0 .77 2.9 46. Pines SB Thr -Rt * -18.0 1400.0 -18.0 1544.0 * 144. 360. AG 916. 100.0 .0 24.0 .32 7.3 47. Pines SB Dep. * -18.0 1370.0 -18.0 1300.0 * 70. 180. AG 1560. 14.0 .0 32.0 48. Indiana EB Appr * .0 1358.0 - 1000.0 1358.0 * 1000. 270. AG 515. 14.0 .0 32.0 49. Indiana EB Thr -Rt * -30.0 1358.0 -182.8 1358.0 * 153. 270. AG 498. 100.0 .0 12.0 .83 7.8 50. Indiana EB Lft * -30.0 1370.0 -59.3 1370.0 * 29. 270. AG 642. 100.0 .0 12.0 .24 1.5 51. Indiana EB Dep. * .0 1358.0 1000.0 1358.0 * 1000. 90. AG 243. 14.0 .0 32.0 52. Indiana WB Appr * .0 1382.0 1000.0 1382.0 * 1000. 90. AG 594. 14.0 .0 32.0 53. Indiana WB.Thr. * 42.0 1382.0 62.0 1382.0 * 20. 90. AG 498. 100.0 .0 12.0 .10 1.0 54. Indiana WB Q.Lft * 42.0 1370.0 121.7 1370.0 * 80. 90. AG 498. 100.0 .0 12.0 .39 4.0 55. Indiana WB Dep. * .0 1382.0 - 1000.0 1382.0 * 1000. 270. AG 260. 14.0 .0 32.0 56. Indiana WB.Rt. * 42.0 1394.0 107.6 1394.0 * 66. 90. AG 321. 100.0 .0 12.0 .34 3.3 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 RUN: All Intersections No Build DATE : 6/ 5/98 TIME : 11:20: 5 ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL * LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE * (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm /hr) * 2. Pines NB. Q.Left * 100 90 2.0 36 1770 299.40 2 3 3. Pines NB. Thru * 100 53 2.0 1337 3681 299.40 2 3 6. Pines SB. Q.Left * 100 82 2.0 417 3539 299.40 2 3 7. Pines SB Thru * 100 45 2.0 1688 3632 299.40 2 3 10. Mission WB Lft. * 100 88 2.0 179 1770 299.40 2 3 11. Mission WB Thru * 100 77 2.0 276 1863 299.40 2 3 12. Mission WB Q.Rt. * 100 65 2.0 475 1583 299.40 2 3 15. Mission EB Lft * 100 88 2.0 214 1770 299.40 2 3 16. Mission EB Thr -Rt * 100 77 2.0 300 1801 299.40 2 3 19. Pines NB. Thru -Rt * 100 41 2.0 2126 3644 299.40 2 3 22. Pines SB. Q.Left * 100 88 2.0 206 1770 299.40 2 3 23. Pines SB Thr * 100 29 2.0 1443 3725 299.40 2 3 26. EB Ramps Q. Rt. * 100 71 2.0 846 3167 299.40 2 3 27. EB Ramps Q. Lft * 100 71 2.0 396 1745 299.40 2 3 30. Pines NB. Q.Left * 100 74 2.0 571 3539 299.40 2 3 31. Pines NB. Thru * 100 21 2.0 1413 5588 299.40 2 3 34. Pines SB Thru -Rt. * 100 47 2.0 1573 3670 299.40 2 3 37. WB Ramps WB Thr -Lf * 100 79 2.0 262 1775 299.40 2 3 40. Pines NB. Thru * 100 50 2.0 1219 3725 299.40 2 3 41. Pines NB Lft. * 100 81 2.0 173 1770 299.40 2 3 42. Pines NB Rt. * 100 50 2.0 116 1583 299.40 2 3 45. Pines SB. Q.Left * 100 88 2.0 108 1770 299.40 2 3 46. Pines SB Thr -Rt * 100 57 2.0 924 3707 299.40 2 3 49. Indiana EB Thr -Rt * 100 62 2.0 448 1595 299.40 2 3 50. Indiana EB Lft * 100 80 2.0 67 1770 299.40 2 3 53. Indiana WB.Thr. * 100 62 2.0 59 1684 299.40 2 3 54. Indiana WB Q.Lft * 100 62 2.0 235 1770 299.40 2 3 56. Indiana WB.Rt. * 100 40 2.0 300 1583 299.40 2 3 RECEPTOR LOCATIONS RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (FT) * X Y Z * * PAGE 3 * 1. REC 1 SE Corner * 46.0 -28.0 2. REC 2 SE midqueue * 46.0 -93.0 3. REC 3 SE midblock * 46.0 -168.0 4. REC 4 SW Corner * -46.0 -28.0 5. REC 5 SW midqueue * -46.0 -93.0 6. REC 6 SW midblock * -46.0 -168.0 7. REC 7 NE Corner * 46.0 40.0 8. REC 8 NE midqueue * 46.0 105.0 9. REC 9 NE midblock * 46.0 180.0 10. REC 10 NW Corner * -46.0 40.0 11. REC 11 NW midqueue * -46.0 105.0 12. REC 12 NW midblock * -46.0 180.0 13. REC 13 SSE midqueue * 111.0 -28.0 14. REC 14 SSE midblock * 186.0 -28.0 15. REC 15 SSW midqueue * -111.0 -28.0 16. REC 16 SSW midblock * -186.0 -28.0 17. REC 17 NNW midqueue * -111.0 40.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * JOB: Mirabeau Point-Revised 6-3-98 RUN: All Intersections No Build DATE : 6/ 5/98 TIME : 11:20: 5 RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (FT) * RECEPTOR * X Y 2 * * * 18. REC 18 NNW midblock * -186.0 40.0 6.0 * 19. REC 19 NNE midqueue * 111.0 40.0 6.0 * 20. REC 20 NNE midblock * 186.0 40.0 6.0 * 21. REC 21 SE Corner * 40.0 442.0 6.0 * 22. REC 22 SE midqueue * 40.0 377.0 6.0 * 23. REC 23 SE midblock * 40.0 302.0 6.0 * 24. REC 24 NE Corner * 40.0 504.0 6.0 * 25. REC 25 NE midqueue * 40.0 569.0 6.0 * 26. REC 26 NE midblock * 40.0 644.0 6.0 * 27. REC 27 SSE midqueue * 105.0 442.0 6.0 * 28. REC 28 SSE midblock * 180.0 442.0 6.0 * 29. REC 29 SE Corner * 58.0 1208.0 6.0 * 30. REC 30 SE midqueue * 58.0 1143.0 6.0 * 31. REC 31 SE midblock * 58.0 1068.0 6.0 * 32. REC 32 SW Corner * -46.0 1208.0 6.0 * 33. REC 33 SW midqueue * -46.0 1143.0 6.0 * 34. REC 34 SW midblock * -46.0 1068.0 6.0 * 35. REC 35 NE Corner * 58.0 1252.0 6.0 * 36. REC 36 NE midqueue * 58.0 1317.0 6.0 * 37. REC 37 NE midblock * 58.0 1392.0 6.0 * 38. REC 38 NW Corner * -46.0 1252.0 6.0 * 39. REC 39 NW midqueue * -46.0 1317.0 6.0 * 40. REC 40 NW midblock * -46.0 1392.0 6.0 * 41. REG 41 SSE midqueue * 111.0 1202.0 6.0 * 42. REC 42 SSE midblock * 186.0 1202.0 6.0 * 43. EEC 43 SSW midqueue * -111.0 1202.0 6.0 * 44. REC 44 SSW midblock * -186.0 1202.0 6.0 * 45. REC 45 NNW midqueue * -111.0 1252.0 6.0 * 46. AEC 46 NNW midblock * -186.0 1252.0 6.0 * 47. REC 47 NNE midqueue * 111.0 1252.0 6.0 * 48. REC 48 NNE midblock * 186.0 1252.0 6.0 * 49. REC 49 SE Corner * 52.0 1342.0 6.0 * 50. REC 50 SE midqueue * 52.0 1277.0 6.0 * PAGE 4 51. REC 51 SE midblock * 58.0 1202.0 6.0 * 52. REC 52 NE Corner * 52.0 1410.0 6.0 * 53. REC 53 NE midqueue * 52.0 1475.0 6.0 * 54. REC 54 NE midblock * 52.0 1550.0 6.0 * 55. REC 55 SSE midqueue * 105.0 1342.0 6.0 * 56. REC 56 SSE midblock * 180.0 1342.0 6.0 * PAGE 5 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 RUN: All Intersections No Build MODEL RESULTS REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0. -350. WIND * CONCENTRATION ANGLE * (PPM) (DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19 REC2C * 0. * 11.7 10.0 10.2 12.8 9.9 9.5 7.7 7.8 8.1 9.4 9.1 8.2 9.1 6.9 9.1 6.1 5.4 4.5 4.8 3.. 10. * 8.5 6.9 6.2 13.8 10.5 9.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 11.1 10.8 9.6 7.5 6.2 9.8 7.5 6.4 5.6 3.1 3.0 20. * 7.6 5.6 5.0 12.0 8.4 7.9 3.2 3.2 3.3 10.5 9.8 9.4 7.4 6.2 9.8 7.4 6.1 5.1 3.0 3.0 30. * 7.6 5.5 4.8 9.6 7.2 7.6 3.1 3.2 3.2 10.4 8.9 9.0 7.4 6.2 10.0 7.9 5.7 4.9 3.0 3.0 40. * 8.0 5.7 4.6 7.8 7.4 7.7 3.1 3.2 3.2 10.3 8.0 8.9 7.6 6.5 10.3 8.5 5.7 4.7 3.0 3.0 50. * 8.4 5.5 4.4 6.8 8.2 7.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 9.9 7.5 8.2 7.5 6.5 10.1 9.2 5.9 4.9 3.0 3.0 60. * 8.8 5.3 4.2 7.5 8.3 7.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 9.5 7.7 7.6 7.7 6.7 10.0 10.0 6.3 5.0 3.0 3.0 70. * 8.7 4.8 3.9 9.2 7.9 6.5 3.2 3.0 3.1 9.4 8.0 6.9 7.5 6.9 10.2 10.7 6.4 5.1 3.2 3.] 80. * 8.0 4.3 3.4 10.4 7.0 6.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 10.2 8.7 6.6 7.3 6.9 10.1 10.8 7.3 6.0 4.0 3.E 90. * 6.2 3.4 3.0 9.5 6.2 5.6 6.8 3.5 3.0 12.4 9.8 6.6 5.8 5.6 8.3 8.6 8.6 7.4 6.0 5.; 100. * 4.0 3.0 3.0 7.1 5.5 5.4 9.4 4.3 3.4 13.0 10.8 7.0 3.9 3.9 5.8 5.6 8.6 7.7 8.2 7.] 110. * 3.2 3.0 3.0 5.9 5.4 5.3 10.1 5.0 3.8 10.6 11.9 7.5 3.1 3.1 4.8 4.4 6.9 7.3 8.8 7.E 120. * 3.1 3.0 3.0 5.8 5.6 5.0 9.7 5.5 4.4 7.9 12.4 8.6 3.1 3.1 4.7 4.2 6.5 7.2 8.8 130. * 3.1 3.1 3.1 5.8 5.8 4.7 9.2 5.7 4.4 6.8 12.3 9.6 3.0 3.0 4.6 4.0 7.3 7.0 8.6 7.; 140. * 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.0 5.7 4.5 8.7 5.8 4.7 6.9 11.6 10.8 3.0 3.0 4.5 3.7 7.3 6.5 8.4 6.c 150. * 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.1 5.5 4.6 8.4 5.9 4.9 7.4 11.0 11.9 3.0 3.0 4.1 3.6 7.0 6.1 8.2 6.. 160. 3.3 3.3 3.2 6.0 5.4 4.9 8.3 6.1 5.0 7.5 10.2 12.3 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 6.6 5.7 8.0 170. * 4.1 3.9 3.6 5.5 5.3 5.2 9.2 6.8 5.8 7.6 8.6 10.7 3.0 3.0 3.8 3.4 6.1 5.3 7.9 6.E 180. * 6.4 5.7 4.7 4.9 4.8 4.7 11.2 8.1 7.5 7.1 6.9 7.8 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.1 5.6 4.6 8.3 6.. 190. * 8.2 7.5 5.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 12.0 8.5 8.8 6.1 5.3 5.4 3.8 3.4 3.0 3.0 5.3 4.5 9.1 7.E 200. * 8.7 8.2 6.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 10.1 7.6 9.2 5.7 4.8 4.4 4.5 3.6 3.0 3.0 5.5 4.5 9.9 7./ 210. * 8.0 7.9 6.7 3.1 3.1 3.1 8.2 7.7 9.3 5.6 4.6 4.1 4.9 3.7 3.0 3.0 5.5 4.5 10.5 8.E 220. * 7.5 7.4 7.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 7.1 9.0 8.5 5.8 4.5 4.0 5.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 5.5 4.6 10.6 8.0 230. 7.1 7.1 7.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.5 9.9 7.7 5.9 4.4 3.9 5.0 4.2 3.0 3.0 5.4 4.7 10.5 9.E 240. * 7.0 6.8 6.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 7.1 9.9 6.8 6.0 4.3 3.9 5.0 4.4 3.0 3.0 5.2 4.9 10.2 10.E 250. * 7.2 6.6 6.5 3.2 3.0 3.0 8.4 9.7 6.4 5.8 4.2 3.8 5.0 4.3 3.2 3.2 5.3 5.2 10.1 11.: 260. * 8.1 6.5 6.4 4.2 3.1 3.0 9.3 9.4 6.2 5.5 4.0 3.5 5.9 5.4 3.9 3.8 5.3 5.2 9.3 10.E 270. * 10.5 7.2 6.8 6.6 3.6 3.1 9.4 8.7 5.8 4.5 3.4 3.1 7.8 7.8 6.0 5.3 4.4 4.4 8.1 8.z 280. * 10.7 7.9 7.1 8.4 4.3 3.6 8.5 7 9 5.7 3.4 3.0 3.1 8.4 9.3 7.6 6.2 3.3 3.3 6.7 6.; 290. * 8.7 8.6 7.5 8.4 4.6 3.9 8.3 7.1 5.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 8.5 10.2 7.8 5.9 3.0 3.0 6.3 5.; 300. * 7.4 8.9 8.0 8.0 4.8 3.9 8.5 6 6 5.9 3.2 3.2 3.3 9.7 10.9 7.7 5.6 3.1 3.1 6.1 4.E 310. * 7.3 8.9 8.4 7.3 5.(0 4.1 8.8 6 3 6.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 10.8 10.1 7.3 5.2 3.1 3.1 5.5 4.; 320. * 8.6 9.1 8.8 7.0 5.0 4.2 9.1 6 4 7.1 3.2 3.2 3.4 11.2 9.3 7.0 5.1 3.1 3.1 5.5 5.] 330. * 10.6 10.3 9.5 6.8 4.9 4.4 9.0 7.2 8.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 10.6 9.1 6.8 5.0 3.1 3.1 5.7 5.: 340. * 12.0 11.5 11.0 7.2 5.4 4.7 8.6 7 8 9.2 3.8 4.0 4.3 10.3 8.5 6.7 4.8 3.3 3.1 6.2 5.( 350. * 12.7 12.2 12.3 8.8 6.6 5.9 9.1 9 2 10.1 5.5 5.4 5.3 10.6 8.2 7.0 5.0 3.8 3.3 6.0 4.c * MAX * 12.7 12.2 12.3 13.8 10.5 9.5 12.0 9.9 10.1 13.0 12.4 12.3 11.2 10.9 10.3 10.8 8.6 7.7 10.6 11._ DEGR. * 350 350 350 10 10 0 190 230 350 100 120 160 320 300 40 80 90 100 220 250 PAGE 6 JOB: Mirabeau Point-Revised 6-3-98 RUN: All Intersections No Build MODEL RESULTS REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-350. WIND * CONCENTRATION ANGLE * (PPM) (DEGR)* REC21 REC22 REC23 REC24 REC25 REC26 REC27 REC28 REC29 REC30 REC31 REC32 REC33 REC34 REC35 REC36 REC37 REC38 REC39 REC4C * 0. 7.9 8.0 8.8 7.7 7.9 7.7 4.6 4.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 8.2 7.5 7.6 5.6 5.6 4.8 7.9 8.2 5.4 10. 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.8 3.3 3.2 5.5 4.8 4.4 10.5 9.8 10.4 4.1 4.8 4.1 10.1 10.8 7. 20. 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.2 5.0 4.0 3.8 10.7 10.1 11.5 3.7 4.5 3.9 10.5 10.7 9./ 30, 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 4.9 4.0 3.5 10.1 10.5 10.8 3.5 4.4 4.0 10.6 9.1 10.] 40. 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 4.9 3.9 3.3 9.3 10.5 9.4 3.4 4.1 4.2 10.8 8.4 10.: 50. 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.3 5.1 3.8 3.2 8.2 10.5 8.2 3.3 3.8 4.4 10.6 8.5 10.0 60. 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.3 5.4 3.5 3.2 7.9 10.3 6.8 3.2 3.5 4.8 10.0 9.4 9. 70. 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.3 5.3 3.3 3.2 8.5 9.4 5.9 3.2 3.3 5.4 9.2 9.6 8. 80. 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.4 4.7 3.1 3.0 9.9 8.4 5.5 3.4 3.3 5.9 9.4 9.4 8.: 90. 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.8 3.0 3.0 10.3 8.1 5.6 3.8 3.2 6.5 9.6 9.3 8.; 100. 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.0 9.9 7.8 5.4 4.6 3.1 6.5 9.9 9.3 8.0 110. 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 9.3 7.8 5.4 5.1 3.2 6.2 9.7 9.5 7.; 120. 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 8.9 7.7 5.6 5.2 3.4 5.9 9.7 10.3 8.E 130. 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 8.7 7.3 5.8 5.0 3.7 5.8 9.8 10.5 9.E 140. 3.6 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 8.9 6.9 6.1 4.8 3.8 5.8 10.1 10.9 11.4 150. 3.8 3.9 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.1 3.2 8.9 6.9 6.6 4.7 3.9 6.0 10.1 11.8 13.: 160. 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.4 8.8 7.4 7.4 4.9 3.9 6.4 9.7 11.6 14.0 170. 5.7 5.5 6.1 5.9 5.5 5.5 3.8 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 9.1 8.7 8.8 5.8 4.8 7.5 9.8 11.4 15.( 180. 9.0 8.5 8.1 8.6 8.3 8.1 4.7 4.1 6.8 6.7 6.6 7.8 7.6 7.8 8.7 8.2 11.8 8.3 8.7 12.] 190. * 10.7 10.6 10.2 10.0 9.2 9.4 6.1 4.8 8.7 8.2 8.4 4.7 4.7 4.8 10.9 10.6 14.2 4.7 4.8 7.E 200. * 10.1 10.5 10.4 8.7 8.4 9.4 6.5 5.2 8.6 7.3 7.4 3.6 3.7 3.7 11.3 10.6 13.9 3.7 3.6 5.c 210. * 8.9 9.2 9.9 7.1 8.1 9.5 6.3 5.4 9.0 6.6 6.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 11.5 9.8 12.8 3.6 3.3 5.E 220. 7.9 8.1 9.1 6.4 9.1 9.2 5.9 5.5 9.7 6.3 6.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 10.9 8.9 11.5 3.5 3.2 5.] 230. 7.4 7.5 8.1 6.7 9.7 8.4 5.5 5.1 9.8 6.3 5.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 9.8 8.2 9.9 3.3 3.1 4.0 240. 7.1 7.3 7.7 8.0 9.2 6.9 5.3 5.0 9.9 6.8 5.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 8.7 8.2 8.8 3.4 3.2 4.E 250. 6.9 6.8 7.0 9.8 8.1 6.3 5.1 4.6 10.1 7.1 5.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 7.9 8.3 8.8 3.5 3.2 4.: 260. 7.7 6.5 6.7 10.2 7.2 5.9 5.7 4.9 10.3 7.3 5.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 7.8 8.4 9.0 3.5 3.3 4.: 270. 9.8 6.9 6.7 8.9 6.7 5.8 7.1 6.1 10.3 7.4 5.2 3.4 3.1 3.0 7.9 8.7 8.6 3.5 3.5 3."; 280. * 10.9 7.4 6.7 7.2 6.5 5.7 7.5 6.2 10.0 7.6 5.4 3.6 3.2 3.1 8.4 9.3 8.7 3.2 3.8 3.: 290. * 9.7 8.4 7.0 6.5 6.4 5.7 6.3 5.2 9.1 7.9 5.8 3.6 3.3 3.2 8.7 9.4 8.6 3.2 4.2 3.] 300. * 7.8 9.5 7.8 6.7 6.2 5.8 5.6 4.9 9.1 8.7 6.6 3.5 3.3 3.2 9.2 9.1 8.7 3.4 4.3 3.( 310. * 7.1 9.5 8.5 7.0 6.3 6.2 5.5 4.7 9.5 9.6 7.4 3.5 3.3 3.3 9.4 8.5 8.0 3.7 4.3 3.( 320. * 7.1 9.3 9.2 7.2 6.5 6.4 5.5 4.8 10.4 10.9 8.5 3.7 3.4 3.3 9.5 8.2 7.2 3.7 4.3 3.( 330. * 7.7 9.2 9.7 7.4 6.9 7.0 5.5 4.6 10.8 11.7 9.7 3.8 3.5 3.4 9.4 7.8 6.6 3.7 4.3 3.( 340. * 8.4 9.8 10.2 7.7 7.7 7.8 5.7 5.1 10.3 11.3 10.6 3.8 3.7 3.7 8.6 7.4 5.8 3.9 4.5 3.] 350. * 9.3 10.1 10.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 5.9 5.0 9.1 9.7 9.8 5.3 4.9 4.9 7.3 6.4 5.4 5.1 5.7 3.( * MAX * 10.9 10.6 10.9 10.2 9.7 9.5 7.5 6.2 10.8 11.7 10.6 10.7 10.5 11.5 11.5 10.6 14.2 10.8 11.8 15.( DEGR. * 280 190 350 260 230 210 280 280 330 330 340 20 40 20 210 190 190 40 150 170 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 RUN: All Intersections No Build MODEL RESULTS REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0. -350. WIND * CONCENTRATION ANGLE * (PPM) (DEGR)* REC41 REC42 REC43 REC44 REC45 REC46 REC47 REC48 REC49 REC50 REC51 REC52 REC53 REC54 REC55 REC56 * 0. * 5.2 3.4 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.4 3.8 3.2 6.4 6.0 6.8 4.0 4.0 3.9 5.0 3.4 10. * 4.6 3.2 5.4 4.1 4.9 3.9 3.3 3.1 5.6 4.6 5.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 4.4 3.3 20. * 4.6 3.2 6.4 4.6 6.1 4.3 3.1 3.1 5.1 4.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.1 3.3 30. * 4.6 3.2 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.9 3.2 3.2 5.0 3.8 4.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.9 3.3 40. * 4.7 3.2 7.1 5.8 6.6 5.5 3.2 3.2 4.9 3.4 4.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.3 50. * 4.7 3.2 7.0 6.0 6.7 5.8 3.2 3.2 4.8 3.3 4.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.4 60. * 4.5 3.2 7.0 5.9 6.9 5.9 3.2 3.2 4.7 3.3 4.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 70. * 4.2 3.3 7.0 6.0 6.8 5.7 3.2 3.2 4.2 3.3 4.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 80. * 3.6 3.3 7.1 6.1 6.8 6.0 3.3 3.3 3.9 3.2 4.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.6 90. * 3.2 3.1 7.2 5.9 7.0 6.3 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.1 3.0 3.4 3.4 100. * 3.0 3.0 6.8 5.6 7.2 6.3 3.8 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.1 4.1 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.3 110. * 3.0 3.0 6.2 5.1 7.1 5.9 4.5 3.2 3.1 3.9 3.0 4.7 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 120. * 3.0 3.0 6.1 4.7 6.9 5.7 4.9 3.2 3.2 4.3 3.0 5.0 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 130. * 3.0 3.0 5.5 4.4 6.6 5.1 4.9 3.1 3.4 4.4 3.0 5.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 140. * 3.0 3.0 5.2 4.3 6.3 4.8 4.7 3.1 3.7 4.3 3.0 5.6 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.1 150. * 3.0 3.0 5.3 4.6 6.0 4.9 4.7 3.1 3.8 4.3 3.0 5.9 3.9 3.3 3.5 3.1 160. * 3.2 3.2 5.5 5.0 5.7 5.2 4.8 3.2 3.9 4.6 3.3 6.1 4.4 3.7 3.7 3.1 170. * 3.3 3.3 6.2 5.5 6.5 5.7 4.8 3.3 4.8 5.6 4.0 7.3 5.5 4.8 3.7 3.2 180. * 4.8 3.9 5.2 4.2 5.4 4.5 6.4 4.0 8.7 9.3 6.7 11.7 9.3 8.5 5.6 4.1 190. * 6.3 5.1 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.6 8.0 5.5 11.3 11.4 8.6 13.7 10.8 10.1 7.3 5.9 200. * 5.8 5.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 7.5 6.0 11.1 11.8 8.4 12.3 9.4 8.8 7.6 6.0 210. * 5.5 5.1 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.5 7.8 5.9 10.5 11.4 8.7 10.0 8.2 8.2 7.8 6.1 220. * 5.5 4.6 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.4 8.5 6.3 10.1 10.0 9.4 7.9 8.0 7.0 7.4 6.5 230. * 5.7 4.5 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.3 9.0 6.9 9.9 8.4 9.4 6.9 8.4 6.3 6.8 6.3 240. * 6.4 4.7 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.4 9.1 7.7 9.6 7.9 9.6 7.2 8.0 5.9 6.7 5.8 250. * 6.7 5.2 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 8.2 8.1 9.5 8.3 9.7 7.2 6.9 5.5 6.8 5.6 260. * 7.3 5.8 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.5 7.2 7.6 9.7 8.6 10.2 7.7 6.1 5.0 7.1 6.1 270. * 7.6 6.5 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 6.9 6.7 10.4 8.9 10.6 7.5 5.5 4.4 7.3 6.4 PAGE 7 280. * 7.7 7.2 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.2 6.6 6.2 9.7 9.1 10.4 7.3 5.4 4.1 7.0 6.6 290. * 7.8 7.9 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.2 7.0 6.0 8.3 9.3 9.6 7.1 5.4 3.9 7.2 6.5 300. * 8.4 7.9 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 7.2 5.6 7.6 9.6 9.3 7.0 5.4 4.0 7.2 6.2 310. * 8.7 7.4 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 6.9 5.6 7.2 9.6 9.6 6.4 5.1 4.0 7.6 5.2 320. * 8.6 6.9 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.1 6.6 5.4 7.6 9.6 10.3 5.9 4.7 4.1 7.1 4.2 330. * 8.0 5.8 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.1 6.0 4.4 7.9 9.5 10.6 5.6 4.5 4.3 6.5 3.9 340. * 7.1 4.8 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.1 5.4 3.9 7.4 8.7 10.4 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.9 3.9 350. * 6.1 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.2 4.6 3.5 7.1 7.5 8.9 4.6 4.5 4.5 5.5 3.7 * MAX * 8.7 7.9 7.2 6.1 7.2 6.3 9.1 8.1 11.3 11.8 10.6 13.7 10.8 10.1 7.8 6.6 DEGR. * 310 290 90 80 100 90 240 250 190 200 270 190 190 190 210 280 THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF 15.00 PPM OCCURRED AT RECEPTOR REC40. 'Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98' 60. 175. 0. 0. 57 3048 1 1 1 'REC 1 SE Corner ' 'REC 2 SE midqueue ' 'REC 3 SE midblock ' 'REC 4 SW Corner ' 'REC 5 SW midqueue ' 'REC 6 SW midblock ' 'REC 7 NE Corner ' 'REC 8 NE midqueue ' 'REC 9 NE midblock ' 'REC 10 NW Corner ' 'REC 11 NW midqueue ' 'REC 12 NW midblock ' 'REC 13 SSE midqueue' 'REC 14 SSE midblock' 'REC 15 SSW midqueue' 'REC 16 SSW midblock' 'REC 17 NNW midqueue' 'REC 18 NNW midblock' 'REC 19 NNE midqueue' 'REC 20 NNE midblock' 'REC 21 SE Corner ' 'REC 22 SE midqueue ' 'REC 23 SE midblock ' 'REC 24 NE Corner ' 'REC 25 NE midqueue ' 'REC 26 NE midblock ' 'REC 27 SSE midqueue' 'REC 28 SSE midblock' 'REC 29 SE Corner ' 'REC 30 SE midqueue ' 'REC 31 SE midblock ' 'REC 32 NE Corner ' 'REC 33 NE midqueue ' 'REC 34 SSE midqueue' 'REC 35 SSE midblock' 'REC 36 SE Corner ' 'REC 37 SE midqueue ' 'REC 38 NE Corner ' 'REC 39 NE midqueue ' 'REC 40 NE midblock ' 'REC 41 NW Corner ' 'REC 42 NW midqueue ' 'REC 43 NW midblock ' 'REC 44 SSE midqueue ' 46.0 46.0 46.0 -46.0 - 46.0 - 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 - 46.0 -46.0 - 46.0 111.0 186.0 - 111.0 -186.0 - 111.0 - 186.0 111.0 186.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 111.0 186.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 123.0 198.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 -46.0 - 46.0 - 46.0 117.0 - 28.0 6.0 - 93.0 6.0 -168.0 6.0 - 28.0 6.0 - 93.0 6.0 -168.0 6.0 40.0 6.0 105.0 6.0 180.0 6.0 40.0 6.0 105.0 6.0 180.0 6.0 - 28.0 6.0 - 28.0 6.0 - 28.0 6.0 -28.0 6.0 40.0 6.0 40.0 6.0 40.0 6.0 40.0 6.0 436.0 6.0 371.0 6.0 296.0 6.0 504.0 6.0 569.0 6.0 644.0 6.0 436.0 6.0 436.0 6.0 1048.0 6.0 983.0 6.0 908.0 6.0 1092.0 6.0 1157.0 6.0 1048.0 6.0 1048.0 6.0 2090.0 6.0 2025.0 6.0 2190.0 6.0 2255.0 6.0 2330.0 6.0 2190.0 6.0 2255.0 6.0 2320.0 6.0 2090.0 6.0 'REC 45 SSE midblock' 192.0 2090.0 6.0 'REC 46 NNE midqueue ' 117.0 2090.0 6.0 'REC 47 NNE midblock ' 192.0 2090.0 6.0 'REC 48 SE Corner 322.0 2090.0 6.0 'REC 49 SE midqueue ' 322.0 2015.0 6.0 'REC 50 SW Corner 278.0 2090.0 6.0 'REC 51 SW midqueue ' 278.0 2015.0 6.0 'REC 52 NE Corner 322.0 2158.0 6.0 'REC 53 NE midqueue ' 322.0 2223.0 6.0 'REC 54 NE midblock ' 322.0 2298.0 6.0 'REC 55 NW Corner 278.0 2318.0 6.0 'REC 56 NWW midqueue ' 213.0 2158.0 6.0 'REC 57 SEE midqueue' 213.0 2096.0 6.0 'All Intersections- 2006 Project' 65 1 1 'c' 1 'Pines NB. Appr. 'AG' 24.0 -1000. 24.0 0. 1483. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines NB. Q.Left' 'AG' -6.0 -18.0 -6.0 -200. 0. 12.0 1 100 52 2.0 36 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Pines NB. Thru' 'AG' 24.0 -18.0 24.0 -200. 0. 24.0 2 100 52 2.0 1447 299.4 3685 2 3 1 'Pines NB.Dep. 'AG' 24.0 0. 24.0 270. 2030. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Pines SB. Appr. 'AG' -24.0 270. -24.0 0. 2266. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines SB. Q.Left "AG' 0.0 30.0 0.0 200. 0. 24.0 2 100 82 2.0 417 299.4 3539 2 3 2 'Pines SB Thru' 'AG' -24.0 30.0 -24.0 200. 0. 24.0 2 100 34 2.0 1849 299.4 3640 2 3 1 'Pines SB Dep. 'AG' -24.0 0. -24.0 -1000. 1814. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Mission WB Appr.' 'AG' 1000. 12.0 0. 12.0 930. 16.6 0. 44. 2 'Mission WB Lft. 'AG' 36.0 0.0 200. 0.0 0. 12.0 1 100 85 2.0 179 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Mission WB Thru "AG' 36.0 12.0 200. 12.0 0. 12.0 1 100 76 2.0 276 299.4 1863 2 3 2 'Mission WB Q.Rt. "AG' 36.0 24.0 1000. 24.0 0. 12.0 1 100 65 2.0 475 299.4 1583 2 3 1 'Mission WB Dep.' 'AG' 0. 12.0 200. 12.0 591. 14.0 0. 32. 1 'Mission EB Appr.' 'AG' -1000. -12.0 0. -12.0 514. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Mission EB Lft ' 'AG' -36.0 0.0 -200. 0.0 0. 12.0 1 100 85 2.0 214 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Mission EB Thr -Rt' 'AG' -36.0 -12.0 -200. -12.0 0. 12.0 1 100 76 2.0 300 299.4 1801 2 3 1 'Mission EB Dep.' 'AG' 0. -12.0 1000. -12.0 758. 16.6 0. 32. 1 'Pines NB Appr. 'AG' 12. 270.0 12. 470.0 2236. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines NB. Thru' 'AG' 12.0 446.0 12.0 246.0 0. 24.0 2 100 41 2.0 1924 299.4 3725 2 3 2 'Pines NB. Rt.' 'AG' 30.0 446.0 30.0 246.0 0. 12.0 1 100 41 2.0 312 299.4 1583 2 3 1 'Pines NB.Dep. 'AG' 12.0 470. 12.0 770. 2375. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Pines SB. Appr. 'AG' -24.0 770. -24.0 470. 1810. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines SB. Q.Left "AG' -6.0 494.0 -6.0 694. 0. 12.0 1 100 87 2.0 206 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Pines SB Thr' 100 'AG' -24.0 494.0 -24.0 694.0 0. 24.0 2 28 2.0 1604 299.4 3725 2 3 1 'Pines SB. Dep. ' 'AG' -24.0 470. -24.0 270. 2450. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'EB Ramps EB Appr' 'AG' 0. 470.0 -1000. 470.0 1297. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'EB Ramps Q. Rt.' 'AG' -36.0 458.0 -200. 458.0 0. 24.0 2 100 65 2.0 846 299.4 3167 2 3 2 'EB Ramps Q. Lft' 'AG' -36.0 482.0 -236.0 482.0 0. 24.0 2 100 72 2.0 451 299.4 3411 2 3 1 'EB Ramps Dep.' 'AG' 0. 464.0 1000. 464.0 518. 14.0 0. 32. 1 'Pines NB. Appr. 'AG' 30.0 770. 30. 1070. 2149. 14.0 0. 56. 2 'Pines NB. Q.Left' 'AG' 0.0 1070. 0.0 870. 0. 24.0 2 100 75 2.0 571 299.4 3539 2 3 2 'Pines NB. Thru' 'AG' 30.0 1058. 30.0 858.0 0. 36.0 3 100 3 2.0 1578 299.4 5588 2 3 1 'Pines NB. Dep.' 'AG' 30.0 1070. 30.0 1570. 1578. 14.0 0. 56. 1 'Pines SB. Appr. 'AG' -24.0 1570. -24. 1070. 2051. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines SB Thru -Rt.' 'AG' -24.0 1082. -24.0 882. 0. 24.0 2 100 25 2.0 2051 299.4 3667 2 3 1 'Pines SB Dep. 'AG' -24.0 1070. -24.0 770. 1835. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'WB Ramps WB Dep. "AG' 0.0 1070. -1000. 1070. 787. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Pines NB Appr.' 'AG' 18.0 1990. 18.0 1570.0 1673. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines NB. Thru' 'AG' 18.0 1960. 18.0 1760.0 0. 24.0 2 100 55 2.0 1245 299.4 3725 2 3 2 'Pines NB Lft.' 'AG' 0.0 1960. 0.0 1760. 0. 12.0 1 100 82 2.0 173 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Pines NB Rt.' 'AG' 36.0 1960. 36.0 1760. 0. 12.0 1 100 5 2.0 255 299.4 1583 2 3 1 'Pines NB.Dep. 'AG' 18.0 1990. 18.0 2990. 1612. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Pines SB. Appr. 'AG' -18.0 2990. -18.0 1990. 1060. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Pines SB. Q.Left "AG' 0. 2020. 0.0 2220. 0. 12.0 1 100 88 2.0 108 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Pines SB Thr -Rt' 'AG' -18.0 2020. -18.0 3020. 0. 24.0 2 100 61 2.0 952 299.4 3707 2 3 1 'Pines SB Dep.' 'AG' -18.0 1990. -18.0 1570. 2038. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Indiana EB Appr' 'AG' -1000. 1978. 0.0 1978. 515. 14.0 0. 32. 2 'Indiana EB Thr' 'AG' -30. 1978.0 -200. 1978. 0. 12.0 1 100 87 2.0 19 299.4 1624 2 3 2 'Indiana EB Lft' 'AG' -30.0 1990. -230.0 1990. 0. 12.0 1 100 87 2.0 67 299.4 1770 2 3 2 'Indiana EB Rt.' 'AG' -30. 1966. -230. 1966. 0. 12.0 1 100 65 2.0 429 299.4 1583 2 3 1 'Indiana EB Dep.' 'AG' 0. 1972. 150. 1972. 382. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Indiana WB Appr' 'AG' 0.0 2002. 150. 2002. 1044. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Indiana WB.Thr.' 'AG' 42.0 2002. 242. 2002. 0. 12.0 1 100 70 2.0 59 299.4 1788 2 3 2 'Indiana WB Q. Lft' 'AG' 42.0 1990. 242.0 1990. 0. 12.0 1 100 70 2.0 685 299.4 1770 2 3 1 'Indiana WB Dep.' 'AG' 0.0 2002. -1000. 2002. 260. 14.0 0. 32. 2 'Indiana WB.Rt.' 'AG' 42.0 2014. 242. 2014. 0. 12.0 1 100 64 2.0 300 299.4 1583 2 3 1 'Indiana NB Appr' 'AG' 300. 1990.0 300. 990. 353. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Indiana NB.Rt. 'AG' 306.0 1966. 306. 1766. 0. 12.0 1 100 75 2.0 53 299.4 1583 2 3 2 'Indiana WB Q. Lft' 'AG' 294.0 1966. 294.0 1766. 0. 12.0 1 100 75 2.0 300 299.4 1770 2 3 1 'Indiana WB Appr' 'AG' 300. 2002. 1300. 2002. 781. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Indiana WB.Thru' 'AG' 0.0 2002. 312.0 2002. 0. 24.0 2 100 25 2.0 781 299.4 3725 2 3 1 'Indiana WB Dep. "AG' 300.0 2002. 150.0 2002. 1081. 14.0 0. 44. 1 'Indiana EB Appr' 'AG' 150. 1978. 300. 1978. 286. 14.0 0. 44. 2 'Indiana EB.Thru' 'AG' 312. 1978. 112. 1978. 0. 24.0 2 100 25 2.0 286 299.4 3725 2 3 1 'Indiana EB Dep. "AG' 300.0 1978. 1300. 1978. 339. 14.0 0. 44. 1.0 00. 5 1000. 3. 'Y' 10 0 35 CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0 Dated 95221 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 DATE : 6/ 5/98 TIME : 11:35:29 RUN: All Intersections- 2006 Project The MODE flag has been set to c for calculating CO averages. SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES VS = .0 CM /S U = 1.0 M/S LINK VARIABLES LINK DESCRIPTION VD = .0 CM /S CLAS = 5 (E) 1. Pines NB. Appr. 2. Pines NB. Q.Left 3. Pines NB. Thru 4. Pines NB.Dep. 5. Pines SB. Appr. 6. Pines SB. Q.Left 7. Pines SB Thru 8. Pines SB Dep. 9. Mission WB Appr. 10. Mission WB Lft. 11. Mission WB Thru 12. Mission WB Q.Rt. 13. Mission WB Dep. 14. Mission EB Appr. 15. Mission EB Lft 16. Mission EB Thr -Rt 17. Mission EB Dep. 18. Pines NB Appr. 19. Pines NB. Thru 20. Pines NB. Rt. 21. Pines NB.Dep. 22. Pines SB. Appr. 23. Pines SB. Q.Left 24. Pines SB Thr 25. Pines SB. Dep. 26. EB Ramps EB Appr * * X1 * * 24.0 * -6.0 * 24.0 * 24.0 * -24.0 * .0 * -24.0 * -24.0 * 1000.0 * 36.0 * 36.0 * 36.0 * .0 * - 1000.0 * -36.0 * -36.0 * .0 * 12.0 * 12.0 * 30.0 * 12.0 * -24.0 * -6.0 * -24.0 * -24.0 * .0 ZO = 175. CM ATIM = 60. MINUTES LINK COORDINATES (FT) Y1 X2 - 1000.0 24.0 -18.0 -6.0 -18.0 24.0 .0 24.0 270.0 -24.0 30.0 .0 30.0 -24.0 .0 -24.0 12.0 .0 .0 145.4 12.0 150.7 24.0 260.1 12.0 200.0 - 12.0 .0 .0 -388.6 - 12.0 -167.2 - 12.0 1000.0 270.0 12.0 446.0 12.0 446.0 30.0 470.0 12.0 770.0 -24.0 494.0 -6.0 494.0 -24.0 470.0 -24.0 470.0 - 1000.0 * Y2 * .0 * - 28.2 * -223.6 * 270.0 * .0 * 123.3 * 201.8 * - 1000.0 * 12.0 * .0 * 12.0 * 24.1 * 12.0 * - 12.0 * -.1 * -12.0 * - 12.0 * 470.0 * 230.3 * 376.1 * 770.0 * 470.0 * 1115.1 * 616.8 * 270.0 * 470.0 * MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 3.0 PPM PAGE 1 LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUF (FT) (DEG) (G /MI) (FT) (FT) (VEF 1000. 10. 206. 270. 270. 93. 172. 1000. 1000. 109. 115. 224. 200. 1000. 353. 131. 1000. 200. 216. 70. 300. 300. 621. 123. 200. 1000. 360. AG 180. AG 180. AG 360. AG 180. AG 360. AG 360. AG 180. AG 270. AG 90. AG 90. AG 90. AG 90. AG 90. AG 270. AG 270. AG 90. AG 360. AG 180. AG 180. AG 360. AG 180. AG 360. AG 360. AG 180. AG 270. AG 1483. 14.0 418. 100.0 835. 100.0 2030. 14.0 2266. 14.0 1317. 100.0 546. 100.0 1814. 14.0 930. 16.6 683. 100.0 610. 100.0 522. 100.0 591. 14.0 514. 14.0 683. 100.0 610. 100.0 758. 16.6 2236. 14.0 659. 100.0 329. 100.0 2375. 14.0 1810. 14.0 699. 100.0 450. 100.0 2.450. 14.0 1297. 14.0 .0 44.0 .0 12.0 .05 .5 .0 24.0 .45 10.4 .0 44.0 .0 44.0 .0 24.0 .42 4.7 . 0 24.0 .41 8.7 . 0 44.0 .0 44.0 .0 12.0 .92 5.6 .0 12.0 .74 5.8 .0 12.0 .97 11.4 .0 32.0 . 0 44.0 .0 12.0 1.10 17.9 .0 12.0 .83 6.7 .0 32.0 . 0 44.0 .0 24.0 .47 11.0 .0 12.0 .36 3.6 .0 44.0 . 0 44.0 .0 12.0 1.30 31.5 . 0 24.0 .32 6.2 .0 44.0 .0 44.0 27. EB Ramps Q. Rt. 28. EB Ramps Q. Lft 29. EB Ramps Dep. 30. Pines NB. Appr. 31. Pines NB. Q.Left 32. Pines NB. Thru 33. Pines NB. Dep. 34. Pines SB. Appr. 35. Pines SB Thru -Rt. 36. Pines SB Dep. 37. WB Ramps WB Dep. 38. Pines NB Appr. 39. Pines NB. Thru 40. Pines NB Lft. 41. Pines NB Rt. 42. Pines NB.Dep. 43. Pines SB. Appr. 44. Pines SB. Q.Left * -36.0 458.0 -186.3 458.0 * * -36.0 482.0 -124.6 482.0 * * .0 464.0 1000.0 464.0 * * 30.0 770.0 30.0 1070.0 * * .0 1070.0 .0 953.1 * * 30.0 1058.0 30.0 1049.4 * * 30.0 1070.0 30.0 1570.0 * * -24.0 1570.0 -24.0 1070.0 * * -24.0 1082.0 -24.0 941.9 * * -24.0 1070.0 -24.0 770.0 * * .0 1070.0 - 1000.0 1070.0 * * 18.0 1990.0 18.0 1570.0 * * 18.0 1960.0 18.0 1772.9 * * .0 1960.0 .0 1882.4 * * 36.0 1960.0 36.0 1953.0 * * 18.0 1990.0 18.0 2990.0 * * -18.0 2990.0 -18.0 1990.0 * * .0 2020.0 .0 2076.6 * 150. 89. 1000. 300. 117. 9. 500. 500. 140. 300. 1000. 420. 187. 78. 7. 1000. 1000. 57. 270. AG 270. AG 90. AG 360. AG 180. AG 180. AG 360. AG 180. AG 180. AG 180. AG 270. AG 180. AG 180. AG 180. AG 180. AG 360. AG 180. AG 360. AG 1044. 100.0 1156. 100.0 518. 14.0 2149. 14.0 1205. 100.0 72. 100.0 1578. 14.0 2051. 14.0 402. 100.0 1835. 14.0 787. 14.0 1673. 14.0 883. 100.0 659. 100.0 40. 100.0 1612. 14.0 1060. 14.0 707. 100.0 .0 24.0 .43 7.6 .0 24.0 .28 4.5 .0 32.0 .0 56.0 .0 24.0 .38 5.9 .0 36.0 .10 .4 .0 56.0 .0 44.0 .0 24.0 .39 7.1 .0 44.0 .0 44.0 .0 44.0 .0 24.0 .41 9.5 .0 12.0 .70 3.9 .0 12.0 .18 .4 .0 44.0 .0 44.0 .0 12.0 .77 2.9 PAGE 2 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 RUN: All Intersections- 2006 Project DATE : 6/ 5/98 TIME : 11:35:29 LINK VARIABLES LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (FT) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (FT) (DEG) (G /MI) (FT) (FT) (VEF * * 45. Pines SB Thr -Rt * -18.0 2020.0 -18.0 2178.8 * 159. 360. AG 980. 100.0 .0 24.0 .37 8.1 46. Pines SB Dep. * -18.0 1990.0 -18.0 1570.0 * 420. 180. AG 2038. 14.0 .0 44.0 47. Indiana EB Appr * - 1000.0 1978.0 .0 1978.0 * 1000. 90. AG 515. 14.0 .0 32.0 48. Indiana EB Thr * -30.0 1978.0 -39.0 1978.0 * 9. 270. AG 699. 100.0 .0 12.0 .13 .5 49. Indiana EB Lft * -30.0 1990.0 -61.9 1990.0 * 32. 270. AG 699. 100.0 .0 12.0 .42 1.6 50. Indiana EB Rt. * -30.0 1966.0 -195.6 1966.0 * 166. 270. AG 522. 100.0 .0 12.0 .88 8.4 51. Indiana EB Dep. * .0 1972.0 150.0 1972.0 * 150. 90. AG 382. 14.0 .0 44.0 52. Indiana WB Appr * .0 2002.0 150.0 2002.0 * 150. 90. AG 1044. 14.0 .0 44.0 53. Indiana WB.Thr. * 42.0 2002.0 64.6 2002.0 * 23. 90. AG 562. 100.0 .0 12.0 .13 1.1 54. Indiana WB Q. Lft * 42.0 1990.0 2631.3 1990.5 * 2589. 90. AG 562. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.49 131.5 55. Indiana WB Dep. * .0 2002.0 - 1000.0 2002.0 * 1000. 270. AG 260. 14.0 .0 32.0 56. Indiana WB.Rt. * 42.0 2014.0 147.0 2014.0 * 105. 90. AG 514. 100.0 .0 12.0 .59 5.3 57. Indiana NB Appr * 300.0 1990.0 300.0 990.0 * 1000. 180. AG 353. 14.0 .0 44.0 58. Indiana NB.Rt. * 306.0 1966.0 306.0 1944.3 * 22. 180. AG 602. 100.0 .0 12.0 .16 1.1 59. Indiana WB Q. Lft * 294.0 1966.0 294.0 1840.3 * 126. 180. AG 602. 100.0 .0 12.0 .81 6.4 60. Indiana WB Appr * 300.0 2002.0 1300.0 2002.0 * 1000. 90. AG 781. 14.0 .0 44.0 61. Indiana WB.Thru * .0 2002.0 53.3 2002.0 * 53. 90. AG 402. 100.0 .0 24.0 .15 2.7 62. Indiana WB Dep. * 300.0 2002.0 150.0 2002.0 * 150. 270. AG 1081. 14.0 .0 44.0 63. Indiana EB Appr * 150.0 1978.0 300.0 1978.0 * 150. 90. AG 286. 14.0 .0 44.0 64. Indiana EB.Thru * 312.0 1978.0 292.5 1978.0 * 20. 270. AG 402. 100.0 .0 24.0 .05 1.0 65. Indiana EB Dep. * 300.0 1978.0 1300.0 1978.0 * 1000. 90. AG 339. 14.0 .0 44.0 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 RUN: All Intersections- 2006 Project DATE : 6/ 5/98 TIME : 11:35:29 ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL * LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE * (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm /hr) * 2. Pines NB. Q.Left * 100 52 2.0 36 1770 299.40 2 3 3. Pines NB. Thru * 100 52 2.0 1447 3685 299.40 2 3 6. Pines SB. Q.Left * 100 82 2.0 417 3539 299.40 2 3 7. Pines SB Thru * 100 34 2.0 1849 3640 299.40 2 3 10. Mission WB Lft. * 100 85 2.0 179 1770 299.40 2 3 11. Mission WB Thru * 100 76 2.0 276 1863 299.40 2 3 12. Mission WB Q.Rt. * 100 65 2.0 475 1583 299.40 2 3 15. Mission EB Lft * 100 85 2.0 214 1770 299.40 2 3 16. Mission EB Thr -Rt * 100 76 2.0 300 1801 299.40 2 3 19. Pines NB. Thru * 100 41 2.0 1924 3725 299.40 2 3 20. Pines NB. Rt. * 100 41 2.0 312 1583 299.40 2 3 23. Pines SB. Q.Left * 100 87 2.0 206 1770 299.40 2 3 24. Pines SB Thr * 100 28 2.0 1604 3725 299.40 2 3 27. EB Ramps Q. Rt. * 100 65 2.0 846 3167 299.40 2 3 28. EB Ramps Q. Lft * 100 72 2.0 451 3411 299.40 2 3 31. Pines NB. Q.Left * 100 75 2.0 571 3539 299.40 2 3 32. Pines NB. Thru * 100 3 2.0 1578 5588 299.40 2 3 35. Pines SB Thru -Rt. * 100 25 2.0 2051 3667 299.40 2 3 39. Pines NB. Thru * 100 55 2.0 1245 3725 299.40 2 3 40. Pines NB Lft. * 100 82 2.0 173 1770 299.40 2 3 41. Pines NB Rt. * 100 5 2.0 255 1583 299.40 2 3 44. Pines SB. Q.Left * 100 88 2.0 108 1770 299.40 2 3 45. Pines SB Thr -Rt * 100 61 2.0 952 3707 299.40 2 3 48. Indiana EB Thr * 100 87 2.0 19 1624 299.40 2 3 49. Indiana EB Lft * 100 87 2.0 67 1770 299.40 2 3 50. Indiana EB Rt. * 100 65 2.0 429 1583 299.40 2 3 53. Indiana WB.Thr. * 100 70 2.0 59 1788 299.40 2 3 54. Indiana WB Q. Lft * 100 70 2.0 685 1770 299.40 2 3 56. Indiana WB.Rt. * 100 64 2.0 300 1583 299.40 2 3 58. Indiana NB.Rt. * 100 75 2.0 53 1583 299.40 2 3 59. Indiana WB Q. Lft * 100 75 2.0 300 1770 299.40 2 3 61. Indiana WB.Thru * 100 25 2.0 781 3725 299.40 2 3 64. Indiana EB.Thru * 100 25 2.0 286 3725 299.40 2 3 PAGE 3 RECEPTOR LOCATIONS RECEPTOR 1. REC 1 SE Corner 2. REC 2 SE midqueue 3. REC 3 SE midblock 4. REC 4 SW Corner 5. REC 5 SW midqueue 6. REC 6 SW midblock 7. REC 7 NE Corner 8. REC 8 NE midqueue 9. REC 9 NE midblock 10. REC 10 NW Corner 11. REC 11 NW midqueue 12. REC 12 NW midblock COORDINATES (FT) X Y Z 46.0 -28.0 46.0 -93.0 46.0 -168.0 - 46.0 -28.0 - 46.0 -93.0 - 46.0 -168.0 46.0 40.0 46.0 105.0 46.0 180.0 - 46.0 40.0 - 46.0 105.0 - 46.0 180.0 * * * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 RUN: All Intersections- 2006 Project DATE : 6/ 5/98 TIME : 11:35:29 RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * * 13. REC 13 SSE midqueue * 14. REC 14 SSE midblock * 15. REC 15 SSW midqueue * 16. REC 16 SSW midblock * 17. REC 17 NNW midqueue * 18. REC 18 NNW midblock * 19. REC 19 NNE midqueue * 20. REC 20 NNE midblock * 21. REC 21 SE Corner * 22. REC 22 SE midqueue * 23. REC 23 SE midblock * 24. REC 24 NE Corner * 25. REC 25 NE midqueue * 26. REC 26 NE midblock * 27. REC 27 SSE midqueue * 28. REC 28 SSE midblock * 29. REC 29 SE Corner * 30. REC 30 SE midqueue * 31. REC 31 SE midblock * 32. REC 32 NE Corner * 33. REC 33 NE midqueue * 34. REC 34 SSE midqueue * 35. REC 35 SSE midblock * 36. REC 36 SE Corner * 37. REC 37 SE midqueue * 38. REC 38 NE Corner * 39. REC 39 NE midqueue * 40. REC 40 NE midblock * 41. REC 41 NW Corner * 42. REC 42 NW midqueue * 43. REC 43 NW midblock * 44. REC 44 SSE midqueue * 45. REC 45 SSE midblock * COORDINATES (FT) * X Y Z * * 111.0 -28.0 6.0 * 186.0 -28.0 6.0 * - 111.0 -28.0 6.0 * - 186.0 -28.0 6.0 * -111.0 40.0 6.0 * - 186.0 40.0 6.0 * 111.0 40.0 6.0 * 186.0 40.0 6.0 * 46.0 436.0 6.0 * 46.0 371.0 6.0 * 46.0 296.0 6.0 * 46.0 504.0 6.0 * 46.0 569.0 6.0 * 46.0 644.0 6.0 * 111.0 436.0 6.0 * 186.0 436.0 6.0 * 58.0 1048.0 6.0 * 58.0 983.0 6.0 * 58.0 908.0 6.0 * 58.0 1092.0 6.0 * 58.0 1157.0 6.0 * 123.0 1048.0 6.0 * 198.0 1048.0 6.0 * 58.0 2090.0 6.0 * 58.0 2025.0 6.0 * 58.0 2190.0 6.0 * 58.0 2255.0 6.0 * 58.0 2330.0 6.0 * - 46.0 2190.0 6.0 * - 46.0 2255.0 6.0 * - 46.0 2320.0 6.0 * 117.0 2090.0 6.0 * 192.0 2090.0 6.0 * PAGE 4 46. REC 46 NNE midqueue * 117.0 2090.0 6.0 * 47. REC 47 NNE midblock * 192.0 2090.0 6.0 * 48. REC 48 SE Corner * 322.0 2090.0 6.0 * 49. REC 49 SE midqueue * 322.0 2015.0 6.0 * 50. REC 50 SW Corner * 278.0 2090.0 6.0 * 51. REC 51 SW midqueue * 278.0 2015.0 6.0 * 52. REC 52 NE Corner * 322.0 2158.0 6.0 * 53. REC 53 NE midqueue * 322.0 2223.0 6.0 * 54. REC 54 NE midblock * 322.0 2298.0 6.0 * 55. REC 55 NW Corner * 278.0 2318.0 6.0 * 56. REC 56 NWW midqueue * 213.0 2158.0 6.0 * 57. REC 57 SEE midqueue * 213.0 2096.0 6.0 * PAGE 5 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 RUN: All Intersections- 2006 Project MODEL RESULTS REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0. -350. WIND * CONCENTRATION ANGLE * (PPM) (DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19 REC2C * 0. * 11.6 10.0 10.2 12.3 9.8 8.9 7.6 8.0 8.1 9.1 8.9 8.7 8.9 5.5 8.6 5.6 5.4 3.9 4.5 3.E 10. * 8.3 6.6 6.3 13.6 10.0 9.1 4.4 4.3 4.5 10.4 9.9 9.2 7.4 4.8 9.6 7.0 6.3 5.6 3.1 3.1 20. * 7.6 5.7 5.0 11.8 8.1 7.9 3.3 3.3 3.4 9.9 9.0 8.2 7.4 4.8 9.5 6.9 6.1 5.4 3.1 3.] 30. * 7.5 5.6 4.6 9.8 7.1 7.6 3.2 3.3 3.3 9.8 8.0 7.6 7.3 4.7 9.4 6.6 5.3 5.0 3.1 3.] 40. * 8.0 5.5 4.2 7.8 7.5 7.7 3.2 3.3 3.3 9.7 7.4 7.1 7.3 4.9 10.0 7.3 5.4 4.5 3.1 3.] 50. * 8.3 4.9 3.8 6.9 8.0 7.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 9.6 7.1 6.8 6.6 4.8 10.0 8.3 5.8 4.6 3.2 3.] 60. * 8.3 4.3 3.5 7.6 7.9 6.4 3.1 3.2 3.2 9.1 7.3 6.5 6.1 4.6 9.8 9.2 6.0 4.8 3.0 3.0 70. * 7.6 3.7 3.4 8.7 7.1 6.0 3.2 3.0 3.1 9.0 7.7 6.3 5.3 4.5 9.7 10.1 6.2 5.0 3.2 3.] 80. * 6.4 3.6 3.2 9.2 6.4 5.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 9.6 8.3 6.1 5.0 4.7 9.4 10.1 6.9 5.8 3.8 3.z 90. * 5.0 3.2 3.0 8.2 6.0 5.7 5.9 3.3 3.0 11.2 9.2 6.2 4.4 4.3 7.3 7.9 7.8 6.6 5.1 4.4 100. 3.5 3.0 3.0 6.4 5.6 5.5 7.9 3.7 3.3 11.6 9.7 6.4 3.5 3.5 5.5 5.4 7.9 7.2 6.5 5.E 110. * 3.1 3.0 3.0 5.8 5.5 5.5 8.9 4.0 3.4 9.9 10.8 6.7 3.1 3.1 4.7 4.4 6.6 7.1 6.8 5.c 120. * 3.1 3.0 3.0 5.8 5.6 5.3 9.3 4.6 3.7 7.6 11.5 7.6 3.1 3.1 4.8 4.3 6.4 7.0 7.1 6.0 130. * 3.1 3.1 3.1 5.9 5.9 5.1 9.1 5.0 3.7 6.8 11.6 8.7 3.0 3.0 4.8 4.0 6.9 7.0 7.3 5.. 140. * 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.2 6.0 4.9 8.5 5.5 4.2 6.8 11.1 10.0 3.0 3.0 4.6 3.8 7.2 6.6 7.6 5.E 150. * 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.2 5.7 4.8 8.3 5.8 4.6 7.1 10.4 11.3 3.0 3.0 4.4 3.7 7.2 6.2 7.9 5.z 160. * 3.3 3.3 3.2 6.1 5.6 5.1 8.3 6.0 4.9 7.6 9.7 11.5 3.0 3.0 4.1 3.7 6.6 5.6 7.9 5.E 170. * 4.3 4.1 3.8 5.9 5.6 5.5 9.2 6.8 5.9 7.8 8.4 10.1 3.0 3.0 3.9 3.4 6.3 5.1 7.9 5.z 180. * 6.5 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 11.3 8.2 7.6 7.1 6.8 7.7 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.1 5.7 4.6 8.3 190. * 8.6 7.8 6.2 3.8 3.8 3.8 12.0 8.4 8.6 6.2 5.3 5.4 4.1 3.4 3.0 3.0 5.4 4.4 9.2 5.E 200. * 8.7 8.4 6.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 10.0 7.7 9.0 5.6 4.7 4.2 4.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 5.3 4.4 9.9 6.] 210. * 8.1 8.0 7.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 7.9 7.8 9.1 5.6 4.6 4.1 5.0 3.8 3.0 3.0 5.4 4.5 10.5 7.0 220. * 7.6 7.6 7.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 7.0 8.7 8.4 5.6 4.5 3.9 5.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 5.2 4.5 10.5 7.0 230. * 7.1 7.1 7.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.5 9.6 7.3 5.9 4.4 3.8 5.1 4.4 3.0 3.0 5.2 4.7 10.4 9.] 240. * 6.9 6.8 6.8 3.1 3.0 3.0 7.0 9.4 6.5 5.8 4.2 3.6 5.1 4.5 3.1 3.1 5.0 4.8 10.2 10.: 250. * 6.9 6.6 6.5 3.1 3.0 3.0 8.3 9.2 5.8 5.6 3.8 3.3 4.9 4.3 3.1 3.1 4.9 4.7 9.5 11.0 260. * 7.8 6.6 6.6 3.9 3.0 3.0 9.0 8.6 5.6 5.0 3.4 3.1 5.6 5.1 3.7 3.5 4.6 4.2 8.8 10.: 270. * 9.5 6.9 6.6 5.9 3.2 3.0 8.9 8.3 5.4 3.9 3.0 3.0 7.2 7.1 5.0 4.4 3.8 3.5 7.6 7.E 280. * 9.9 7.6 6.8 7.7 3.6 3.1 8.1 7.6 5.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 8.0 8.7 6.5 5.2 3.1 3.1 6.3 5.E 290. * 8.5 8.2 7.1 8.1 4.1 3.3 8.1 7.0 5.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 8.3 9.8 7.4 5.5 3.0 3.0 6.1 5.] 300. * 7.2 8.8 7.8 7.8 4.7 3.6 8.3 6.5 4.9 3.2 3.2 3.3 9.4 9.8 7.5 5.5 3.1 3.1 5.9 4.E 310. * 7.4 8.8 8.4 7.3 4.9 4.0 8.6 6.1 5.4 3.2 3.3 3.3 10.7 8.7 7.2 5.2 3.1 3.1 5.4 4.4 320. * 8.4 9.0 8.9 6.9 5.0 4.1 8.8 6.1 6.4 3.2 3.2 3.4 10.9 7.6 6.8 5.0 3.1 3.1 5.2 4.c 330. * 10.4 9.7 9.5 6.6 4.9 4.3 8.7 6.6 7.9 3.3 3.3 3.6 10.3 7.3 6.6 4.8 3.1 3.1 5.5 5.4 340. * 11.7 11.3 10.7 7.0 5.1 4.5 8.5 7.8 9.0 3.8 3.8 4.3 10.1 7.4 6.5 4.7 3.2 3.1 6.0 5.1 350. * 12.6 11.9 12.0 8.5 6.5 5.7 9.0 8.9 9.6 5.4 5.5 5.7 10.2 6.4 6.9 4.9 3.6 3.2 5.8 4.E * MAX * 12.6 11.9 12.0 13.6 10.0 9.1 12.0 9.6 9.6 11.6 11.6 11.5 10.9 9.8 10.0 10.1 7.9 7.2 10.5 11.( DEGR. * 350 350 350 10 10 10 190 230 350 100 130 160 320 300 40 70 100 100 210 250 PAGE 6 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 RUN: All Intersections- 2006 Project MODEL RESULTS REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0. -350. WIND * CONCENTRATION ANGLE * (PPM) (DEGR)* REC21 REC22 REC23 REC24 REC25 REC26 REC27 REC28 REC29 REC30 REC31 REC32 REC33 REC34 REC35 REC36 REC37 REC38 REC39 REC4C * 0. * 6.8 7.0 7.2 6.6 6.5 6.5 4.6 3.6 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.. 10. * 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.; 20. * 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.( 30. * 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 40. * 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 50. * 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 60. * 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 70. * 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 80. * 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 4.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 90. * 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.8 7.0 3.3 3.2 3.] 100. * 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 4.5 8.7 3.8 3.6 3.1 110. * 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 4.5 8.6 4.0 3.7 3.E 120. * 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 8.0 3.8 3.6 3.E 130. * 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 4.7 7.3 3.8 3.6 3.E 140. * 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 4.9 7.0 3.8 3.7 3.E 150. * 3.3 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 4.6 6.8 4.1 3.9 3.E 160. * 3.6 3.8 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.1 4.8 6.8 3.9 4.0 3.. 170. * 4.8 4.7 5.3 4.7 4.6 4.7 3.6 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.2 3.1 5.3 7.8 4.6 4.3 4.0 180. * 7.2 6.9 7.0 7.4 7.1 6.7 4.6 3.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.2 7.1 4.4 3.6 8.0 10.7 6.8 6.3 6.0 190. * 9.3 8.4 8.4 9.2 8.0 8.0 5.8 4.7 8.7 8.5 8.5 9.1 9.4 5.7 4.6 8.6 12.4 7.5 7.3 7.0 200. * 9.5 8.4 8.3 8.4 7.4 8.2 5.9 5.1 8.1 7.7 8.0 8.8 9.2 5.9 5.6 7.7 12.2 6.9 6.7 6.; 210. * 8.8 7.9 7.9 7.1 6.9 8.9 5.8 5.0 8.0 6.8 7.1 9.0 8.3 5.6 5.1 6.6 11.4 6.7 6.3 5.] 220. * 8.2 7.3 7.2 5.9 8.1 8.9 5.7 5.0 8.4 6.1 6.1 9.0 7.0 5.0 4.6 6.7 9.8 6.3 5.5 4.z 230. * 7.6 6.8 6.8 6.0 9.1 7.8 5.4 4.8 8.7 6.3 5.8 8.6 6.0 5.5 4.4 7.2 8.7 6.0 4.7 4.] 240. * 7.3 6.5 6.5 7.1 8.9 6.8 5.2 4.6 8.4 6.7 5.5 8.0 4.9 6.0 4.8 6.9 8.2 5.6 4.2 4.0 250. * 7.2 6.1 6.1 8.9 7.6 6.0 5.2 4.4 8.2 7.4 5.5 7.1 4.6 6.2 5.0 6.5 7.7 5.2 4.0 3.c 260. * 7.7 6.1 6.1 9.6 6.8 5.8 5.8 5.0 8.2 7.8 5.3 6.5 4.5 6.5 5.3 6.0 7.3 4.8 3.9 3.c 270. * 9.5 6.6 6.2 8.3 6.4 5.6 7.0 6.0 8.8 8.3 5.5 5.9 4.3 6.6 5.6 5.7 6.6 4.3 3.9 3.S 280. * 10.7 7.2 6.3 6.8 6.2 5.5 7.5 6.1 8.1 8.4 5.5 5.1 4.2 5.7 4.8 5.4 6.3 4.0 3.9 3.S 290. * 9.8 8.3 6.6 6.3 6.2 5.5 6.3 5.5 7.3 8.5 6.0 4.7 4.1 4.8 3.8 5.4 6.4 3.9 3.9 3.S 300. * 8.2 9.6 7.1 6.4 6.2 5.7 5.6 4.9 6.5 8.3 6.8 4.4 4.2 4.2 3.7 5.4 6.4 3.9 3.9 3.S 310. * 6.8 9.9 7.8 6.7 6.2 5.9 5.6 4.9 5.5 8.6 7.9 4.4 4.3 3.9 3.6 5.4 6.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 320. * 6.8 9.9 8.7 6.9 6.3 6.1 5.5 4.7 5.1 8.2 8.6 4.5 4.5 3.8 3.6 4.9 5.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 330. * 7.1 9.4 9.2 6.9 6.5 6.6 5.4 4.9 4.9 7.2 9.1 4.7 4.6 3.9 3.7 4.6 5.6 4.2 4.2 4.; 340. * 7.7 9.2 9.0 7.5 7.1 7.2 5.7 5.0 5.2 6.1 8.3 5.0 5.0 4.3 3.9 4.4 4.9 4.3 4.3 4.: 350. * 7.9 8.9 9.3 7.6 7.7 7.8 5.9 4.8 5.8 6.2 7.2 5.8 5.9 4.5 3.9 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.; * MAX * 10.7 9.9 9.3 9.6 9.1 8.9 7.5 6.1 8.8 8.6 9.1 9.1 9.4 6.6 5.6 8.6 12.4 7.5 7.3 7.0 DEGR. * 280 310 350 260 230 210 280 280 270 310 330 190 190 270 270 190 190 190 190 190 JOB: Mirabeau Point - Revised 6 -3 -98 RUN: All Intersections- 2006 Project MODEL RESULTS REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0. -350. WIND * CONCENTRATION ANGLE * (PPM) (DEGR)* REC41 REC42 REC43 REC44 REC45 REC46 REC47 REC48 REC49 REC50 REC51 REC52 REC53 REC54 REC55 REC56 REC57 * 0. * 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10. * 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 20. * 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30. * 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 40. * 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 50. * 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 60. * 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 70. * 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 80. * 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 4.3 3.1 4.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 90. * 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 6.3 3.8 6.3 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.7 100. * 5.3 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 6.6 4.5 6.7 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.9 4.4 110. * 6.1 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 6.0 4.4 6.1 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.3 120. * 6.9 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.1 5.6 4.1 5.8 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.9 4.1 130. * 7.4 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.0 5.3 4.0 5.8 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.9 4.1 140. * 8.0 5.3 4.8 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.0 4.9 4.0 6.1 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 4.4 150. * 8.9 6.0 5.2 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.7 3.9 4.8 4.1 6.5 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 4.1 4.6 160. * 10.0 7.5 6.3 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.5 3.9 4.7 4.5 6.9 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 4.2 4.6 170. * 9.8 8.9 7.9 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.2 5.0 5.1 7.0 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.7 4.1 4.3 180. * 7.9 7.6 6.9 5.7 4.4 5.7 4.4 4.8 6.0 4.9 6.4 4.3 4.2 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.3 190. * 4.5 4.6 4.2 6.5 5.4 6.5 5.4 6.1 8.2 5.6 6.6 5.5 5.1 4.7 4.4 5.0 5.3 200. * 3.4 3.4 3.3 7.2 5.2 7.2 5.2 5.6 8.2 4.8 6.0 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.4 5.1 4.7 210. * 3.3 3.2 3.2 7.1 5.6 7.1 5.6 4.6 7.6 4.7 5.4 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.2 5.3 220. * 3.2 3.1 3.1 6.5 6.1 6.5 6.1 4.9 6.8 4.8 5.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 5.8 5.8 230. * 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.0 6.2 6.0 6.2 5.1 6.4 5.4 6.3 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.4 5.3 6.1 240. * 3.1 3.1 3.1 5.6 5.9 5.6 5.9 5.4 6.6 5.6 6.7 5.0 4.8 4.1 4.0 5.0 5.8 250. * 3.1 3.1 3.0 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.5 7.3 5.5 7.3 4.8 4.1 3.7 3.6 4.6 5.7 260. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.0 7.8 4.9 8.0 4.1 3.8 3.4 3.3 4.2 4.8 270. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.2 7.1 4.1 7.2 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.9 4.3 PAGE 7 280. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.7 4.2 4.7 4.2 3.7 5.3 3.8 5.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.6 4.0 290. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.6 3.8 4.6 3.8 3.5 4.4 3.6 4.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.7 300. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.3 3.7 4.3 3.7 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 310. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 320. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 330. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 340. * 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 350. * 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.3 * MAX * 10.0 8.9 7.9 7.2 6.2 7.2 6.2 6.1 8.2 5.6 8.0 5.5 5.1 4.7 4.6 5.8 6.1 DEGR. * 160 170 170 200 230 200 230 190 190 190 260 190 190 190 210 220 230 THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF 13.60 PPM OCCURRED AT RECEPTOR REC4 . 'Mirabeau Point' 60. 175 0. 0. 20 .3048 1 1 'REC 1 SE Corner 28.0 -52.0 6.0 1 'REC 2 SE midqueue 'REC 3 SE midblock 28.0 -117.0 6.0 'REC 4 SW Corner 28.0 -192.0 6.0 'REC 5 � -28.0 -52.0 6.0 SW midqueue ' -28.0 'REC 6 SW midblock -117.0 6.0 'REC 7 NE Corner -28'0 -152.0 6.0 'REC 8 NE midqueue ' 28.0 40.0 6.0 'REC 9 28.0 105.0 6.0 NE midblock ' 28.0 'REC 10 NW Corner 180.0 6.0 'REC 11 NW midqueue -28'0 40.0 6.0 -28.0 105.0 6.0 'REC 12 NW midblock 'REC 13 SSE midqueue' -28.0 180.0 6.0 93.0 -52.0 6.0 'REC 14 SSE midblock' 93 'REC 15 SSW midqueue' 168.0 -52.0 6.0 -93.0 -52.0 6.0 - 'REC 16 SSW midblock' 'REC 17 NNW midqueue' -168.0 -52.0 6.0 -93.0 40.0 6.0 - 'REC 18 NNW midblock' 'REC 19 NNE midqueue' -168.0 40.0 6.0 'REC 20 NNE midblock' 9 0 40.0 6.0 . 'REVISED Trent + 1688'0 40.0 6.0 Pines Rd. 2006 Existing' 15 1 1 1 'c' 'Pines NB. Appr. 2 'AG' 12.0 -1000. 12.0 0. 1154. 14.0 0. 32. 'Pines NB. Q•Left' 'AG 90 0.0 -42.0 0.0 -242. 2 63 2.0 525 299.4 1770 2 3 0. 12.0 1 'Pines NB. Thru' 'AG' 90 12.0 -42.0 12.0 -1000. 63 2.0 629 299.4 1606 2 3 0. 12.0 1 1 'Pines NB.Dep. 'AG' 12.0 1 0. 12.0 1000. 73. 20.4 0. 'Pines SB. Appr. 32. 2 pp 'AG' -12.0 0.0 -12.0 1000. 83. 20.4 'Pines SB Thru' 0. 32. 90 'AG' -12.0 30.0 -12.0 200. 80 2.0 83 299.4 0. 12.0 1 1 162 0 2 3 'Pines SB Dep. 'AG' 1 -12.0 0. -12.0 -1000. 982. 14.0 0. 'Trent WB A 32. 2 Appr.' 'AG' 1000. 18.0 0. 18.0 1092. 10.6 0. 44. Trent WB Lft.' 'AG' 18.0 90 0.0 65 0.0 200. 0. 12.0 1 2.0 419 299.4 1770 2 3 'Trent WB Thr -Rt. 'AG' 18.0 18.0 1000. 18.0 0. 24.0 2 90 56 2.0 673 299.4 3711 2 3 1 'Trent WB Dep. ' 'AG' 0.0 18.0 200. 18.0 1192. 10.6 0. 44. 1 'Trent EB Appr. 'AG' -1000. -18.0 0. -18.0 1585. 10.6 0. 44. 2 'Trent EB Q. Thru -Rt' 'AG' -18.0 -18.0 -200. -18.0 0. 24.0 2 90 62 2.0 1580 299.4 3725 2 3 2 'Trent EB Q. Lft.' 'AG' -18.0 0.0 -200. 0.0 0. 12.0 1 90 71 2.0 5 299.4 1770 2 3 1 'Trent EB Dep.' 'AG' 0. -18.0 1000. -18.0 1651. 10.6 0. 44. 1.0 00. 5 1000. 3. 'Y' 10 0 35 CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0 Dated 95221 PAGE 1 JOB: Mirabeau Point RUN: REVISED Trent + Pines Rd. 2006 Existing DATE : 5/20/98 TIME : 10:42:58 The MODE flag has been set to c for calculating CO averages. SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES VS = .0 CM /S U = 1.0 M/S LINK VARIABLES LINK DESCRIPTION VD = .0 CM /S ZO = 175. CM CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 3.0 PPM * * X1 * LINK COORDINATES (FT) Y1 X2 * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE Y2 * (FT) (DEG) (G /MI) (FT) (FT) (VEF * 1. Pines NB. Appr. * 12.0 - 1000.0 12.0 .0 * 1000. 360. AG 1154. 14.0 .0 32.0 2. Pines NB. Q.Left * .0 -42.0 .0 - 1030.1 * 988. 180. AG 562. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.16 50.2 3. Pines NB. Thru * 12.0 -42.0 12.0 - 2526.7 * 2485. 180. AG 562. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.53 126.2 4. Pines NB.Dep. * 12.0 .0 12.0 1000.0 * 1000. 360. AG 73. 20.4 .0 32.0 5. Pines SB. Appr. * -12.0 .0 -12.0 1000.0 * 1000. 360. AG 83. 20.4 .0 32.0 6. Pines SB Thru * -12.0 30.0 -12.0 72.1 * 42. 360. AG 714. 100.0 .0 12.0 .77 2.1 7. Pines SB Dep. * -12.0 .0 -12.0 - 1000.0 * 1000. 180. AG 982. 14.0 .0 32.0 8. Trent WB Appr. * 1000.0 18.0 .0 18.0 * 1000. 270. AG 1092. 10.6 .0 44.0 9. Trent WB Lft. * 18.0 .0 310.2 .0 * 292. 90. AG 580. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.02 14.8 10. Trent WB Thr -Rt. * 18.0 18.0 120.9 18.0 * 103. 90. AG 999. 100.0 .0 24.0 .27 5.2 11. Trent WB Dep. * .0 18.0 200.0 18.0 * 200. 90. AG 1192. 10.6 .0 44.0 12. Trent EB Appr. * - 1000.0 -18.0 .0 -18.0 * 1000. 90. AG 1585. 10.6 .0 44.0 13. Trent EB Q. Thru -Rt * -18.0 -18.0 -285.8 -18.0 * 268. 270. AG 1106. 100.0 .0 24.0 .80 13.6 14. Trent EB Q. Lft. * -18.0 .0 -19.9 .0 * 2. 270. AG 634. 100.0 .0 12.0 .02 .1 15. Trent EB Dep. * .0 -18.0 1000.0 -18.0 * 1000. 90. AG 1651. 10.6 .0 44.0 JOB: Mirabeau Point RUN: REVISED Trent + Pines Rd. 2006 Existing DATE : 5/20/98 TIME : 10:42:58 ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL * LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE * (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm /hr) * 2. Pines NB. Q.Left * 90 63 2.0 525 1770 299.40 2 3 3. Pines NB. Thru * 90 63 2.0 629 1606 299.40 2 3 6. Pines SB Thru * 90 80 2.0 83 1620 299.40 2 3 9. Trent WB Lft. * 90 65 2.0 419 1770 299.40 2 3 10. Trent WB Thr -Rt. * 90 56 2.0 673 3711 299.40 2 3 13. Trent EB Q. Thru -Rt * 90 62 2.0 1580 3725 299.40 2 3 14. Trent EB Q. Lft. * 90 71 2.0 5 1770 299.40 2 3 RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (FT) * RECEPTOR * X Y Z * * * 1. REC 1 SE Corner * 28.0 -52.0 6.0 * 2. REC 2 SE midqueue * 28.0 -117.0 6.0 * 3. REC 3 SE midblock * 28.0 -192.0 6.0 * 4. REC 4 SW Corner * -28.0 -52.0 6.0 * 5. REC 5 SW midqueue * -28.0 -117.0 6.0 * 6. REC 6 SW midblock * -28.0 -152.0 6.0 * 7. REC 7 NE Corner * 28.0 40.0 6.0 * 8. REC 8 NE midqueue * 28.0 105.0 6.0 * 9. REC 9 NE midblock * 28.0 180.0 6.0 * 10. REC 10 NW Corner * -28.0 40.0 6.0 * 11. REC 11 NW midqueue * -28.0 105.0 6.0 * 12. REC 12 NW midblock * -28.0 180.0 6.0 * 13. REC 13 SSE midqueue * 93.0 -52.0 6.0 * 14. REC 14 SSE midblock * 168.0 -52.0 6.0 * 15. REC 15 SSW midqueue * -93.0 -52.0 6.0 * 16. REC 16 SSW midblock * -168.0 -52.0 6.0 * 17. REC 17 NNW midqueue * -93.0 40.0 6.0 * 18. REC 18 NNW midblock * -168.0 40.0 6.0 * 19. REC 19 NNE midqueue * 93.0 40.0 6.0 * 20. REC 20 NNE midblock * 168.0 40.0 6.0 * PAGE 2 PAGE 3 JOB: Mirabeau Point RUN: REVISED Trent + Pines Rd. 2006 Existing MODEL RESULTS REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0. -350. WIND * CONCENTRATION ANGLE * (PPM) (DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 REC17 REC18 REC19 REC2( * 0. * 6.4 6.1 6.9 6.7 5.3 5.4 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 6.4 4.8 6.1 6.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10. * 6.4 5.6 5.4 6.7 6.1 6.5 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.6 3.2 3.2 6.1 4.8 6.1 6.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 20. * 6.6 5.3 4.6 6.2 7.1 7.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.2 3.2 3.2 5.7 4.8 6.3 6.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.( 30. * 6.6 5.2 4.2 6.3 8.0 8.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.7 3.1 3.1 5.3 4.7 6.6 6.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 40. * 6.8 4.8 4.1 6.8 8.7 8.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.1 3.1 3.1 5.1 4.8 6.8 6.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 50. * 6.5 4.4 3.7 7.6 8.2 7.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.2 3.1 3.1 5.2 4.9 7.7 7.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 60. * 6.0 4.2 3.6 8.0 7.7 7.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 5.2 3.1 3.1 5.2 5.0 8.1 7.8 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.0 70. * 5.7 3.9 3.4 7.9 7.1 6.8 3.2 3.0 3.0 5.3 3.1 3.1 5.2 4.8 8.3 8.7 3.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 80. * 5.1 3.7 3.3 7.8 6.9 6.6 4.0 3.0 3.0 6.3 3.1 3.1 4.8 4.5 7.3 8.0 4.7 4.0 3.7 3.! 90. * 4.1 3.3 3.0 7.0 6.4 6.2 6.0 3.2 3.0 8.4 3.3 3.1 4.0 3.9 5.6 6.1 6.3 5.4 4.8 4.z 100. * 3.2 3.0 3.0 6.4 6.1 6.1 8.6 3.7 3.2 10.5 4.1 3.3 3.2 3.2 4.8 4.7 6.9 6.4 6.2 5.; 110. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 6.1 6.1 9.9 4.1 3.5 10.0 4.9 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.7 4.1 6.1 6.3 7.0 5.E 120. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 10.0 4.7 3.6 8.1 5.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.7 4.4 5.5 6.7 7.6 5.E 130. * 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 9.4 5.1 3.9 6.1 5.9 4.4 3.0 3.0 4.8 4.4 6.0 7.1 7.8 5.! 140. * 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 8.7 5.6 4.1 5.3 6.0 4.8 3.0 3.0 5.1 4.5 7.1 7.1 8.1 5.; 150. * 3.1 3.1 3.1 7.3 7.3 7.3 8.5 5.7 4.4 5.5 6.4 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.3 4.6 7.6 7.1 8.2 5.; 160. * 3.5 3.5 3.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.5 5.8 4.7 7.2 7.2 5.4 3.0 3.0 5.6 4.7 8.0 7.2 8.0 5.; 170. * 5.2 5.2 5.2 8.9 8.8 8.7 9.9 7.0 6.0 9.3 8.8 7.1 3.3 3.1 5.6 4.3 8.0 6.9 8.3 5.. 180. * 9.0 8.9 8.7 7.5 7.4 7.4 12.7 9.0 7.5 9.1 8.3 7.2 4.5 3.5 4.4 3.4 6.8 5.9 9.8 5.f 190. * 10.3 10.2 10.1 4.5 4.5 4.5 12.1 8.1 6.9 6.6 5.7 5.3 5.8 4.5 3.2 3.0 5.6 5.4 11.0 6.E 200. * 9.2 9.2 9.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 9.3 6.3 5.1 5.6 4.6 4.2 5.8 4.8 3.0 3.0 5.4 5.4 10.9 7.3 210. * 8.2 8.2 8.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 7.5 5.4 4.6 5.5 4.6 4.2 5.4 4.7 3.0 3.0 5.5 5.4 10.7 7.0 220. * 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.5 5.8 4.5 5.6 4.7 4.2 5.1 4.6 3.0 3.0 5.6 5.6 10.6 7.; 230. * 7.0 7.0 7.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.5 5.6 4.2 5.8 4.7 3.9 5.0 4.4 3.0 3.0 5.8 5.5 10.3 7.; 240. * 6.9 6.8 6.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 7.2 5.1 3.8 6.0 4.5 3.5 4.9 4.3 3.0 3.0 5.9 5.2 10.7 8.E 250. * 6.6 6.6 6.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.8 4.3 3.3 5.8 3.8 3.2 5.0 4.2 3.0 3.0 5.4 4.4 10.3 9.f 260. * 7.2 6.6 6.6 3.5 3.0 3.0 6.5 3.6 3.1 5.0 3.4 3.1 5.4 4.7 3.4 3.3 4.4 3.7 8.6 9.; 270. * 8.9 6.9 6.6 5.1 3.2 3.1 5.4 3.2 3.1 3.7 3.1 3.0 6.6 5.8 4.7 4.1 3.5 3.3 6.1 6.c 280. * 10.2 7.4 6.8 7.0 3.6 3.3 4.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 7.2 6.5 6.4 5.3 3.1 3.1 4.3 4.4 290. * 9.7 8.3 7.2 7.6 4.4 3.7 4.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.1 6.7 7.2 6.4 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.4 300. * 8.1 8.8 7.8 7.3 4.9 4.3 4.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.7 6.8 7.2 6.8 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.] 310. * 6.5 9.0 8.3 6.8 5.0 4.6 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 6.8 6.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 320. * 5.6 9.1 8.9 6.4 4.9 4.5 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.5 6.3 6.4 6.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 330. * 5.4 8.8 9.2 6.4 5.0 4.6 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.5 5.6 6.3 6.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 340. * 5.6 8.2 9.2 6.4 4.8 4.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.4 5.1 6.2 6.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 350. * 6.2 7.3 8.6 6.5 5.0 4.7 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.4 4.8 6.2 6.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 * MAX * 10.3 10.2 10.1 8.9 8.8 8.7 12.7 9.0 7.5 10.5 8.8 7.2 7.2 7.0 8.3 8.7 8.0 7.2 11.0 9.E DEGR. * 190 190 190 170 170 170 180 180 180 100 170 180 280 310 70 70 160 160 190 250 THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF 12.70 PPM OCCURRED AT RECEPTOR REC7 . Appendix B Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for MIRABEAU POINT PROJECT Spokane County, Washington May 14, 1998 Prepared by: Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 707 W 7th Avenue, Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 (509)458 -6840 This report has been prepared by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering Company under the direction of the undersigned professional engineer whose seal and signature appears hereon. EXPIRES: /t, Timothy A. Schwab, P.E. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 TIA - DOCUMENT SCOPE 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y 6 CONCLUSIONS 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 7 EXISTING CONDITIONS 9 EXISTING CONDITIONS 9 Land Use 9 Existing Roadways 9 Interstate (SR) 90 11 Pines Road (SR 27) 11 Sullivan Road 11 Evergreen Road 11 Mission Avenue 12 Indiana Avenue /Montgomery 12 Mansfield Avenue /Houk Street 12 Shannon Avenue /McDonald Road 12 Mirabeau Parkway 12 Trent Avenue (290) 12 Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Control 12 Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation 13 LEVEL OF SERVICE 14 Signalized Intersections 14 Unsignalized Intersections 14 Existing Level of Service and Traffic Analysis 15 Traffic Safety 20 Planned Transportation Improvements 20 FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 21 ANALYSIS, ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES 21 Background Projects 22 Distribution of Background Trips 26 Project Trip Generation 31 Project Trip Distribution 34 BUILD OUT LEVEL OF SERVICE 43 Phase 1 With and Without Proposed Project 43 Phase 2 With and Without Proposed Project 49 Phase 3 With and Without Proposed Project 54 Key Intersection Configurations 58 Queue Lengths 59 Improvements Needed Within Mirabeau Point Development 60 TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued Weaving Analysis with Evergreen Interchange 61 Percentage of Participation in Evergreen Interchange 63 CONCLUSIONS 64 RECOMMENDATIONS 65 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 4 Figure 2 - Site Map 5 Figure 3 - Existing Zoning Map 10 Figure 4 - Existing (1996) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Evergreen Interchange 17 Figure 5 - Existing (1996) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Evergreen Interchange 19 Figure 6 - PM Peak Hour Additional Background Projects Traffic Volumes u ithout Evergreen Interchange 28 Figure 7 - PM Peak Hour Additional Background Projects Traffic Volumes With Evergreen Interchange Figure 7a - Location of Background Projects Figure 8 - Phase 1 PM Peak Hour Site Generated Volumes Without Evergreen Interchange Figure 9 - Phase 1 PM Peak Hour Site Interchange Figure 10 - Phase 2 PM Peak Hour Site Interchange Figure 11 - Phase 3 PM Peak Hour Site Interchange Figure 12 - 1999 (Phase 1) PM Peak Hour Without Evergreen Interchange Figure 13 - 1999 (Phase 1) PM Peak Hour Traffic Evergreen Interchange Figure 14 - 1999 (Phase 1) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Evergreen Interchange Figure 15 - 1999 (Phase 1) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Evergreen Interchange Figure 16 - 2004 (Phase 2) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project, Evergreen Interchange Figure 17 - 2004 (Phase 2) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, Evergreen Interchange Figure 18 - 2006 (Phase 3) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project, Evergreen Interchange Figure 19 - 2006 (Phase 3) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project, Evergreen Interchange 29 30 39 Generated Volumes With Evergreen 40 Generated Volumes With Evergreen 41 Generated Volumes With Evergreen 42 Traffic Volumes Without Project, 45 Volumes With Project, Without 46 Without Project, With 47 With Project, With 48 With 52 With 53 With 56 With 57 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Existing Levels of Service Without Evergreen Interchange 16 Table 2 - Existing Levels of Service With Evergreen Interchange 18 Table 3 - Accident data for selected intersections within the study area 20 24 25 Table 4 - Trip Generation Rates for Background Projects - PM Peak Hour Table 5 - Trip Generation Rates for Background Project (Lawson/Gunning) - PM Peak Hour Table 6 - Trip Generation Rates for Background Project (Full Build out of Spokane Valley Mall) - PM Peak Hour Table 7 - Phase 1 Site Trip Generation for Proposed Project - PM Peak Hour Table 8 - Phase 2 Site Trip Generation for Proposed Project - PM Peak Hour Table 9 - Phase 3 Site Trip Generation for Proposed Project - PM Peak Hour Table 10 - 1999 Traffic (Phase 1) Without Proposed Project Table 11 - 1999 Traffic (Phase 1) With Proposed Project Table 12 - 2004 Traffic (Phase 2) With and Without Proposed Project Table 13 - 2006 Traffic (Phase 3) With and Without Proposed Project Table 14 - Weaving Levels of Service on 1 -90 between Interchanges 25 31 33 33 43 44 50 54 61 Table 15 - Year 2006 Weaving Levels of Service on 1 -90 between Interchanges 62 Table 16 - Evergreen Interchange Project Cost Estimate 63 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Level of Service - Methods, Criteria and Tables Background Trips from Other Traffic Studies Letters Regarding Trip Generation Trip Generation Study for Ice Arena Spreadsheets for Traffic Without Evergreen Interchange Spreadsheets for Traffic With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for Existing Level of Service Without Evergreen Interchange Calculations for Existing Level of Service With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 1999 Levels of Service Without Project, Without Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 1999 Levels of Service With Project, Without Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 1999 Levels of Service Without Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 1999 Levels of Service With Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 2004 Levels of Service Without Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 2004 Levels of Service With Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 2006 Levels of Service Without Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for 2006 Levels of Service With Project, With Evergreen Interchange Calculations for Weaving Analysis With Evergreen Interchange Left Turn Pocket Justification for Intersection at Pines & Euclid Calculations for Level of Service at Mirabeau Parkway /Shannon Ave. Intersection Traffic Queues Worksheets Sketch Showing Northbound Right Turn Lane at Pines /EB Ramp Intersection INTRODUCTION TL4 - DOCUMENT SCOPE This Traffic Impact Analysis is being provided to Spokane County and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to document the analysis and findings of a traffic impact assessment conducted for the proposed development and rezone for the Mirabeau Point Project located within Spokane County east of the City of Spokane. This property lies east of Pines Road and north of Indiana Avenue encompassing the former "Walk in the Wild Zoo" as shown on Figure 1, the Vicinity Map. The proposed project will develop approximately 236 acres of land with varying topography. A significant part of this area is relatively flat, open former farmland. The central part of this area is a rocky, treed outcrop rising above the surrounding land. The existing zoning for this site is RR -10 zoning. The proposed zoning for this site is a combination of B -2 and B -3 zoning for various commercial uses with a potential for residential use north of Euclid. A portion of the land is currently zoned I -2 and will remain I -2 for the proposed uses. The rocky outcrop area will remain in it's natural state and in it's current RR -10 zoning. The purpose of this analysis is to review, assess and identify potential traffic related impacts which this development may have on the transportation system and minimize these impacts. This TIA will be completed in accordance with the current traffic guidelines available from Spokane County, WSDOT and the Institute of Traffic Engineers (A Recommended Practice - Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development, 1991). The project study area for this Traffic Impact Analysis was determined through conversations with Spokane County and WSDOT to include the following existing intersections: • Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue • Pines Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Pines Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals • Pines Road & Indiana/Montgomery • Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue • Pines Road & Euclid Avenue • Pines Road & Trent Avenue • Sullivan Road & Mission Avenue • Sullivan Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Sullivan Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals Future (as of 1996) intersections to consider include: • Sullivan Road & Indiana Avenue • Mirabeau Parkway & Indiana Avenue • Evergreen Road & Indiana Avenue • Evergreen Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 1 Mirabeau Point Project TIA • Evergreen Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals Specific traffic impact related issues to be addressed within this report will include: • Existing traffic conditions within the project study area. • Trip generation characteristics related to the proposed development for the existing and future transportation system. • The anticipated trip distribution expected for the new trips from the site at each phase. • The affects of the trip generation and distribution to the existing and future transportation system. Traffic impacts within the project study area due either to non - specific traffic growth or other background projects which are separate from the addition of the proposed Mirabeau Point development. • Separately identify the traffic impacts which are due to the additional traffic from each phase of the proposed Mirabeau Point development. • Analyze future conditions with and without the proposed Evergreen Interchange. • Analysis, conclusions and recommended mitigation for the effects of the trips generated by the proposed Mirabeau Point development on the transportation system. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This property is located in eastern Spokane County, Washington, approximately 10 miles east of the City of Spokane central business district. The parcel lies east of Pines Road, north of I -90 and the Union Pacific Railroad, south of Burlington Northern - Santa Fe Railroad and west of the Spokane River. This area encompasses the former "Walk in the Wild Zoo ". This land is primarily vacant with some structures related to the zoo still remaining. Some of the land has been used for agricultural purposes in the past. The proposed rezone will allow the proposed Mirabeau Point Project development to construct an ice arena, YMCA facilities, community center, business park, hotel, RV Park, and other land uses as detailed in this study. Primary ingress and egress for these land uses will be to a proposed Mirabeau Parkway using several local access roads at various locations throughout the development. The property is bordered by Pinecroft Natural Area Preserve and vacant land to the west, the Union Pacific Railroad to the south, and the Spokane River and Centennial Trail to the east. The use of land in this area is a mix of open space, high density residential and commercial uses. The Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 2 Mirabeau Point Project TIA predominant land use in the area to the south of the site, on the south side of the railroad are commercial uses. To the west of the site along Pines Road, are apartments. Existing zoning of this land is a mixture of RR -10 and I -2. This parcel is surrounded by UR -22, I -2, B -2, B -3 and GA zoning to the south, I -2 and I -3 zoning across the Spokane River to the east and I -2 and RR -10 zoning to the west. Existing RR -10 land to the west of the project was purchased by the nature conservancy and deeded to the DNR to remain vacant since it is adjacent to land set aside by the Mirabeau Point Project to remain a natural area. A preliminary site and phasing plan of this development is shown in Figure 2. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 3 Mirabeau Point Project TIA AVE ,cEHTRA FRUIT HILL RD 3 FRUIT O FRANCIS AYE • ca SAMSON IN ` SAMSON RD WELLESELY AVE [rtAETI O FORKER EVERGREEN HEROT RICM HEROTigi AVE En2GFtLLOw AVE 'a t!QC[',ELL 1.AC11OSSt A > I Alt otk2o GARLAHDI ti" wl W OCKWELL g AV E W IE YU(T7 e l OVtCN r�! t!!, fc ry'+ c,,!.4 CAOwr 1. arioIc -1 p;,,c -' wA4SN 0..491 0' r1tAS11 iEail VsU,T ¢I c, C1 S .U. M.S. TIM.ort c II EEO � . o �° "oso� WELLES_EY a` �: N1 z l_ Y'� eINL"O�!6 =LONGFT LLOW `_ }orcRllo!r I o ; o i 11104 ¢, RICH 0 goes - - 0 • JACI cc l7 0 cc a uC�1 c ¢ ROCKWELL '^ AV J •J 1 m East Ys KS. ROCKWELL' 290 CROWN • • 5 MA "e' AYE i s AVE GRACE REDERICK FAIRVIEW GRACE — AVE -- \8ucKETE BUCKEYE DRVE Art r Irvin RIERNAN CT O Q 0 AT ON >_ N EUCIr0 O 0 E_ FAIRV1Er a . ^•1ARRTTA u :I � i �I ilk Y N Art'•. 2 z 3 w Z - # z 0 CAIIrSa MAIM' MANSFIELD A A INDIANA AVE MAZWEII L - —'3 O 0 c z , CATALDO' DLAa ¢i i < ZI a. MALLOH ° a o a 3toadw ay Elm ELD _ I f Sa"IrGMIO a SINTO a 800HE O AVE 1u s MAZWELL n-_ ADCY MAXWELL SDFTO SDFTO YaOe� YedkAl Csolat BOONE DESMET 3 IrA=wtu o SOFTO #ISMARP CATALDO CATALDO LON !late ■ LI,. to BROADWAY W K i I Roca Pines .k. M.S. .111L. srivicrulo O O cc z BOONE DESYET CATALDO O Z rules' YA AVE RAIOP z W SPRSKJ><lo Art SPRI GFIEL 1 1 INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 We 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 1 -Nom INLAND LCPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Sults 200 Spokane. WA 99204 (509) 458 -6840 FAx (509) 458 -6644 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis, field observations, assumptions, methodologies and results which are provided in the body of this document, it is concluded that the impacts to the overall area transportation system from developing this property can be mitigated. This conclusion was reached and is documented within the body of this report. • The signalized intersections within the study area are currently functioning at level of service D or better except for the intersection at Trent Avenue and Pines Road which is at LOS E. The unsignalized intersection at Pines Road and Euclid Avenue is presently functioning at level of service C and the unsignalized intersection at Pines Road and Mansfield is currently functioning at level of service F. • With or without the Evergreen Interchange, the increase in traffic above existing volumes to 1999 will lower the level of service at two of the intersections on Sullivan Road to unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or lower) without the addition of the proposed Phase one Mirabeau Point development trips. With WSDOT scheduled improvements on Pines Road and without Phase one Mirabeau Point development trips, the LOS on Pines Road will remain at LOS D or better except for the Eastbound Ramp terminal intersection (LOS F) and the Trent Ave./Pines Road intersection (LOS F). The level of service at Pines Road and Euclid Ave. during the PM peak hour will remain at LOS C without signal installation and without the Phase one Mirabeau Point development trips. • Without the Evergreen Interchange in 1999, but with the Phase one Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines Road will be at LOS E or lower for four of the signalized intersections. The level of service at the Sullivan/EB ramp terminal intersection will also slip to LOS F under this same condition. The Mirabeau Parkway/Indiana intersection will require a signal for coordination with the signalized railroad crossing. • With the Evergreen Interchange and with the Phase one (1999) Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will be at LOS D or better for all of the signalized intersections except for the Trent/Pines intersection which will require eastbound and northbound right turn lanes. Levels of service on Sullivan will remain the same as without project traffic under this condition. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS C or better under this condition with the intersections configured as listed in this report. The Mirabeau Parkway/Indiana intersection will require a signal for this phase. A southbound left turn pocket at the Pines/Euclid intersection will be required. • In 2004 with the Evergreen Interchange, but without the Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will be at LOS D or better for all signalized intersections except for the Pines Road/EB Ramps and the Pines Road Trent Avenue intersections. Additional lanes and signal revisions at these intersections will improve the level of service to LOS D. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS C or better under this condition. • In 2004 with the Evergreen Interchange and with the Phase two Mirabeau Point development Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 6 Mirabeau Point Project TIA trips, the WB off ramp to Pines Road should be relocated to Indiana Ave. to provide adequate levels of service at Pines Road/WB Ramps and Pines Road/Indiana Ave. intersections. The intersections on Pines Road at Mission Avenue, EB Ramps, Euclid Avenue, and Trent Avenue will require improvements. Signal revisions at the Pines Road/Mission Avenue intersection will improve the level of service to LOS D. The addition of a second eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane at the Pines Road/EB Ramp intersection will improve the level of service to LOS C. The Pines Road/Euclid Avenue intersection will require a signal for acceptable levels of service. The Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service with phase 1 improvements. There is no change in the adequacy of the level of service for the intersections on Sullivan Avenue with Phase 2 under this condition from the without project traffic. The levels of service on Evergreen will be at LOS C under this condition with a revised lane configuration at the Evergreen/Indiana intersection. • In 2006 with the Evergreen Interchange, but without the Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service for all signalized intersections on Pines will remain at LOS D or better except for the Pines Road/Mission Avenue, Pines Road/EB Ramps and Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersections. Improvements stated previously under Phase 2 (2004) will bring the levels of service into acceptable range. The levels of service on Sullivan will be LOS F except for the Sullivan/Mission Avenue intersection which will be LOS D. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS C or better under this condition. • In 2006 with the Evergreen Interchange and with the Phase three Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service for all signalized intersections on Pines will be at LOS D or better with Phase two improvements. The levels of service on Sullivan will be the same for this condition as without the project. The levels of service on Evergreen will be at LOS C or better under this condition with a revised lane configuration at the Evergreen/Indiana intersection. • In 2006 with the Evergreen Interchange, weaving levels of service between the Pines Road, Evergreen Road and Sullivan Road Interchanges will become congested and drop into unacceptable ranges, LOS E or lower. The construction of a third through lane on I -90 for both directions or a C -D lane between Pines and Sullivan will improve the level of service to LOS E or better for either with or without the proposed project. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis presented, it is anticipated that the proposed development of the Mirabeau Point project will have an impact on the transportation system within the general geographic area due to the number of trips generated by this development. In order to implement this project, provide the safest and most efficient possible ingress and egress available; not only to this proposed development, but also to surrounding properties and existing commuter traffic, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the project: • Frontage improvements to on site public roads as required by the County. • Participation in construction of Mirabeau Parkway from Indiana Avenue to Euclid Avenue. • Participate in the funding of the Evergreen Interchange as part of the conditions required Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 7 Mirabeau Point Project TIA for Phase one. • Participate in the construction of northbound and southbound left turn lanes at the Pines Road/Euclid Ave. intersection as part of the conditions required for Phase one. This intersection will become a four -leg intersection with the school driveway and future development using the west leg. • Participate with WSDOT in the funding of improvements at the Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersection to construct a eastbound right turn lane and another northbound lane as part of the conditions required for Phase one. • Revise the existing signal at the Pines Road/Mission Avenue intersection to allow eastbound and westbound protected plus permitted left turn movements as part of the conditions required for Phase two. • Participate in construction of a second eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane at the PinesfEB Ramps intersection as part of the conditions required for Phase two. • Participate in relocation of the westbound off -ramp from Pines Road to Indiana Ave. and install a signal at the IndianafWB off -rarnp intersection as part of the conditions required for Phase two. • Participate in the construction of an eastbound right turn lane and revise the signal phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches to split phasing at the Pines RoadlIndiana Avenue intersection as part of the conditions required for Phase two. • Participate in the installation of a signal at the Pines Road/Euclid Ave. intersection as part of the conditions required for Phase two. • Reconfigure the westbound approach at the Indiana/Evergreen Road intersection to provide two westbound left turn lanes and one through lane as part of the conditions required for Phase two. Provide widening within existing right -of -way on the south leg to allow adequate turning radius for these westbound left turning WB -15 vehicles. • As part of the overall area development, participate in the installation of a signal at the intersection of Mirabeau Parkway & Mansfield Avenue when traffic warrants are met. • Due to participation in the construction of the Evergreen Interchange and the lack of traffic from the project using Sullivan, no participation for improvements on Sullivan are required. • Funds from the state and federal level should be sought to construct a third through lane in each direction from the Sprague Interchange to east of the Sullivan Interchange. As identified in the original FHWAJWSDOT approval for the Evergreen Interchange, Collector - Distributor (C -D) lanes should be constructed between Pines and Sullivan in conjunction with the construction of the Evergreen Interchange. WSDOT may want to consider ramp metering in the future. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 8 Mirabeau Point Project 27A EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS Land Use At the present time the land is primarily undeveloped except for a few remaining buildings associated with the former zoo. The land is currently zoned RR -10 and I -2. The area to the west of the proposed development is zoned both RR -10 and UR -22 to Pines Road. The area south of the site and the railroad is zoned I -2, B -2 and B -3 for industrial and business uses. An area directly west of the site is zoned RR -10 and has been dedicated as a "park area" to remain in it's current undisturbed state. To the east of the site across the Spokane River, the land is also zoned I -2 and I -3 and is used by Kaiser Aluminum. The Lawson/Gunning project is being proposed on adjacent land to the southwest of this development. Figure 3 shows the existing zoning for this area. Based upon the existing zoning within the immediate area, the land uses generated by this proposed rezone will be consistent with these existing uses. Existing Roadways At the present time the existing roadways in the immediate area are in various stages of planning and completion. I -90, Pines Road and Sullivan Road are fully developed, multi -lane facilities. Shannon Avenue on the other hand is an existing narrow, unpaved road. Indiana Avenue is identified by the County as a minor arterial and has recently been constructed as a five -lane facility between Pines Road and Sullivan Road as part of development in the area. Another arterial in the area which has not been built to it's ultimate cross - section is Evergreen Road. Although Evergreen Road is shown on the County's Arterial Road Plan as a principal arterial, for the majority of it's length it is a two lane, two -way strip paved road with gravel or grassy shoulders. An Interchange with I -90 has been proposed and approved by the FHWA. However complete funding to construct this interchange has not yet been obtained. As part of this project Mirabeau Parkway has been proposed. This new roadway will connect Euclid Avenue to the north with Indiana Avenue at a new railroad crossing approximately 1,000 feet east of the existing Shannon Avenue crossing. The existing Shannon Avenue crossing will be removed. For this report and since much construction has taken place over the period with which this report has been prepared, existing traffic conditions are defined as 1996 traffic volumes prior to opening of Walmart and Spokane Valley Mall, but with improvements that have been constructed in 1997. These improvements are the construction of Indiana Avenue, improvements to the intersections at Indiana/Sullivan Road and Indiana Ave./Pines Road, the addition of slip ramps at the Sullivan and Pines interchanges and elimination of right turns off the westbound off ramps, and the addition of WSDOT constructed improvements at Pines Road/EB Ramps and Pines Road/Mission Ave. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 9 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 1 INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th -Suite 200 ,Spokane, WA 99204 (509) 458 -6840 FAX (509) 458 -6$44 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 3 ZONING MAP Interstate (SR) 90 is an east/west two -way, four lane, median separated limited access interstate freeway on the County, Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration transportation systems. This interstate facility is a principal arterial highway on the WSDOT highway plan. Access for this facility is considered full, or controlled, and is only allowed at controlled access points such as interchanges. As is typical with interstate freeways, all cross traffic is grade separated and the signed speed limit on I -90 within this area is 60 mph. This facility is responsible for carrying many of the inter -area commute trips, such as between the Spokane valley, Post Falls, Rathdrum commute trips and downtown Spokane. This facility also carries the majority of the inter -state freight and commercial vehicles with destinations east and west of Spokane and a large portion of the interstate personal vehicle trips such as for moving or vacationing. Pines Road (SR 27) within the project area is a principal arterial on both Spokane County's and the Washington State Department of Transportation arterial systems. It has a combination of five -lane and four -lane sections throughout the project area. As a north -south principal arterial, this facility is responsible for intra and inter -urban area trips. The inter -area trips are primarily those trips between communities lying north and south of the greater Spokane area, or a commuting route for those individuals living in the less urban areas of Spokane County. The intra area trips are those immediate area trips, and the facilitation of these through trips to the Sprague Avenue, Interstate 90 and Trent Avenue corridors. Pines Road within the urban area boundaries allows for the movement between arterials, such as Sprague; or collectors, such as Fourth Avenue and to access the I -90 corridor for commuting as well as commercial purposes. The general cross - section of this facility in the site vicinity is five lanes, with two -way left turns and dedicated left turn lanes at the intersections. The posted speed limit on Pines Road is 35 miles per hour (mph) in the project vicinity. Sullivan Road is a two -way, north/south principal arterial on the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. It serves those adjacent land uses between it's northern terminus at Wellesley Avenue, and it's southern end at approximately 40th Avenue. It is a major commuter link for residential traffic south of I -90 wanting to access either Sprague Avenue or I -90. Throughout it's length, it changes character several times, from residential uses south of 2nd Avenue, to commercial uses between 2nd Avenue and I -90, to industrial uses north of there, with some residential uses at it's northern end. North of I -90, Sullivan has two northbound and two southbound lanes with a two -way left turn lane. At the I -90 interchange, there are two left turn lanes for both northbound to westbound traffic and southbound to eastbound traffic along with two through lanes for northbound and southbound traffic. South of I -90, Sullivan has three through lanes for both northbound and southbound traffic and a two -way left turn lane. Evergreen Road is a principal arterial according to the County Arterial Road Plan. It is a two -lane, two -way north -south arterial running between 32nd Avenue to the south and Mission Avenue to the north. The speed limit is posted at 35. At both Sprague Avenue and Broadway, Evergreen widens out. At Broadway, the cross - section changes to accommodate two lanes in each direction. At Sprague Avenue, the widening accommodates a dedicated left turn lane for both north and south Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 11 Mirabeau Point Project TIA bound traffic. South of this left turn lane is a short section of two -way left turn lane to accommodate the new Target store and the Safeway store followed by a continuation of the two lane, two -way section it has along most of it's length. An interchange with I -90 is proposed for this road by extending Evergreen over I -90 to a future Indiana/Evergreen intersection. Evergreen would be widened to accommodate the additional traffic due to the new interchange. Mission Avenue is a minor east -west arterial according to the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan. It's ultimate cross section is a four -lane section with two lanes in each direction. Turn lanes will be added as needed at critical intersections such as the right turn lane for westbound traffic at Pines Road. For most of it's length, Mission Avenue is a two -lane, east -west arterial. The speed limit along it's length is 35 mph. Indiana Avenue/Montgomery is aminor east -west arterial according to the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan between Argonne Road and Pines Road. Currently it is a two -way, two lane road. At the present time it is constructed to only about half a mile east from Pines Road. The remainder of this roadway to Sullivan Road is under construction in conjunction with the construction of the new mall in this area. A five -lane section will ultimately be constructed between Pines Road and Sullivan Road with curbs and sidewalks. Shannon Avenue/McDonald Road are two lane, two -way, unpaved roadways. These roadways connect with Houk Street on the west end, turns into McDonald Road as it heads south, crosses the railroad tracks and terminates at Indiana Avenue. Shannon Avenue runs east/west parallel to the existing Union Pacific Railroad line. The railroad crossing is an unsignalized, unimproved, non - gated crossing. ADT on this roadway is currently less than 200 vpd. This intersection/crossing has been identified for closure by the WUTC and UPRR with the new connection to Indiana approximately 1,075 feet east of the existing. Due to some driver frustration at the Mansfield/Pines intersection, some vehicles were observed using this roadway to go to the Indiana/Pines intersection where it is signalized and therefore easier access to the arterials. Mirabeau Parkway is a future roadway that will be constructed by Spokane County in conjunction with the Mirabeau Point project. It is anticipated that this roadway will be constructed as a five lane section from Indiana Avenue to approximately 1,300 feet north of Indiana Avenue and a three lane section from 1,300 feet north of Indiana Avenue to Euclid Avenue. Trent Avenue (SR 290) is an east/west four lane principal arterial on both the Spokane County and Washington State Department of Transportation systems. It connects parts of the State of Idaho north of Post Falls with SR 2 and SR 395 within the City of Spokane. Trent Avenue has a combination of four and five lane sections in this area. Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Control The project study area for this Traffic Impact Analysis was determined through conversations with Spokane County and WSDOT to include the following existing intersections: Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 12 Mirabeau Point Project TIA • Pines Road (SR 27) & Mission Avenue • Pines Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Pines Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals • Pines Road & Indiana/Montgomery • Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue • Pines Road & Euclid Avenue • Pines Road & Trent Avenue • Sullivan Road & Mission Avenue • Sullivan Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Sullivan Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals Future intersections to consider include: • • • • • Sullivan Road & Indiana Avenue Mirabeau Parkway & Indiana Avenue Evergreen Road & Indiana Avenue I Li •V - L,f4�� J`r ��. it Evergreen Road & the Eastbound I -90 ramp terminals Evergreen Road & the Westbound I -90 ramp terminals These intersections have been analyzed for level of service (LOS) for various conditions and form the basis of this document. This study was also scoped to look at the effects the proposed Evergreen Interchange would have on the transportation system in the area. Future intersections at this interchange were also included for analysis. The Pines Road intersections are presently traffic signal controlled intersections with the exceptions of Mansfield and Euclid Avenue. These are stop sign controlled intersections with the east/west street yielding to Pines Road. The Sullivan Road intersections are presently traffic signal controlled intersections. The future intersections on Indiana Avenue will be signalized when they are constructed. Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation Existing turning traffic movement volumes at the identified intersections were gathered from a variety of sources. The traffic counts on Pines Road at Mission Avenue, EB Ramp Terminal, WB ramp terminal and Indiana Avenue intersections are based on counts taken by WSDOT in 1996. The traffic counts at the intersection of Pines Road/Trent Avenue are based on traffic counts taken by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering (IPE) in 1997 and adjusted to 1996 traffic volumes. The traffic counts used for the Pines Road/Euclid Avenue intersection are based on the northbound and southbound traffic on Pines Road with a minor amount of westbound traffic added since there is now no development on Euclid to attract traffic other than the centennial trail. On Sullivan Road, existing traffic counts at the EB and WB ramp terminal intersections are based on 1995 traffic counts taken by WSDOT. These counts were increased by a 6.5% growth rate to Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 13 Mirabeau Point Project 77A bring them up to 1996 levels. This high rate of growth is based on the fact that there has been a lot of development in this area recently. Also a widening project on Sullivan completed in 1994 gives reason for additional traffic to use Sullivan Road over Pines Road even if it does mean some backtracking. Existing traffic counts at the future intersection of Sullivan/Indiana are based on volumes at the WB ramp terminal intersection. The traffic counts at the Mission/Sullivan intersection are based on counts taken in 1995 by IPE. The County took some counts in 1996 at this intersection. However, these counts were taken on a day adjacent to a holiday and appear to be abnormally high. The 1995 counts taken by IPE were increased by a 6.5% growth rate to bring them up to 1996 levels for the same reasons as the ramp terminal intersections. Since the weekday PM peak hours have been identified as the time period when the greatest traffic demands are placed on the surrounding transportation system, this will be the time period utilized by this study for analyzing the proposed action. LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service (LOS) is a qualifiable premise developed by the transportation profession to quantify driver perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles afforded to drivers who utilize the transportation network. It has been defined by the Transportation Research Board in Special Report No. 209, the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This document has quantified level of service into a range from "A" which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to "F" which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion which may lead to system breakdown due to volumes which may far exceed capacity. Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, recent research has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle is the best available measure of level of service. The technical appendix of this report, includes a section on the Level of Service, Methods and Criteria. The tables in the technical appendix identify the relationships between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition as presented in the Highway Capacity Manual; level of service D is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard for signalized intersections in an urban area such as this. Unsignalized Intersections The calculation of level of service (LOS) at an unsignalized one /two -way stop - controlled intersection is examined in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Special Report 209, The Highway Capacity Manual. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the delay experienced by each Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 14 Mirabeau Point Project 77A movement within the intersection. The concept of delay as presented for unsignalized intersections in the Highway Capacity Manual is based on the amount of time a vehicle must spend in the intersection. Vehicles passing straight through the intersection on the major (uncontrolled) street experience no delay at the intersection. On the other hand, vehicles which are turning left from the minor street, because they must yield the right of way to all right turning vehicles, all left turning vehicle from the major street and all through vehicles on both the minor and major streets, must spend more time at the intersection. Levels of service are assigned to individual movements within the intersection, and are based upon the delay experienced by each movement or approach. The Transportation Research Board has determined what levels of service for unsignalized intersections should be, by designating level of service A through F, where level of service A represents a facility where no vehicle in any movement is delayed very long and level of service F which represents a facility where there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in at least one movement in the intersection. Level of service E has been defined as the minimum acceptable level of service for this area. All level of service analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. As a final note, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis and procedures are based upon worst case conditions. Therefore, most of each weekday and the weekends will experience traffic conditions better than those described within this document, which are only for the peak hours of operation. Existing Level of Service and Traffic Analysis As outlined above, the LOS techniques used for this study will follow those outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Special Report 209. The scope of this study will include those intersections within the project study area as stated previously. These intersections were chosen by Spokane County and WSDOT as intersections which could experience impacts from the proposed Mirabeau Point Project development. As determined during scoping of this TIA, the greatest impacts to the transportation system for this type of development, will occur during the PM peak hours as the work to home -base (PM) commuters are on the transportation system. Based upon requirements of Spokane County and WSDOT for this analysis, the lowest acceptable level of service for unsignalized intersections will be LOS of E. For a signalized intersection, LOS D will be the minimum acceptable level of service. On occasion, an existing intersection which has not been analyzed in some time will, when examined in a report of this nature, appear with an existing unacceptable level of service. This may happen for an unsignalized intersection if the level of service is found to be at F or if a signalized intersection is working at level of service E or F. Intersections with levels of service which are currently this low, or which are brought into unacceptable levels of service during the build out of Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 15 Mirabeau Point Project TIA the project may be candidates for mitigation to provide acceptable levels of service or return them to their pre - project status. Table 1, which follows, summarizes the current levels of service for the existing PM peak hour at each identified intersection. These LOS results are from the traffic counts performed by IPE, Spokane County and WSDOT for this study. Highway Capacity Software with patch 2.1e (HCS) and Synchro Professional, version 3 (build 021A) were used to generate all levels of service shown in this document and are provided in the Technical Appendix. Figure 4 shows the existing intersection volumes counted by IPE staff, Spokane County & WSDOT used for Table 1. Table 1 - Existing Levels of Service - Without Evergreen Interchange INTERSECTION EXISTING PM TRAFFIC DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 24.5 sec. C Pines Rd./EB Ramps 28.7 sec. D Pines Rd./WB Ramps 27.7 sec. D Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 17.5 sec. C Pines Rd./Mansfield Ave. ( *) 220.4 sec. F Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. ( *) 16.1 sec. C Pines Rd. /Trent Ave. 45.0 sec. E Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 10.0 sec. B Sullivan Rd./EB Ramps 7.4 sec. B Sullivan Rd./WB Ramps 12.3 sec.- B ( *) Denotes unsignalized intersection. For unsignalized intersections, delay and level of service shown indicates the worst movement through the intersection. As can be seen from Table 1, the existing levels of service at all of the intersections within the project study area are within the acceptable range for either signalized or unsignalized intersections for Spokane County except for the Pines Road & Mansfield Avenue and the Pines Road & Trent Avenue intersections. All other intersections are operating at levels of service LOS D or better. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 16 Mirabeau Point Project TIA FIGURE 4 EXISTING (1996) WITHOUT EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES i,o4 '''''' Apt 41bb "p p `1. --p - ' EUCLID AVENUE •R` �. p °' b „ 793 -fl <1...411111 Q e AR 4' w w Ov (fl MANSFIELD AVENUE x D 0 1 INDIANA AVENU NOT TO SCALE N/A HANNON AVENU AVENUE °b SULLIVAN ROAD Q 1,0 9E] '. - O- 331 d'" °NQ Ri R�9 E.B. MAP A N/A 0 a 0 0- MISSION AVENUE w z Q. EVERGREEN 0 a 0 cc 1 "iim INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • SuIIe 200 Spokane. WA 99204 (509) 458 -6640 FAX: (509) 458 -8844] MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 Table 2, which follows, summarizes the levels of service for the existing PM peak hour at each identified intersection if Evergreen Interchange was constructed. Figure 5 shows the projected traffic volumes for existing traffic if Evergreen Interchange was constructed. Table 2 - Existing Levels of Service - With Evergreen Interchange INTERSECTION EXISTING PM TRAFFIC DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 20.0 sec. C Pines Rd./EB Ramps 13.0 sec. B Pines Rd./WB Ramps 14.1 sec. B Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 17.7 sec. C Pines Rd./Mansfield Ave. ( *) 220.4 sec. F Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. ( *) 16.1 sec. C Pines Rd. /Trent Ave. 45.0 sec. E Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps 8.4 sec. B Evergreen Rd./■B Ramps 11.4 sec. B Evergreen Rd./Indiana Ave. 3.8 sec. A Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 9.7 sec. B Sullivan Rd./EB Ramps 7.9 sec. B Sullivan Rd./WB Ramps 15.4 sec. C ( *) Denotes unsignalized intersection. As can be seen from Table 2, the existing levels of service with Evergreen Interchange would have acceptable delay times and levels of service at all of the intersections, except for the Pines Road/Mansfield and Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersections. The Pines Road/Mansfield Avenue intersection will operate at the same level of service, LOS F as the without Evergreen Interchange condition. The Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersection will operate at the same level of service, LOS E as the without Evergreen Interchange condition. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 18 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 2 FIGURE 5 EXISTING (1996) WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 9 ERR ee� 4e. cn MANSFIELD AVENUE EUCLID AVENUE W W :4`K)Y INDIANA AVENU NOT TO SCALE ,o 0 SHANNON AVENUE ■..■■..•YItL.WYWWil min `ANA AVENUE SULLIVAN ROAD RAMP „-0 o- ass tw E.B. 0 0 MISSION AVENUE /I rim INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 Traffic Safety Accident summaries available for the most recent four years were obtained from Spokane County and WSDOT for the intersections in the study area. Generally accidents are documented by type of occurrence, such as property damage or injury. Accidents are measured based on frequency per million entering vehicles. This ratio is a function of the average annual traffic entering the intersection and the annual frequency of accidents. No fatal accidents were recorded from 1992 to 1995 at any of these intersections. Table 3 - Accident data for selected intersections within the study area ACCIDENT STATISTICS Intersection 1992 1993 1994 1995 Per MEV PDO INJ PDO INJ PDO INJ PDO IN J?. Pines & Mission 20 12 12 12 6 8 12 13 1.71 Pines & EB Ramps 0 0 1 5 2 2 5 2 0.29 Pines & WB Ramps 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 0.20 Pines & Indiana 1 1 3 2 3 2 5 1 0.54 Mission & Evergreen 2 _ 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.36 Accident rates at these intersections are below 2.00 accidents per million entering vehicles, the threshold for safety improvements. Therefore accident history should not be considered a problem at this time. Note that the intersection of Pines & Mission has an accident rate which is close to the 2.00 accidents per million entering vehicles threshold. WSDOT is aware of the accident history at this intersection and is in the process of designing and constructing some safety improvements at this intersection. Because of safety issues, the intersection of Pines & Mission was "split- phased" for east -west traffic. As the accident trend shows, this change brought the intersection accident rate down in 1994, but increased back to former levels in 1995. A second southbound left turn lane is planned for this intersection in 1997. Planned Transportation Improvements The WSDOT has committed to two projects on Pines Road which will improve the safety and capacity of the roadway system in this area. The first project, scheduled for construction in 1997 will widen the eastbound off ramp to two right turn lanes, widen Pines Road at the Mission Avenue intersection for a second southbound left turn lane and restripe the Mission/Pines intersection for protected eastbound and westbound left turn movements. The second project, scheduled for construction in 1998 will widen Pines Road at the westbound ramp terminal intersection to accommodate a second left turn lane for the traffic going westbound on I -90. These were assumed to be "in place" for all future condition analysis. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 20 Mirabeau Point Project TIA FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS, ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES The proposed Evergreen interchange will have a significant impact on the transportation system in this area. For that reason phase 1 of the Mirabeau Point Project has been analyzed with and without Evergreen Interchange for both with and without the project. It is assumed that Evergreen Interchange must be in place for phases 2 and 3. Therefore phases 2 and 3 were only analyzed with Evergreen Interchange for the with and without project traffic conditions. The future year weekday PM peak hour impacts of the potential traffic generated by each phase of the proposed project were analyzed as follows: Trip generation estimates of the future PM peak hour trips for the complete build out of the background and subject projects were assumed to follow the Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition or as updated. For those land uses not included in the manual, backup data was obtained to determine appropriate estimates of trip generation. Traffic volumes on each transportation system element at build out were determined assuming the existing traffic would experience a 3% per year compounded growth rate due to unidentified sources. Identified background projects listed in this report were included above the 3% growth rate. An exception to this is that eastbound and westbound Mission Avenue will experience a lower growth rate of 2% since the area which Mission Avenue serves is much more developed and will not experience as much growth. Trip assignments from the background projects are as shown in Figures 6 & 7. These projects are listed and detailed in the following sections of this study. For the phase 1 condition without the Evergreen Interchange, background projects include only those which are not conditioned to have the Evergreen Interchange constructed. In other words, the trips generated from the second and third phases of the Spokane Valley Mall and the Industrial Park were not included in the "Without Evergreen Interchange" scenario. For all scenarios with the Evergreen Interchange, all background trips were included. Forecasted traffic volumes for the proposed development as generated from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition and other sources as documented in this report were then added to the background traffic to determine the cumulative traffic impacts. Level of service analyses were then performed for the without the proposed project and with the proposed project traffic scenarios in order to identify any capacity or level of service deficiencies due to the development of the proposed project on either Pines Road, Sullivan Road or any of the other intersections of interest. • The proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in three phases: phase 1, 1999; phase Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 21 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 2, 2004; and phase 3, 2006. Level of service analyses were performed for phase 1 with and without phase 1 development and with and without Evergreen Interchange constructed; for phase 2 with and without phase 2 development with Evergreen Interchange constructed; and for phase 3 with and without phase 3 development with Evergreen Interchange constructed. • Improvements scheduled for Pines Road by WSDOT were assumed to be completed as part of improvements by others for all future year LOS calculations. Background Projects Additional trips from other proposed projects or projects in construction at the time of the traffic counts were taken were included as background projects. Trips from background projects were then distributed in the two different scenarios, with and without Evergreen Interchange constructed. One primary source for additional trips from other proposed projects is the information on background projects from the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community traffic impact analysis. The other source for additional trips is from the traffic impact analysis dated January 1997 for the Lawson/Gunning development located adjacent and to the west of the Mirabeau Point Project. Other projects outside of those in these reports were also included and are listed below. The Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community traffic impact analysis performed by IPE identified two projects for inclusion in this study as background projects. They are the Lawson Hotel/Office complex and the Wolff Commercial site. The Lawson Hotel/Office complex includes a proposed 200 room hotel and 20,000 square feet of office space located in the northeast quadrant of the Pines RoadlMission Avenue intersection. The Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers has land use category 710, General Office Building and land use category 312, Business Hotel which accurately model the proposed land uses of the Lawson site. The second project identified by the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community traffic impact analysis as a background project is the Wolff Commercial site located in the northwest quadrant of the Pines Road/Mission Avenue intersection. In discussions with Jamie Wolff, the following land uses were identified: The westernmost building on the site is a 9,000 sq. ft. building on each of two floors. The top (ground - level) floor will be retail, modeled using the Shopping Center ( #820) land use category in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition (TGM). The bottom floor will have 6,000 sq. ft. of leasable area for office space, and 3,000 sq. ft. of storage area. The office space was modeled using the General Office Building ( #710) land use category. The storage area is not expected to generate any trips. Along the northern perimeter of Jamie Wolff's property, a three floor, 6,000 sq. ft. per floor office complex has been approved. This was also modeled using the General Office Building ( #710) land use category. At the northwest comer of Mission and Pines and the southeast corner of the site, a restaurant is proposed. This restaurant was modeled as a High - Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant; land use category #832. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 22 Mirabeau Point Project TIA From the Lawson/Gunning development located adjacent to the Mirabeau Point Project, the following land uses were identified: 144 units of apartments, retirement community with 208 units, a 27,780 S.F. nursing home, 72,250 S.F. (412 units) of mini - warehouse storage facilities, and an RV Park with 116 units. Other projects not included in the Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community Traffic Impact Analysis but are included as background projects in this traffic study are: 1) The trips from Ridgeview Estates Apartment Community (Land Use 220); 2) A 72 unit Retirement Complex south of Mission Avenue between Evergreen Road and Mamer Road (Land Use 250); 3) Phase 1 and Phase 2 trips from the Inland Construction Business Park (Land Use 150 & 710); 4) Walmart Development (located southeast of Mission and Sullivan); 5) Hanson -Price Mall (Spokane Valley Mall) and Hotel per an August 1994 TIA for the scenario without Evergreen Interchange and per the EIS Supplement to Sullivan Park Center dated June 1985 for the scenario with the Evergreen Interchange; and 6) Spokane Industrial Park Expansion per a revised trip generation supplement dated December 10,1996. Both the Hanson -Price Mall (Spokane Valley Mall) and the Valley Plaza Mall (Walmart) traffic studies do not include any trip reductions due to two large and somewhat similar projects constructed close together. The amount of additional trips added to the transportation system by both of these projects will not equal the sum of the two projects individually. However, to be on the conservative side, additional trips that both these projects were projected to add to the system individually were added to the system as background projects. The trip generation rates and volumes for these land uses are shown in the following tables: • Table 4 shows the trip generation rates and volumes for the PM peak hour for all background trips except for the Lawson/Gunning development adjacent to Mirabeau Point and for the full build out of Spokane Valley Mall development. • Table 5 shows the trip generation rates and volumes for the PM peak hour for the background trips from the Lawson/Gunning development. • Table 6 shows the trip generation rates and volumes for the PM peak hour for the background trips from the full, approved build out of the Spokane Valley Mall development if the Evergreen interchange is constructed. Inland Pacific .Engineering, Inc. 23 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Table 4 - Trip Generation Rates for Background Projects - PM Peak Hour .:Laid Use Size PM Peak Hour Rate Volume Entering Exiting Percent Volume Percent Volume Hotel') 200 Rooms 0.62 124 60% 74 40% 50 Office Building"' 20 k.S.F. 2.92 58 17% 10 83% 48 Strip Mall 9 k.S.F. 15.14 136 50% 68 50% 68 Office Building') 24 k.S.F. 2.68 64 17% 11 83% 53 Restaurant 5.5 k.S.F. 12.92 71 56% 40 44% 31 Apartments ") 317 0.63 200 68% 136 32% 64 Retirement 72 units 0.28 20 56% 11 44% 9 Business Park Various N/A 141 N/A 28 N/A 113 Apartments'4) 233 units 0.49 114 64% 73 36% 41 Walmart Various N/A 2,287 N/A 1,127 N/A 1,160 Valley Mall: Mall Hotel's) 715 k.S.F. G.L.A. 300 units 3.26 0.76 2,331 228 50% 54% 1,165 123 50% 46% 1,166 105 Industrial Park Expan. Various N/A 1,710 N/A 747 N/A 963 (1) - Lawson site (2) - Wolff site (3) - Ridgeview Estates Apartments (4) • Cherry Street Apartments (5) - Included in the Spokane Valley Mall project Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 24 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 1 1 u Y 1 11 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 Table 5 - Trip Generation for Background Projects (Lawson/Gunning) - PM Peak Hour Land Use Size PM Peak Hour Rate Entering Exiting Volume % Volume Apartments 144 units 0.49 64% 45 36% 25 Retirement Community 208 units 0.28 56% 32 44% 26 Nursing Home 27.8 k.S.F. 0.35 42% 4 58% 6 Mini - Warehouse 72.3 k.S.F. 0.26 52% 10 48% 9 RV Park 116 units 0.46 65% 35 35% 19 Table 6 - Trip Generation for Background Projects (Full Build out of Spokane Valley Mall) - PM Peak Hour Land•Use Size PM Peak Hour Rate Entering Exiting Volume % Volume Regional Center 1,030 k.S.F. 2.95 50% 1,519 50% 1,519 Other Commercial 318 k.S.F. 3.5 50% 557 50% 557 Hotel 300 rooms 0.76 54% 123 46% 105 Business Park 390 k.S.F. 1.48 22% 127 78% 450 Industrial Park 800 k.S.F. 0.91 21% 153 79% 575 Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 25 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Distribution of Background Trip Assumptions The background trips were distributed over the existing transportation system in two scenarios; 1) Without Evergreen Interchange constructed, but with Indiana Avenue constructed from Pines Road to Sullivan Road, with Shannon Avenue connected to Mirabeau Parkway, and with the existing railroad crossing at McDonald removed and relocated approximately 1,075 feet east to Mirabeau Parkway connection with Indiana Avenue; and 2) With Evergreen Interchange constructed along with the Indiana Avenue improvements and the above Mirabeau Parkway improvements. The following assumptions were used in distributing the background trips: Without Evergreen Interchange Scenario Cherry Street Apartments - These trips will exit/enter onto Pines Road at Mansfield Avenue since they are located near this intersection. There will be no direct impact to Sullivan Road. Inland Construction Traffic Study - Background trips from figures 5 and 6 of this study were used and are included in the appendix for reference. Walmart (Valley Playa Mall) - The traffic study prepared by W & H Pacific in 1991 was the basis for additional trips from this project. To determine the new trips on Sullivan Road, Figure 4 (Projected PM Peak Hr. Traffic Volumes without Project) and Figure 5 ( Projected PM Peak Hr. Traffic Volumes With project) from this traffic study were used to calculate the difference for each turning movement at each intersection and are included in the appendix for reference. Hanson -Price Mall & Hotel (Spokane Valley Mall) - The traffic study prepared by Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. (BAA) dated August 1994 for phase 1 was the basis for additional trips for this scenario. Also used was the gross leasable area approved by Spokane County (715,000 S.F.) and the approved size of the Hotel from the 1985 EIS (300 units). The BAA study used a slightly different number for size of the shopping center and therefore a different number of anticipated trips. Figure 7 from the BAA study of the project trip assignment was adjusted slightly to match the currently approved size and corresponding number of trips. The origin/destination percentages were kept the same as the BAA study presented them and are included in the appendix for reference. Spokane Industrial Park Expansion - The revised estimated trip generation plan dated December 10, 1996 from Taylor Engineering was used as the basis for additional trips from this project. No trip distribution information was included in the report. Therefore, for additional trips from this project the following assumption were made: 25% to /from areas north of the site, 35% to /from areas west of the Sullivan/I -90 Interchange, 15% to /from areas east of the Sullivan/I -90 Interchange, and 25% to /from areas south of I -90 on Sullivan. Lawson/Gunning Project (Shannon Avenue) - The site generation volumes from figures 7 and 8 of this study were used for basis of these background trips and are included in the appendix for reference. The trips generated were revised to match the latest information from this project. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 26 Mirabeau Point Project TIA With Evergreen Interchange Scenario Existing Traffic - The existing traffic was redistributed for the scenario with Evergreen Interchange in place. Approximately 35% of the eastbound to southbound traffic at Pines and 20 % of the eastbound to southbound traffic at Sullivan was assumed to use the new Evergreen Interchange facility. Approximately 35% of the northbound to westbound traffic at Pines and 20 % of the northbound to westbound traffic at Sullivan was assumed to use the new Evergreen Interchange facility. Also approximately 20% of the northbound to eastbound and westbound to southbound traffic at the Pines and Sullivan interchanges was rerouted to use the Evergreen Interchange facility. Cherry Street Apartments - Used same trips and distributions as without Evergreen Interchange. Inland Construction Traffic Study - Used similar distribution as before with some slight adjustment for trips using Evergreen Interchange to access the freeway. Walmart (Valley Plaza Mall) - Used same trip distribution as the without Evergreen Interchange scenario. Evergreen Interchange will not be used by any of the traffic to travel to this development since it would result in longer travel times. Hanson -Price Mall & Hotel (Spokane Valley Mall) - The 1985 Supplement to the Sullivan Park Center, Table 1 was used as a basis for approved land uses with the Evergreen Interchange constructed. This includes all three phases of this project. Trips were generated using ITE's trip generation manual and distributed over the transportation system. Approximately 25% were assumed to come from areas west of the site, 15% from areas north of the site, 20% from areas east of the site, and 40% from areas south of the site. Spokane Industrial Park Expansion Used same trip distribution as the without Evergreen Interchange scenario. Lawson/Gunning Project (Shannon Avenue) - The site generation volumes from figures 7 and 8 of this study with revisions for the latest trip generation information were used for background trips and are included in the appendix for reference. Approximately one third of the southbound Pines traffic turning left onto Indiana Avenue was rerouted to go turn left at Euclid Avenue and onto Mirabeau Point Drive. They will follow that route to avoid congestion on Pines. Anticipated trip distribution characteristics for these background projects are shown on Figures 6 and 7 which follow. Included in the appendix are spreadsheets showing the cumulative trips of existing traffic, background traffic, and traffic from proposed development for each phase for the condition with Evergreen Interchange and the condition without Evergreen Interchange. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 27 Mirabeau Point Project TIA IRE 4 A NuE ..b d'" EUCLID AVENUE 1- W W N MANSFIELD AVENUE Y 0 SHANNON AVENUE o- 775 NOT TO SCALE sitCP a NDIANA AVENU • ' NDIANA AVENUE 7.1 RAMP bn 70 J ` .7 714-0 .0- 1711 0 0 cr MISSION AVENUE 414 ‘0 nb /'Si •131 w z EVERGREEN 0 0 le sR 1 � INLAND � PACIFIC NC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Sulte 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT FIGURE 6 BACKGROUND TRIPS WITHOUT EVERGREEN I/C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 } \ TRAFFIC VOLUMES i-,.: /%0 ,,. 4 EUCLID AVENUE i- W W V 1) MANSFIELD AVENUE x D O 1 INDIANA AVENU NOT TO SCALE P SHANNON AVENUE ��• �� / /�� /� /�C� ■��■ w w w mmiiiiilmaw662 fi..C�C�� AVENUE we-o o-». 2.7 1 90 2- d b AR 0 Q O MISSION AVENUE z LA.) W CC U QW: 0 ? c <1 bb )▪ .-f> Q -.. "b d" (111 e o w z 0 J 1 I- PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Sulte 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT FIGURE 7 BACKGROUND TRIPS WITH EVERGREEN I/C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 9 \ TRAFFIC VOLUMES J FRUtT KILL RD FRUIT 2 FRANCIS AVE SAMSON LN SAMSON RO • WELLESELY AVE MEROY O J O OI = 0 3 11°C[r1ELL LACROSSE c � O WALT N O 3 GARLAND LACROSSE RICH :IHEROY AVE i AVE ONGFEILOW W = OCKWEL.L FORKER Z 2 CROWN petrol cc Otruwc wASAMI � G . ► ju o PVERETT ao C4, • WASASM c. e►fN rEnt Valley o:. CT " I Jr. M.S. ec z- SUVYE nqo R3►0 Trvt�ooc cT �' .:EN. r o NOAO-' : u• * c _ i. W ELLES_EY a 1 F.I 5 z �� a MfROT .9 m(no� fAOr' +0 ORtVE LONGRAU.OW 4_= ONCrE or 1J , * sU < O .; CC . RICH zi ROCxwI ll a� AVU �V ROCKWELL MICR W or • toe ��- KIERNAN JECT AT,ON FREDERICK FAIRVIEW GRACE `� AVE DRIVE AVE E GRACE ; 4414, s;,A sqi O :a P$ EM YiIIey H.S. 0 0 2 NEROY r wI LOMGF) INC • A EUCLID F FAIRVIEW IN 0 z MARIETTA a z I W J W 2 W =O J 6 s 5, INDIANA AVE AWSON UNNIN �.�ITISN AV e INDIANA AVE DNA C AUGUSTA fir IIAXWELE YAYWEL SINTO SMARR 0 900NE ,�„ AVE 0 cc MAXWELL P oc All c` i CATAL00' ! ;11 MALLON 5 1 r`roa + y Elem S•NrNGFI(LD of �e o , pot GFI 0 u; � r STRIP MAL Valley Medical Center BOONE Fr' DESUET VIEW TES AP 0 9OONE _ DESLET CATALDO SM P T •DONE DESMET Q ` CATALDO CC : CATALOG (WYE °; OI North Pines Jr. H.S. ALKI AVE OLIVE ° VALLEY Lon 94ke; EJeea a. BROADWAY WZ S►NINGnEto YE � I W SM.1GFTfLO ar( ALKI Ave CT ¢ ALKI i ' o{ OLIVE o; QO 0 II I) , 'FVAltET Q WAY 34 0 W �( way Z AVE MAILON MA AVE SPRIIGFIEI1 Proyresa ENm i 0 °a o 0 a ¢ Q° WALMART 0 0 0 7 1 INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX (509) 458 -6844 FIGURE 7A LOCATION OF BACKGROUND PROJECTS MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 Project Trip Generation Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, and other data gathered from similar facilities, the anticipated number of trips to be generated on adjacent streets by the proposed project was determined. The Trip Generation Manual (TGM) provides empirical data, based upon actual field observations for trip generation characteristic of similar projects throughout the United States. The TGM provides trip generation data for the Mirabeau Point Project development as shown in the following tables. Table 7 - Site Trip Generation Rates and Volumes for Phase 1 Land Use Size PM Peak Hour ..Rate Entering Exiting Volume % Volume Ice Arena 2 sheets 37.5 67% 50 33% 25 YMCA 42 k.S.F. 1.75 34% 25 66% 49 Performing Arts See Below N/A 25% 5 75% 15 Educational See Below N/A 25% 3 75% 9 Planetarium See Below N/A 20% 1 80% 5 Senior Center See Below N/A 0% 0 100% 1 Retail Center 50 k.S.F. 4.93 57% 141 43% 106 Fitness Center 20 k.S.F. 4.3 60% 52 40% 34 Totals 277 244 The following land uses for phase 1 were either not found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual or other specific information was used. The following is a list of these non - standard land uses and the assumptions used for trip generation: Ice Arena - A trip generation study was performed at an existing ice arena with similar uses as the proposed ice arena. The detailed information is included in the appendix. The following land uses do not have an operator or owner for the proposed use. However, Ron Tan, an architect involved in concept planning for these facilities has written a letter regarding the peak usage of these proposed facilities. Please refer to the appendix for a copy of this letter and how the facilities will most likely be used. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 31 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Performing Arts - The concerts and other events that will occur at this facility will be scheduled after the PM peak hour. Therefore PM peak hour trips will be generated from staff and performers rehearsing. We assumed a total of 20 PM peak hour trips, 5 entering and 15 exiting. Educational Complex - The seminars and lectures will occur during off -peak hours. Only the administrative /staff people will generate PM peak hour trips. For the PM peak hour, we assumed 12 trips, 3 entering and 9 exiting. Planetarium - The shows at this facility will occur during off peak hours and on the weekends. Operation will be similar to the Denver Planetarium. They have 7 full time employees and 4 part time employees. Volunteers leave the site before 4:00 PM. Hours vary greatly from employees, spreading out the trips. We assumed 6 PM peak hour trips, 1 entering and 5 exiting. Senior Center - The Valley Senior Center which may move into this facility closes generally by 3:30 PM on weekdays. We assumed 1 exiting PM peak hour trip for the one employee. See letter in the appendix regarding the use of the existing Valley Senior Center. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 32 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Table 8 - Site Trip Generation Rates and Volumes for Phase 2 Land Use Size PM Peak Hour Rate Entering Exiting °/a Volume % Volume Hotel 0) 150 rooms 0.76 54% 49 46% 42 Business Park 250 k.S.F. 1.48 22% 81 78% 289 Office Park 100 k.S.F. 1.51 15% 23 85% 128 Specialty Retail 50 k.S.F. 4.93 57% 141 43% 106 Library 15 k.S.F. 4.74 48% 34 52% 37 Conven. Store 2 k.S.F. 53.73 50% 54 50% 54 Bank, Drive -In 3 k.S.F. 43.63 48% 63 52% 68 Fast Food Rest. 3 k.S.F. 36.53 52% 57 48% 53 Totals 502 777 Cumulative Totals 779 1,021 (1) Assume 80% occupancy. Table 9 - Site Trip Generation Rates and Volumes for Phase 3 Land Use Size PM Peak Hour Rate Entering Exiting °/a Volume % Volume Office Park 50 k.S.F. 1.51 15% 11 85% 64 RV Park 80 units 0.46 52% 19 48% 18 Residential, Apartments 230 units 0.49 64% 72 36% 41 Totals 102 123 Cumulative Totals 881 1,144 Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 33 Mirabeau Point Project TIA The RV Park land use for phase 3 is not found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. We used trip generation information from other traffic studies performed and accepted for other projects in Spokane County. Project Trip Distribution Based upon existing ADT's along the adjacent roadways, the peak hours' directional and turning volumes at each intersection and field observations of primary driver characteristics determined during actual field observations and intersection counts, the anticipated trip distribution and assignment within the general area was determined for the proposed project. The following assumptions were used in determining the distribution of the site generated trips. • In Phase 1 scenario without Evergreen Interchange, Mirabeau Parkway from Indiana Avenue to Euclid Avenue will be constructed. A new railroad crossing will be constructed approximately 1,075 feet of the existing Shannon Avenue crossing as part of the Mirabeau Parkway connection to Indiana Avenue. Indiana Avenue will be constructed from Sullivan Road to Pines Road. Street improvements for the east -west route south of the YMCA facilities connecting into the Lawson/Gunning development will be constructed. • In Phase 1 scenario with Evergreen Interchange, assume the above improvements plus a complete Evergreen Interchange in place. In Phase 2 and 3, only the scenario with Evergreen Interchange and the above improvements will be considered since traffic at Pines Road and Sullivan Road is below acceptable levels without the project if a complete Evergreen Interchange is not in place. PHASE 1 Ice Palace Without Evergreen Interchange • For trips associated with the ice palace, destinations will be residences located in the Spokane Valley, south City of Spokane area, north Spokane area, and Coeur D'Alene area. There is an ice rink in north Spokane and in the winter an ice rink at Riverfront Park. No other ice rinks exit in the region. Trip distribution will be based on where residences are located in the region. Some existing teams from the north side may want to use these new facilities. • 20% will come from areas north of the site. These trips will go north to Euclid Avenue, west to Pines Road, and north. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 34 Mirabeau Point Project TIA • 30% will come from areas west of the Pines Interchange and use the Pines Interchange to access the site. • 30% will come from areas south of the Pines and Sullivan Interchanges. Assume 25% will go through the Pines Interchange and 5% will go through the Sullivan Interchange heading south. • 20% will come from areas east of the Sullivan Interchange. These will exit at the Sullivan Interchange and use Indiana Avenue to access the site. With Evergreen Interchange • Those north of the site will use the same route as without Evergreen Interchange. • • • 10% will come from areas west of the Pines Interchange and will use Pines Interchange to access the site. Assume 20% will come from areas west of the Pines Interchange and use the Evergreen Interchange to access the site. 30% will come from areas south of the Pine Sullivan Interchanges. 15% will go through the Pines Interchange, 15% will go through the Evergreen Interchange and 0% will go through the Sullivan Interchange. 20% will come from areas east of the Sullivan Interchange. Three quarters of these will exit at the Evergreen Interchange and use Indiana Avenue to access the site. One quarter will use the slip ramp at the Pines Interchange. YMCA • Trips to the YMCA in the PM peak hour period will be 75% work to YMCA to home based trips and 25% home to YMCA to home base trips. The YMCA operates a day care facility /care program for children after school and these children will be picked up by parents on the way home from work. Therefore, for the 75 %, the route used to enter the site will be different than the route exiting the site. Without Evergreen Interchange • For trips entering the site: - 60% will be EB on I -90 and exit at the Pines Interchange to enter the site. - 15% will be WB on I -90 and exit at the Sullivan Interchange to enter the site. - 5% will come NB on Sullivan to Indiana to enter the site. - 15% will come NB on Pines to Indiana to enter the site. - 5% will come SB on Pines to Euclid to enter the site. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 35 Mirabeau Point Project TIA • For trips exiting the site: - 15% will go to Euclid to Pines and north. - 20% will go to Sullivan and EB on I -90. - 20% will go to Sullivan and SB on Sullivan. - 10% will go to Pines and WB on I -90. - 35 % will go to Pines and SB on Pines. With Evergreen Interchange • For trips entering the site: - 20% will be EB on I -90 and exit at the Pines Interchange to enter the site. - 40% will be EB on I -90 and exit at the Evergreen Interchange to enter the site. - 15% will be WB on I -90 and of these 3/4 will exit at the Evergreen Interchange to enter the site, 1/4 will exit at the slip ramp at Pines Interchange. - 5% will come NB on Sullivan to Indiana to enter the site. - 5% will come NB on Pines to Indiana to enter the site. - 5% will come SB on Pines to Euclid to enter the site. - 10% will come NB on Evergreen to Indiana to enter the site. • For trips exiting the site: - 15% will go to Euclid to Pines and north. - 20% will go to Evergreen and EB on I -90. - 35% will go to Evergreen and SB to Sprague. - 10% will go to Evergreen and WB on I -90. - 15 % will go to Pines and SB on Pines. - 5 % will go to Sullivan and SB on Sullivan. Performing Arts Building, Educational Complex, Planetarium, Senior Center, Specialty Retail • Routes to the site will be the same route as from the site. Without Evergreen Interchange • 15% will come from areas north of the site and use Pines Road to Euclid to access the site. • 20% will come from areas east of the site and use I -90 WB to Sullivan exit to Indiana to access the site. • 20% will come from areas south of Sullivan Interchange and use Sullivan to access the site. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 36 Mirabeau Point Project TIA • 10% will come from areas west of the site on I -90 and exit at Pines to access the site. • 35% will come from areas south of Pines Interchange and use Pines to access the site. With Evergreen Interchange • 15% will come from areas north of the site and use Pines Road to Euclid to access the site. • 20% will come from areas east of the site and of these 3/4 will use to Evergreen exit to access the site and 1/4 will use the slip ramp at westbound off ramp at Pines Interchange. • 20% will come from areas south of Sullivan Interchange and use Evergreen to access the site. • 10% will come from areas west of the site on I -90 and exit at Evergreen to access the site. • 15% will come from areas south of Pines Interchange and use Pines to access the site. • 20% will come from areas south of Pines Interchange and use Evergreen to access the site. Active Sport/Fitness Center • Use the same distribution as for the YMCA use since both will be primarily coming from work and going to home from within the valley. PHASE 2 Hotel • Trips to /from the Hotel will be linked to travel on I -90. • 70% will be coming from or will go toward City of Spokane. • 30% will be coming from or going to areas east of the site. Business Park • 10% will come from areas north of the site and use Euclid to access the site. • 30% will come from areas west of the Pines Interchange. 10% will use the Pines Interchange to exit/enter the freeway and 20% will use Evergreen Interchange. • 40% will come from areas south of the Pines and Sullivan Interchanges. Assume 15% will go through the Pines Interchange, 25% will go through the Evergreen Interchange and 0% Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 37 Mirabeau Point Project TIA will go through the Sullivan Interchange heading south. • 20% will come from areas east of Sullivan Interchange and will exit at Evergreen. Bank, Bowling Alley, Convenience Store, Library, Retail • Use same distribution as for Performing Arts Building, Educational Complex, Planetarium, Senior Center, Specialty Retail in Phase 1. Office Space • Use same distribution as for the Business Park. PHASE 3 Office Park • Use same distribution as for business park in phase 2. RV Park • Assume that trips to /from the RV Park will be linked to travel along I -90. • Assume 50% trips are westbound on I -90 and 50% are eastbound on I -90. Residential Area • Assume that 25% of the PM peak hour trips will go to /from the Spokane Industrial Park, Kaiser, or other job related activity north of the site. These will turn right onto Pines Road from Euclid Ave. • Assume that 10% will access I -90 at the Pines Interchange and 30% will access I -90 at the Evergreen Interchange to go westbound toward the City or eastbound home. • Assume that 10% will go eastbound toward Post Falls or westbound home using the Evergreen Interchange. • Assume that 25% are trip to /from areas south of I -90. Assume 15% will use Evergreen Road and 10% will use the Pines Road. Site generated traffic volume assignments for both scenarios for phase 1 are shown in Figures 8 & 9. Site generated traffic volume assignments for phases 2 and 3 are shown in Figures 10 & 11. These figures show only the traffic generated for the specific phase and Evergreen condition shown on the figure. For the cumulative traffic effect, see the spreadsheets in the appendix. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 38 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 140E EUCLID AVENUE F- LU w 1- F- NOT TO SCALE `i to MANSFIELD AVENUE x 0 1 SHANNON AVENUE INDIANA AVENU INDIANA ._. ye . , „ 0 a 0 cc MISSION AVENUE Q U) w Z a EVERGREEN 0 a 0 ce ric 4 b 4 x 1 -"um INLAND laPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 } FIGURE 8 SITE GENERATED -PHASE WITHOUT EVERGREEN 1/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES E "-t, d" a1 f EUCLID AVENUE 1- w w CC 1— tfl MANSFIELD AVENUE x INDIANA AVENU D 0 1 SHANNON AVENUE NOT TO SCALE t9 kr- P• I ND /ANA AVENUE RAMP 63 -0 4- 4' t 90 Ps' E.B. 0 Q 0 rx MISSION AVENUE z w w cr Q: 0 1;, 4 VI w z 0 4 1 'imm INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS b Q r FIGURE 9 SITE GENERATED -PHASE WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 TRAFFIC VOLUMES J b A E- .3- EUCLID AVENUE 1-- W F- tn MANSFIELD AVENUE x 0 SHANNON AVENUE NOT TO SCALE Hp R►`'a° INDIANA AVENU /NDI ANA 3113::). E.B. RAMP AMP N -Co 0 0 0_ MISSION AVENUE AVENUE SULLIVAN ROAD d to „] mo 41.377 z Lid o: 12 5! bb 0 0 0- i to W z I rim INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -8840 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -8844 MIRABEAU POINT FIGURE 10 SITE GENERATED —PHASE II WITH EVERGREEN I/C TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT NO. 96149 TRAFFIC VOLUMES EUCLID AVENUE ►- W W 1- u) MANSFIELD AVENUE x 0 INDIANA AVENU NOT TO SCALE aotp SHANNON AVENUE INDIANA AVENUE SULLIVAN ROAD RA MP 4 E.B. AMP 0 0 MISSION AVENUE w z z w w cr 0 0_ 0 0 4 J 1 —wm INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 Spokone, WA 99204 (509) 458 -6840 FAX (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 11 SITE GENERATED —PHASE 111 WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES BUILD OUT LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service calculations were made for each phase and full build out of the proposed development, anticipated in 2006. Analyses for conditions both with and without the proposed phase 1 traffic were performed with both scenarios concerning Evergreen Interchange. Analyses for conditions with and without the proposed phase 2 and 3 traffic were performed with Evergreen Interchange. These analyses will show how the traffic volumes will be handled by the existing facility or what new elements will be needed for the traffic system to continue working at acceptable levels of service. Phase 1 Build Out Levels of Service With and Without Proposed Project The background traffic volumes include the existing traffic, the previously mentioned background projects and a compounded growth rate of 3% per year on Pines Road, I -90 Ramps and Sullivan Road. See Figures 6 & 7 for the traffic volumes from the background projects, Figures 12 and 14 for total traffic volumes without phase 1 and Figures 13 & 15 for the total traffic volumes with phase 1 traffic. A summary of the LOS calculations are shown in Table 10 and 11 which follows. Table 10 -1999 Traffic (Phase 1) Without Proposed Project INTERSECTION 1999 TRAFFIC (PHASE 1) WITHOUT PROJECT Without Evergreen IJC. With Evergreen IIC DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 31.0 sec. D 24.0 sec. C Pines Rd/EB Ramps 127.1 sec. F 22.6 sec. C Pines Rd./WB Ramps 26.3 sec. D 12.0 sec. B Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 35.7 sec. D 30.1 sec. D Pines Rd./Mansfield Ave. (Unsig.) ( *) F ( *) F Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. (Unsig.) 14.3 sec. C 11.8 sec. C Pines Rd./Trent Ave. 116.0 sec. F 138.5 sec. F Indiana Ave. /Off -Ramp (Unsig.) 12.8 sec. C 10.9 sec. C Indiana Ave./Mirabeau Pt. (Unsig.) 8.4 sec. B 13.7 sec. C Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps N/A N/A 12.4 sec. B Evergreen Rd./WB Ramps N/A N/A 6.6 sec. B Evergreen Rd./Indiana Ave. N/A N/A 15.5 sec. C Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 11.5 sec. B 8.9 sec. B Sullivan Rd./EB Ramps 61.6 sec. F 49.6 sec. E Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 43 Mirabeau Point Project TIA ( *) Denotes that the calculated value was greater than 999.9 seconds. Table 11 -1999 Traffic (Phase 1) With Proposed Project . INTERSECTION 1999 TRAFFIC (PHASE 1) WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION Without Evergreen I/C With Evergreen I/C DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Sullivan Rd./WB Ramps 103.8 sec. F 104.4 sec. F Sullivan Rd./Indiana Ave. 115.4 sec. F 156.1 sec. F ( *) Denotes that the calculated value was greater than 999.9 seconds. Table 11 -1999 Traffic (Phase 1) With Proposed Project . INTERSECTION 1999 TRAFFIC (PHASE 1) WITH PROJECT Without Evergreen PC With Evergreen I/C DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. 54.1 sec. E 24.0 sec. C Pines Rd./EB Ramps 129.7 sec. F 27.0 sec. D Pines Rd./WB Ramps 58.3 sec. E 11.1 sec. B Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. 16.0 sec. C 16.3 sec. C Pines Rd./Mansfield Ave. (Unsig.) ( *) F ( *) F Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. (Unsig.) 11.1 sec. C 13.6 sec. C Pines Rd./Trent Ave. With Improvements 118.4 sec. 18.2 sec. F C 145.3 sec. 18.6 sec. F C Indiana Ave. /Off -Ramp (Unsig.) 21.2 sec. D 12.8 sec. C Indiana Ave./Mirabeau Pt. 6.9 sec. B 6.9 sec. B Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps N/A N/A 12.9 sec. B Evergreen Rd./WB Ramps N/A N/A 8.2 sec. B Evergreen Rd./Indiana Ave. N/A N/A 21.0 sec. C Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 11.6 sec. B 8.9 sec. B Sullivan Rd./EB Ramps 65.8 sec. F 50.2 sec. E Sullivan Rd./WB Ramps 104.6 sec. F 104.8 sec. F Sullivan Rd./Indiana Ave. 119.4 sec. F 156.1 sec. F ( *) Denotes that the calculated value was greater than 999.9 seconds. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 44 Mirabeau Point Project TIA A1yVE <0■u, 3634 e.37'3 O'°14 X73 3 EUCLID AVENUE NOT TO SCALE: r' MANSFIELD AVENUE INDIANA AVENU SHANNON AVENUE �s—d. o- 4 3 I ,364 E 1E.0 R pµP 0 0 MISSION AVENUE t,) w z w w 0 w 0 0 1 INLAND 1211 � PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th •Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 12 1 999 (PHASE 1) W/O PROJECT WITHOUT EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES J EUCLID AVENUE d Ott. 4 _t 13 NS- 4 ■4 4 ' 4" "4 ara ►- w w w MANSFIELD AVENUE x D 0 SHANNON AVENUE INDIANA AVENU NOT TO SCALE ‘G 0►9 0.`\R AVENUE E.8• RAMP 43-D o-.» it a b QQ 717. 4k. 11 n7♦ n ]H -D 4-171 o- d AMP 0 Q 0 cc MISSION AVENUE 1.7. b44.,7 u -p ..3.111 aa" m Q 3 - t4_ 321 313-0 4- 7•11 e. ♦ a ..] vie ei M♦ ♦N <Nil, w Z O` E 0 Q 0 O: 1 Imi" INLAND iCPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 c FIGURE 13 1999 (PHASE 1) WITH PROJECT WITHOUT EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES EUCLID AVENUE 1- w w in MANSFIELD AVENUE y 0 2 SHANNON AVENUE INDIANA AVENU NOT TO SCALE t+9 R G 'AID ►A -4 AVENUE w. RAMP E.B. Mp 0 Q re MISSION AVENUE 1 INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRA ®EAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 14 1999 (PHASE 1) W/O PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES f% igE EUCLID AVENUE 23s 23 •P 144,38 0 -0 4■ I 7. 4.13 Me 1— t .J w cr MANSFIELD AVENUE 0 1 SHANNON AVENUE NOT TO SCALE tS) SP'‘‘' ‘G INDIANA AVENU AVENUE 3.7 3s3 J 0-v 703 ` 1: bb 4e 3A .07 0--> .'°b CD le 3i bb M p p I.3 J ` .32 3'5- . o-243 SO _ '1113 °14 1 P- PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 15 1999 (PHASE 1) WITH PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES / Without Phase 1 traffic and without Evergreen Interchange, the additional background trips added to the transportation system will not lower the level of service below acceptable levels on Pines Road except for the intersections at Pines Road/EB Ramps and at Pines RoadlTrent Avenue. These intersections will lower to LOS F. The WSDOT improvements on Pines Road will enable traffic at the other signalized intersections on Pines Road to remain at acceptable levels of service. If Evergreen Interchange is constructed, improvements in delay times and levels of service on Pines Road for the intersections near I -90 will be experienced. With or without Evergreen Interchange, the Pines/Mansfield intersection will operate at LOS F. On Sullivan Road, three intersections, the eastbound ramp terminal intersection, the westbound ramp terminal intersection and the Indiana Avenue intersection will experience levels of service that are unacceptable, LOS E or lower when all of the currently approved projects are built, without any additional trips from phase 1 of the proposed project with or without Evergreen Interchange. The other intersection on Sullivan Road, the Mission Avenue intersection will be at acceptable levels with the approved background trips with or without Evergreen Interchange. The intersections on Evergreen Road in the with Evergreen scenario will be at acceptable levels of service with the approved background trips. The Indiana Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service with or without a signal with the approved background trips for either with or without Evergreen Interchange without additional Phase 1 trips. With Phase 1 traffic, the levels of service at four intersections on Pines Road will lower to unacceptable levels (LOS E or lower) without Evergreen Interchange. With Evergreen Interchange, the levels of service for signalized intersections on Pines Road will be at acceptable levels (LOS D) or better except for the Trent Avenue/Pines Road intersection. Right turn lanes will improve that intersection to LOS C. The Pines/Mansfield intersection will operate at LOS F. On Sullivan Road, the eastbound ramp terminal intersection, the westbound ramp terminal intersection and the Indiana intersection will be at LOS E or lower with or without Evergreen Interchange. Mission Avenue /Sullivan Road intersection will remain at LOS B with or without Evergreen Interchange with phase 1 traffic. The intersections on Evergreen Road will be at acceptable levels of service with phase 1 traffic. Phase 2 (2004) Build Out Levels of Service With and Without Proposed Project Using the number of generated trips shown on Tables 6 & 7 and the estimated trip distributions shown on Figures 9 & 10 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use the transportation system at phase 2, year 2004 is obtained. See Figures 16 & 17 for the total traffic volumes with and without phase 2 traffic. Evergreen Interchange is assumed to be constructed by this phase. A summary of the LOS calculations is shown in Table 12 which follows. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 49 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Table 12 - 2004 Traffic (Phase 2) With and Without Proposed Project INTERSECTION 2004 TRAFFIC (PHASE 2) Without Project With Project DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. (With Signal Revisions) 34.0 sec. - D - - 26.1 sec. - D Pines Rd./EB Ramps (With Improvements) 94.0 sec. F - 24.4 sec. - C Pines Rd./WB Ramps (With off -ramp revisions) 13.3 sec. - B - 21.0 sec. 5.7 sec. C B Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. (With off -ramp revisions) 36.2 sec. - D - 22.3 sec. 21.6 sec. C C Pines Rd./Mansfield Ave. (Unsig.) ( *) F ( *) F Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. (Unsig.) (Signalized) 21.3 sec. C 196.7 sec. 13.7 sec. F B Pines Rd./Trent Ave. (With added NB Lane) 140.9 sec. F - 25.6 sec. - D Indiana Ave. /Off -Ramp (Unsig.) (With off -ramp revisions) 11.8 sec. - C - 21.8 sec. 10.5 sec. D B Indiana Ave./Mirabeau Pt. 6.5 sec. B 15.8 sec. C Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps 13.6 sec. B 14.5 sec. B Evergreen Rd./WB Ramps 6.6 sec. B 11.4 sec. B Evergreen Rd./Indiana Ave. (2nd WB Lt. Turn Lane) 16.0 sec. C 49.4 sec. 12.7 sec. E B Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 14.7 sec. B 17.4 sec. C Sullivan Rd./EB Ramps 68.3 sec. F 68.3 sec. F Sullivan Rd./WB Ramps 110.9 sec. F 110.9 sec. F Sullivan Rd./Indiana Ave. 163.5 sec. F 164.1 sec. F ( *) Denotes that the calculated value was greater than 999.9 seconds. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 50 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Without Phase 2 traffic in the year 2004, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Eastbound Ramps and Trent Avenue intersections. The other signalized intersections on Pines will operate at acceptable levels. The Pines/Mansfield intersection will continue to operate at LOS F. On Sullivan, the Eastbound ramp, the Westbound Ramps and Indiana Avenue Intersections will be at LOS F. The Sullivan Road/Mission Avenue intersection and the intersections on Evergreen Road will operate at acceptable levels of service without Phase 2 traffic. With Phase 2 traffic in the year 2004, without improvements, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps, Euclid Avenue and Trent Avenue intersections. For the Pines Road/Mission Avenue intersection, revised signal timing to provide protected plus permitted east and westbound left turning movement and northbound permitted left turning movement will bring the level of service to LOS D. At the Pines Road/Eastbound Ramp intersection, a northbound right turn lane and a second eastbound left turn lane will bring the level of service to LOS C. By relocating the westbound off ramp connection to Indiana Avenue, levels of service at the westbound ramp and Indiana Avenue intersections are improved along with reducing queuing problems. A signal will be required at the Indiana/Westbound off -ramp intersection. At the Pines Road/Euclid Avenue intersection, a signal will be needed which will bring the level of service to LOS B. At the Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersection, improvements constructed in Phase 1 will provide LOS D. The Pines/Mansfield intersection will continue to operate at LOS F. On Sullivan Road, levels of service will be the same as the without project condition. Levels of service on Evergreen Road will remain at acceptable levels except for the Evergreen Road/Indiana Avenue intersection. This intersection will require converting a through lane to a second westbound left turn lane to bring the level service from LOS F to LOS C. Widening for the receiving lanes on the south leg of the intersection may be required to provide adequate turning radius. The intersection at Indiana Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway will operate at acceptable levels with a signal. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 51 Mirabeau Point Project TIA m 4k-I" L-?o p I. --<::. o- 54 EUCLID AVENUE 91A 41 ,' b is C 1 7003 --1> o-V,• •'5 b d ». i4R 1- w w 1- 1- MANSFIELD AVENUE x 0 INDIANA AVENU NOT TO SCALE 37, .-4:. o- »s SHANNON AVENUE — b�d 7�0 4 � 22 r- *1b ]77 . 0-p w7 b IR F,1 FE Ha A4P H4 -p o- -37• o- 7" , d 0 Q 0 MISSION AVENUE Z r%,) w Q W ]S,♦ 0 0 SNIb (: 0 74 Q 4 i� / 0 o -o• w Cr 12 bb ip kx 41 4 707 - A ‘1) " „2 IS --O. o- 77 173 b d " 4% 9s vi w z 1 -"•• INLAND ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -8840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 i / FIGURE 16 2004 (PHASE 2) W/0 PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN 1/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES b%% ,0. `24 o-v o- 1 ,Dew d w4 • Nv EUCLID AVENUE W W 1- MANSFIELD AVENUE 0 INDIANA AVENU NOT TO SCALE SHANNON 'ND /,1 MP Z A y ,M ♦ `N• AVENUE 706 --C. a- 231 M7` 7.,♦ E.B. 0 0 cc MISSION AVENUE W bb Li 4u+ cr 0 37{ � 0 Q� > Q - - -- ALTERNATIVE TO RELOCATE RAMP woo) VOLUMES FOR RELOCATED ALTERATIVE RAMP AF\ti ,o, 11, -0. - » ,o3 " 912 1 � INLAND '.,� PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 17 2004 (PHASE 2) WITH PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Phase 3 (2006) Build Out Levels of Service With and Without Proposed Project Using the number of generated trips shown on Tables 6, 7 & 8 and the estimated trip distributions shown on Figures 9, 10 & 11 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use the transportation system at phase 3, year 2006 is obtained. See Figures 18 & 19 for the total traffic volumes with and without phase 3 traffic. Evergreen Interchange is assumed to be constructed by this phase. A summary of the LOS calculations is shown in Table 13 which follows. Table 13 - 2006 Traffic (Phase 3) With and Without Proposed Project INTERSECTION 2006 TRAFFIC (PHASE 3) Without Project With Project DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Pines Rd./Mission Ave. (With Phase 2 Revisions) 43.1 sec. - E - - 31.0 sec. - D Pines Rd./EB Ramps (With Ph. 2 Improvements) 98.0 sec. F - 30.8 sec. - D Pines Rd./WB Ramps (With off -ramp revisions) 18.8 sec. - C - 30.8 sec. 6.2 sec. D B Pines Rd./Indiana Ave. (With off -ramp revisions) 36.3 sec. - D - 28.4 sec. 24.4 sec. D C Pines Rd./Mansfield Ave. . (Unsi ) (Unsig.) (*) F ( * F Pines Rd./Euclid Ave. (Unsig.) (Signalized) 33.1 sec. - E - - 16.3 sec. - C Pines Rd. /Trent Ave. (With Ph. 2 Improvements) 159.5 sec. - F - - 38.9 sec. - D Indiana Ave. /Off -Ramp (Unsig.) (With off -ramp revisions) 12.3 sec. - C - 22.7 sec. 11.5 sec. D B Indiana Ave./Mirabeau Pt. 8.8 sec. B 17.6 sec. C Evergreen Rd./EB Ramps 12.9 sec. B 15.2 sec. B Evergreen Rd./WB Ramps 7.5 sec. B 16.6 sec. B Evergreen Rd./Indiana Ave. (With Ph. 2 Improvements) 16.5 sec. - C - 61.7 sec. 13.6 sec. F B Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 54 Mirabeau Point Project TIA ( *) Denotes that the calculated value was greater than 999.9 seconds. Without Phase 3 traffic in the year 2006, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps and Trent Avenue intersections. The other signalized intersections on Pines Road will operate at acceptable levels. The Pines/Mansfield intersection will continue to operate at LOS F. On Sullivan Road, the Eastbound Ramps. the Westbound Ramps and Indiana Avenue Intersections will be at LOS F. The Sullivan RoadfMission Avenue intersection and the intersections on Evergreen Road will operate at acceptable levels of service without Phase 3 traffic. With Phase 3 traffic in the year 2006, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps, Euclid Avenue and Trent Avenue intersections unless Phase 2 improvements are in place. If phase 2 improvements are in place, all the intersections on Pines Road will operate at acceptable levels. On Sullivan Road, levels of service will be the same as the without project condition. Levels of service on Evergreen Road will remain at acceptable levels with Phase 2 improvements in place for the Evergreen Road/Indiana Avenue intersection. The intersection at Indiana Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway will operate at acceptable levels with a signal. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 55 Mirabeau Point Project TIA 2006 TRAFFIC (PHASE 3) IN INTERSECTION Without Project With Project DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Sullivan Rd./Mission Ave. 26.1 sec. D 26.6 sec. D Sullivan Rd.IEB Ramps 72.8 sec. F 72.9 sec. F Sullivan Rd./WB Ramps 111.4 sec. F 111.4 sec. F Sullivan Rd./Indiana Ave. ' 167.8 sec. F 168.1 sec. F ( *) Denotes that the calculated value was greater than 999.9 seconds. Without Phase 3 traffic in the year 2006, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps and Trent Avenue intersections. The other signalized intersections on Pines Road will operate at acceptable levels. The Pines/Mansfield intersection will continue to operate at LOS F. On Sullivan Road, the Eastbound Ramps. the Westbound Ramps and Indiana Avenue Intersections will be at LOS F. The Sullivan RoadfMission Avenue intersection and the intersections on Evergreen Road will operate at acceptable levels of service without Phase 3 traffic. With Phase 3 traffic in the year 2006, levels of service on Pines Road will be at unacceptable levels for the Mission Avenue, Eastbound Ramps, Euclid Avenue and Trent Avenue intersections unless Phase 2 improvements are in place. If phase 2 improvements are in place, all the intersections on Pines Road will operate at acceptable levels. On Sullivan Road, levels of service will be the same as the without project condition. Levels of service on Evergreen Road will remain at acceptable levels with Phase 2 improvements in place for the Evergreen Road/Indiana Avenue intersection. The intersection at Indiana Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway will operate at acceptable levels with a signal. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 55 Mirabeau Point Project TIA ARE 9�a .7 +<W I.-0 o- 51 4201s, 4.213 130 e 0-0 31 bb 117 bn 9 EUCLID AVENUE 1— W 1- cn MANSFIELD AVENUE INDIANA AVENU E.0 AMP MP NOT TO SCALE 0 SHANNON AVENUE 1.7-0 Q— S.7 e 31 AVENUE 207 1 SULLIVAN ROAD zra 730+ `3.. 0-fl -Iu 420`, ♦U1 Ate 3.x 7; O ° MISSION AVENUE z W Li 0 O 4r° 90 757♦ 0 -c 4e 1•-0 4•23 l0S b d 90 xa2 3,4f ♦•7S 2a-0 o-77. "'ty .I7. xaa J 1 —1111111 INLAND � ICPACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokone, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 FIGURE 18 2006 (PHASE 3) W/0 PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 19 2006 (PHASE 3) WITH PROJECT WITH EVERGREEN I/C P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES J 1 AvE EUCLID AVENUE °:R S P t. C4 . —O 0-157 5N♦ e•4 0,4e 1- w w 1- MANSFIELD AVENUE INDIANA AVENU 111 NOT TO SCALE �r\0_ O SHANNON AVENUE /N /ANA w. Q� b AVENUE db 705 -fl 4 -7H Fn� .c/b" .N4 nn 7.t (0) bb 5 0 O MISSION AVENUE 757 o-0 000 0,6 n..j ‘6 ‘7t. n• 1.-p 4• 73 4e " °NQ" xl3 (� N D.- n 41 4‘o 71. _P 4... 7, 25S X77. $5. ♦t7. 7�xa w aa_ - - -- ALTERNATIVE TO RELOCATE RAMP moo) VOLUMES FOR RELOCATED ALTERATIVE RAMP 1 INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 (509) 458 -6840 FAX: (509) 458 -6844} MIRABEAU POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT NO. 96149 Key Intersection Configurations The following is a list of key intersections with lane configurations and improvements recommended for each phase. • Pines Road/Mission Avenue - WSDOT is constructing improvements that will add a second southbound left turn lane and revise striping and signal phasing to allow protected eastbound and westbound left turn movements. For phase 2 traffic, revise eastbound and westbound Left turn movements to protected plus permitted movement. • Pines Road/Eastbound Ramps - WSDOT is constructing improvements that will add a second eastbound right turn lane at the off ramp. For phase 2 traffic, construct a northbound right turn lane and a second eastbound left turn lane. • Pines Road/Westbound Ramps - WSDOT is constructing improvements that will add a second northbound left turn lane onto the on -ramp. For phase 2 traffic, relocate the westbound off - ramp connection to Indiana Avenue. • Pines Road/Indiana Avenue - WSDOT is constructing improvements that will add a eastbound left turn lane. For phase 1 traffic, construct a eastbound right turn lane. For phase 2 traffic, revise the eastbound and westbound signal phasing to split phasing. • Pines Road/Euclid Avenue - For phase 1 traffic, construct northbound and southbound left turn lanes for a future four - legged intersection. Westbound will require one left turn lane and one right turn lane. • Pines Road/Trent Avenue - For phase 1 traffic, construct eastbound and northbound right turn lanes. The signal phasing will need to be split phasing for northbound and southbound movements. • Evergreen RoadlEB Ramp Terminal - The current design which WSDOT has for this intersection will be adequate. Current design includes two eastbound left turn lanes, two eastbound right turn lanes, four northbound through lanes of which two will turn left at the westbound ramp intersection, a northbound right turn lane, a southbound left turn lane and two southbound through lanes. • Evergreen Road/WB Ramp Terminal -The current design which WSDOT has for this intersection will be adequate. Current design includes two westbound left turn lanes, one westbound right turn lane, two northbound left turn lanes, two northbound through lanes, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right turn lane. • Evergreen Roadlndiana Avenue - The current design which WSDOT has for this intersection will be adequate for phase 1. Current design includes two eastbound and westbound through Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 58 Mirabeau Point Project TIA lanes, one westbound left turn lane, one eastbound right turn lane, one northbound left only lane, one northbound left/right shared lane and one northbound right turn only lane. For phase 2 traffic, revise the westbound approach to have two left turn lanes and one through lane. • Indiana Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway - This intersection will have two eastbound and westbound through lanes with a eastbound left turn lane. For the southbound approach, there will be a left turn only lane, a shared left turn/right turn lane and a right turn only lane. Some intersections on Sullivan Road will be at LOS F without the project traffic due to additional trips from approved projects. These intersections, notably the WB ramp terminal and Indiana intersections on Sullivan will still operate at LOS F, even with the Evergreen Interchange unless significant improvements are constructed at these intersections. This project however adds very little additional traffic onto Sullivan Road with the Evergreen Interchange constructed. Queue Lengths Required queue lengths for the major signalized intersections on Pines Road for both existing conditions and phase 3 with and without the proposed project were calculated using the queueing equation shown in the ITE Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook on pages 465 through 467. These calculations are shown in the Appendix. The following is a summary of the results of the queue analysis. Existing Traffic (1996) Volumes: Pines/Mission Intersection: Storage lengths are adequate with WSDOT's improvements constructed in 1997. Pines/EB Ramps Intersection: The storage length for the northbound through and right turn movements are inadequate and back up to the Mission/Pines intersection. The storage length for the southbound left turn movement is also inadequate. Storage lengths for other movements are adequate. Pines/WB Ramps Intersection: The storage length for the northbound left turn movement is inadequate. This will be improved with WSDOT's project to create a dual left turn lane for this movement. The southbound through movement does not have adequate storage due to the two closely spaced intersections. Storage lengths for other movements are adequate. Pines/Indiana Intersection: The storage lengths for the northbound left turn and through movements are inadequate due to the two closely space intersections. Storage lengths for other movements are adequate. Pines/Trent Intersection: Storage lengths are adequate. Phase 3 (2006) Volumes: Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 59 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Pines/Mission Intersection: The queues lengths required for the left turning movements at this intersection are the same for the with project condition as for the without project condition due to the proposed improvements. Pines/Eastbound Ramp Intersection: The queue length required for the eastbound to northbound left turning move_. :.ent is less for the with project condition than for the with project condition due to the construction of a second lane for this turning movement. The queue length required for the southbound to eastbound left turning movement is the same for the with project condition as for the without project condition. Pines/Indiana Intersection: The queues lengths required for the northbound and southbound left turning movements at this intersection are the same for the with project condition as for the without project condition. The queue length for the eastbound left turning movement increases from 75 feet to 100 feet for the with project condition. The left turn lane which WSDOT is building should provide this storage. The queue length for the westbound left turning movement increases from 225 feet to 350 feet. This will require coordination between the Pines/Indiana signal and the Indiana/Westbound off ramp signal to minimize queue problems for-this turning movement. Pines /Trent Intersection: The queues lengths required for the left turning movements at this intersection are the same or less for the with project condition as for the without project condition due to the proposed improvements. It should be noted that queue lengths are dependent on coordination between adjacent signalized intersections. The coordination between signalized intersections for Pines corridor has analyzed using the Synchro and Net Sim programs in conjunction with both WSDOT and Spokane County reviewers. Improvements Needed Within the Mirabeau Point Development Mirabeau Parkway will be constructed as a five lane roadway from Indiana Avenue to approximately 1,300 feet north of Indiana Ave. and a three lane section from 1,300 feet north of Indiana Ave. to Euclid Ave. Left turn lanes will be constructed at the main intersection near the proposed YMCA site. A median with breaks for access will be constructed throughout this roadway. To maintain adequate levels of service at the intersection near the proposed YMCA, a signal will need to be installed. The level of service with a signal at this intersection will be LOS B in phase 3, 2006 with the proposed project traffic. See Appendix for calculations. The access road east from Mirabeau Parkway toward the proposed hotel and business park will be a four lane roadway, two lanes in each direction with a median. Other access roads will consist of two lane sections. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 60 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Weaving Analysis With Evergreen Interchange A concern of the scenario with the Evergreen Interchange is whether the vehicles entering the freeway will conflict with vehicles desiring to exiting the freeway. Evergreen Interchange is proposed to be approximately half way between the Pines and Sullivan Interchanges at approximately a one mile spacing. A weaving analysis was performed for the four potential weaving areas that the Evergreen Interchange would create. Since design of the interchange is not complete, the following conservative assumptions were made: The weaving section was assumed to be 2,000 feet long, with two lanes on the mainline and one lane as a weave lane. Nomographs for the design and analysis of weaving sections obtained from WSDOT were used to analyze the weaving sections. Traffic volumes used in the analysis were from WSDOT I -90 mainline counts and from counts used in this report at the ramp terminal intersections. Table 14 - Weaving Levels of Service on 1-90 between Interchanges Section of I -90 LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing Traffic If Evergreen I/C Was "In Place" Now Pines Road to Evergreen Road A Evergreen Road to Sullivan Road A Sullivan Road to Evergreen Road C Evergreen Road to Pines Road A The above table shows that if the Evergreen Interchange was in place, the level of service for weaving between the interchanges would be at adequate levels of service. The following table shows the weaving levels of service for with and without project traffic in the year 2006. To improve levels of service in this section, a third mainline westbound lane on I -90 must be constructed or collector /distributor lanes. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 61 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Table 15 - Year 2006 Weaving Levels of Service on 1-90 between Interchanges Section of I -90 LEVELS OF SERVICE Year 2006 Without Project Year 2006 .. With Project Pines Road to Evergreen Road D D Evergreen Road to Sullivan Road E E Sullivan Road to Evergreen Road E E Evergreen Road to Pines Road C C WSDOT may in the future consider ramp metering as a way to reduce the "platooning" effect that occurs with signalized intersections at the ramp terminals. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 62 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Percentage of Participation in Evergreen Interchange The new Evergreen Interchange is currently being designed by WSDOT. Two stages have been proposed. Stage 1 will construct the interchange and roadway from Sharp Avenue to Indiana Avenue with a connection to Mission Avenue. Stage 2 will construct the roadway improvements from Sprague Avenue to Sharp Avenue. Recent estimates from the County (May 19, 1997) have the total project cost of Stage 1 at $21.0 million and the cost of Stage 2 at $3.3 million. Stage 2 will be funded by County and TIB sources. WSDOT and TIB have committed to fund a portion of Stage 1. The remaining amount to be provided is currently $15.7 million. Additional cost increases to Stage 1 as well as construction overruns will also need to be funded. Developers of property in the surrounding area will need to contribute funds. The following table shows the existing project cost estimate. Table 16 - Preliminary Evergreen Interchange Project Cost Estimate Evergreen UC ~Project Cost Estimate Full Diamond UC with Connection to-Mission Avenue Phase Project Cost (In Millions) Comments Preliminary Engineering 1.3 By WSDOT Right -of -Way 4.7 $2.7 mil. donated by developers north of I -90 Construction 15.0 Total 21.0 Design of the transportation system in this area is based on the PM peak hour period. By constructing the Evergreen Interchange, Pines Road will realize improvement in level of service. This will benefit the WSDOT by not having to construct expensive improvements in the future to improve Pines Road to acceptable levels of service. The first phase of the Spokane Valley Mall and other developments which are already approved will add a significant number of trips to the interchange. The trips from approved projects cannot be counted as the responsibility of the developer to mitigate, only unapproved phases or projects. Therefore participation in funding of the Evergreen Interchange should be based on the number of PM peak hour trips each source generates for unapproved phases or projects. It should be noted that the mechanism for providing the private funding of the interchange is unclear. While the developments are spread out over several phases, the Evergreen Interchange is needed for any development to proceed and to reduce existing impacts on Pines Road and Sullivan Road. Also it should be noted that other developments will contribute to an increase in traffic within the area from Pines Road to Sullivan Road near I -90. These projects should also contribute to the funding of the Evergreen Interchange based on PM peak hour trips generated. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 63 Mirabeau Point Project TIA CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis, field observations, assumptions, methodologies and results which are provided in the body of this document, it is concluded that the impacts to the overall area transportation system from developing this property can be mitigated. This conclusion was reached and is documented within the body of this report. • The signalized intersections within the study area are currently functioning at level of service D or better except for the intersection at Trent Avenue and Pines Road which is at LOS E. The unsignalized intersection at Pines Road and Euclid Avenue is presently functioning at level of service C and the unsignalized intersection at Pines Road and Mansfield is currently functioning at level of service F. • With or without the Evergreen Interchange, the increase in traffic above existing volumes to 1999 will lower the level of service at two of the intersections on Sullivan Road to unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or lower) without the addition of the proposed Phase one Mirabeau Point development trips. With WSDOT scheduled improvements on Pines Road and without Phase one Mirabeau Point development trips, the LOS on Pines Road will remain at LOS D or better except for the Eastbound Ramp terminal intersection (LOS F) and the Trent Ave./Pines Road intersection (LOS F). The level of service at Pines Road and Euclid Ave. during the PM peak hour will remain at LOS C without signal installation and without the Phase one Mirabeau Point development trips. • Without the Evergreen Interchange in 1999, but with the Phase one Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines Road will be at LOS E or lower for four of the • signalized intersections. The level of service at the Sullivan/EB ramp terminal intersection will also slip to LOS F under this same condition. The Mirabeau Parkway/Indiana intersection will require a signal for coordination with the signalized railroad crossing. • With the Evergreen Interchange and with the Phase one (1999) Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will be at LOS D or better for all of the signalized intersections except for the Trent/Pines intersection which will require eastbound and northbound right turn lanes. Levels of service on Sullivan will remain the same as without project traffic under this condition. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS C or better under this condition with the intersections configured as listed in this report. The Vlirabeau Parkway/Indiana intersection will require a signal for this phase. A southbound left turn pocket at the Pines/Euclid intersection will be required. • In 2004 with the Evergreen Interchange, but without the Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service on Pines will be at LOS D or better for all signalized intersections except for the Pines Road/EB Ramps and the Pines Road Trent Avenue intersections. Additional lanes and signal revisions at these intersections will improve the level of service to LOS D. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS C or better under this condition. • In 2004 with the Evergreen Interchange and with the Phase two Mirabeau Point development trips, the WB off ramp to Pines Road should be relocated to Indiana Ave. to provide adequate Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 64 Mirabeau Point Project TIA levels of service at Pines RoacIfWB Ramps and Pines Road/Indiana Ave. intersections. The intersections on Pines Road at Mission Avenue, EB Ramps, Euclid Avenue, and Trent Avenue will require improvements. Signal revisions at the Pines Road!Mission Avenue intersection will improve the level of service to LOS D. The addition of a second eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane at the Pines Road/EB Ramp intersection will improve the level of service to LOS C. The Pines Road/Euclid Avenue intersection will require a signal for acceptable levels of service. The Pines RoadlTrent Avenue intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service with phase 1 improvements. There is no change in the adequacy of the level of service for the intersections on Sullivan Avenue with Phase 2 under this condition from the without project traffic. The levels of service on Evergreen will be at LOS C under this condition with a revised lane configuration at the Evergreenllndiana intersection. • In 2006 with the Evergreen Interchange, but without the Mirabeau Point development trips. levels of service for all signalized intersections on Pines will remain at LOS D or better except for the Pines Road/Mission Avenue, Pines Road/EB Ramps and Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersections. Improvements stated previously under Phase 2 (2004) will bring the levels of service into acceptable range. The levels of service on Sullivan will be LOS F except for the Sullivan/Mission Avenue intersection which will be LOS D. The levels of service on Evergreen Road will be at LOS C or better under this condition. • In 2006 with the Evergreen Interchange and with the Phase three Mirabeau Point development trips, levels of service for all signalized intersections on Pines will be at LOS D or better with Phase two improvements. The levels of service on Sullivan will be the same for this condition as without the project. The levels of service on Evergreen will be at LOS C or better under this condition with a revised lane configuration at the Evergreen[Indiana intersection. • In 2006 with the Evergreen Interchange, weaving levels of service between the Pines Road, Evergreen Road and Sullivan Road Interchanges will become congested and drop into unacceptable ranges, LOS E or lower. The construction of a third through lane on 1 -90 for both directions or a C -D lane between Pines and Sullivan will improve the level of service to LOS E or better for either with or without the proposed project. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis presented, it is anticipated that the proposed development of the Mirabeau Point project will have an impact on the transportation system within the general geographic area due to the number of trips generated by this development. In order to implement this project, provide the safest and most efficient possible ingress and egress available; not only to this proposed development, but also to surrounding properties and existing commuter traffic, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the project: • Frontage improvements to on site public roads as required by the County. • Participation in construction of Mirabeau Parkway from Indiana Avenue to Euclid Avenue. • Participate in the funding of the Evergreen Interchange as part of the conditions required for Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 65 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Phase one. • Participate in the construction of northbound and southbound left turn lanes at the Pines Road/Euclid Ave. intersection as part of the conditions required for Phase one. This intersection will become a four -leg intersection with the school driveway and future development using the west leg. • Participate with WSDOT in the funding of improvements at the Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersection to construct a eastbound right turn lane and another northbound lane as part of the conditions required for Phase one. • Revise the existing signal at the Pines Road /Mission Avenue intersection to allow eastbound and westbound protected plus permitted left turn movements as part of the conditions required for Phase two. • Participate in construction of a second eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane at the Pines/EB Ramps intersection as part of the conditions required for Phase two. • Participate in relocation of the westbound off -ramp from Pines Road to Indiana Ave. and install a signal at the Indiana/WB off -ramp intersection as part of the conditions required for Phase two. • Participate in the construction of an eastbound right turn lane and revise the signal phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches to split phasing at the Pines Road/Indiana Avenue intersection as part of the conditions required for Phase two. • Participate in the installation of a signal at the Pines Road/Euclid Ave. intersection as part of the conditions required for Phase two. • Reconfigure the westbound approach at the Indiana/Evergreen Road intersection to provide two westbound left turn lanes and one through lane as part of the conditions required for Phase two. Provide widening within existing right -of -way on the south leg to allow adequate turning radius for these westbound left turning WB -15 vehicles. • As part of the overall area development, participate in the installation of a signal at the intersection of Mirabeau Parkway & Mansfield Avenue when traffic warrants are met. • Due to participation in the construction of the Evergreen Interchange and the lack of traffic from the project using Sullivan, no participation for improvements on Sullivan are required. • Funds from the state and federal level should be sought to construct a third through lane in each direction from the Sprague Interchange to east of the Sullivan Interchange. As identified in the original FHWA/WSDOT approval for the Evergreen Interchange, Collector - Distributor (C -D) lanes should be constructed between Pines and Sullivan in conjunction with the construction of the Evergreen Interchange. WSDOT may want to consider ramp metering in the future. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 66 Mirabeau Point Project TIA Appendix C Technical Appendices to the TIA (Bound Separately) Appendix D Archeological Site Verification Study of (45SP234) r•1��uliv�.Lr 47001, J1 �,riti� `'�r�� l �wuw� �l�•�.i wS/��•w i91 . _'M.1 t/��L•ai Ati.i l..w (1��m �/�rl�.. n•r� C.iwl u:isn:. October 24, 1997 MI. Crary Nelson Spokane County Public Works 1026 W. Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 Dear Gary: I V.p OCr 'Spo�'A,v. ? 199? ` Coolr'ENGINEER 1 visited the site area for 45SP234 on Tuesday October 21, 1997 for the relocation study. From my review of the site area it appears your team plans to widen the road along the Spokane River and that effort will impact the recorded site. Based upon my investiszations such a project may proceed because the site has lost all integrity. In fact., no recognizable artifacts or features currently exist as reported on t }i. site inventory form in the location identified as site. 45SP234. Please consider this letter and any attachments a formal report On my il•1Vestikations. If you have any questions or need clarification on any matter please let me know. Sincerely: William Andy efsk °Jr,. Ph.D. Consulting Archaeolog st Post-it" Fax WALT" 767 1 Date y u nt Tor`( �T.f,.1,C/ - c: x.11 0.'"L. From �,Ztll`L, r .L, J L� J`�r 11x-2 N11011. r �..) q _ �J0TT( [� �' �: Phone v 4s-7, --JS C"� ra+ # .E-73 L _ Fax n 7 SITE VERIFICATION STUDY OF (45SP234) by William Andrefsky, Jr. Introduction The purpose of this study Nvas to field check the location of site 45SP234 and to determine. the integrity of cultural resources located at the site. The Site was originally recorded by M. Wyss during an inventory survey of the area for the construction of the ,Spokane Centennial Trail. The site location and description are reported in a volume edited by Draper and Andrefsk-y (1990, Center for Northwest Anthropology Project Report Series, No. 11, Washington State University), and on a Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form on record at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, WA. The site was originally reported as being composed of two rock cairns and a scatter of fire - cracked rock located in the ditch along the road. Study Area Site 45SP234 is located along the Spokane River valley in Spokane County off Euclid Avenue near what was Walk in the Wild Zoo, It can be found on -the USGS 7.5' series, Green Acres quad map, within T25N, R44E, Sec. 10, 1/4 1/4 1/4 NE, 1/4 1/4 NW, 1/4 NE. It has a UTM location of Zone 11, Easting 48320, Northing 528 1 060. Figure 1 shows the location of the site area covered in the study. Iviethods To verify the site location, parallel transects were traversed following; Euclid Avenue beginning at the turn where it meets the Spokane River. From the turn on Euclid Avenue the transects `veie walked in a southward direction for approximately 300 meters. Eight, 300 meter long transects, roughly three meters apart were walked paralleling the 1 road. Also, a global positioning system unit with the site UTM coordinates marked was used to pin point the site location for detailed examination. Observations The entire site area is composed of a sediment matrix that is primarily unsorted cobbles and gravels. Gravels as small as 1 cm in dimension were observed in the same matrix as cobbles roughly 40 -50 cm in diameter. Additionally the project area has undergone some disturbance parallel to Euclid Avenue where a chain link fence was removed, Approximately 200 -250 meters south of the curve in Euclid Avenue there appears to be a dump for vlcl concrete pieces and old telephone poles. Activities associated with transportation of dumped materials and fence removal have disturbed the project area. Figure. 1 shows the location of disturbance. Additionally, the sediments in the project area have been reworked by small and large rodent burrows. No evidence of either cairn currently exists in the site area. Rocks of the sizc reported in the cairns are found throughout the project area zinc] for miles in both directions along the river. None of the reported cairns or any other cairns were found in this site relocation sh.►cly. Additionuilly, no fire - cracked was found along the road. However, fractured gravel for road construction was observed. Recommendations Based on the total resurvey of the project area and the detailed investigations within the recorded site area, site 4SSP234 appears to have lost all integrity. There is no surface evidence of either cairn nor is there evidence of fire - cracked rock or charcoal in the original site arca. Results of the study suggest that the original cairn features have been lost to disturbances that have occurred in the site area such as the removal of the chain [ink fence and transportation activities. The scatter of fire- cracked rock originally reported for the site is no longer present. Given the results of-these investigations the proposed undertaking may proceed within the area designated as original site 45SP234. As with all land altering activities in locations that have not been investigated with subsurface testing (s,.ich as site 45SP234) land disturbances should be halted if buried human or cultural remains are encountered and a professional archaeologist should be contacted to examine any newly uncovered materials. C,RAvc\ �;c i, tea►. i(SSp?3i ANtAc.r-y,i tii -Zc -J F..-) _ , / / C le f'n ovt - lc- D u MP / ///?' r x 1-'''..- CJ1r.ri41 <. t'11,1r‘.,ev1 Du .... (1 / / t^ ..--- _-- n v fd �, . ---- -. - fr- �1. /no /4) • RECEIVED MAP. 1 1998 SPOKANE CGJNn ENGINEER A Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Mirabeau Parkway, Spokane County, Washington by Dennis C. Regan Principal Investigator: Barbara J. Gundy PhD. Submitted to Spokane County Public Works Department Agreement Number 98 -0095, Task Number SC -1 Short Report 590 Archaeological and Historical Services Eastern Washington University March 5, 1998 Short Report No.: SR 590 Page No.: 1 County: Spokane Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University Cultural Resource Short Report Form Author: Dennis C. Regan USGS Quadrangle (map attached): Greenacres 7.5' 1973 Location (Sec., T, R): Sections 3, 10, T25N, R44E Date: March 1, 1998 PROJECT DATA Agency /Sponsor: Spokane County Public Works Department Contract Number: Agreement No. 98 -0095, Task No. SC -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Undertaking: The Spokane County Public Works Department is proposing to construct new roadway and improve or realign existing roadway to facilitate increased traffic on Euclid Avenue /Mirabeau Parkway as a result of a proposed new YMCA facility to be located in the vicinity. Cultural Resource Task(s): Archaeological and Historical Services (AHS) was contracted by Spokane County to conduct a site file and literature search, conduct a cultural resources survey, and shovel test excavations in previously undisturbed areas within the project area right -of -way (ROW), and submit a report of findings. LOCATION Project /locational information: The project area is located in the Spokane valley, west of the Spokane River at Mirabeau Park, in Spokane County. The ROW begins at the east end of Euclid Avenue and traverses south through the former Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo site to Indiana Avenue (Figure 1) . Landowners: Inland Empire Paper Co., R.A. Hanson Co., and YMCA of the Inland Northwest Short Report No.: SR 590 Page No.: 2 County: Spokane ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND Setting /Landform(s) /Vegetation: The proposed project area is located in the Spokane valley floor, west of the Spokane River. The valley floor in the project vicinity is mostly flat, with granitic bedrock outcrops rising approximately 40 -80 ft on either side of the proposed ROW in the central project area. This area is covered by natural vegetation (Ponderosa pine, wild rose, various grasses and shrubs), probably previously thinned for zoo facilities. On the north and south ends of the project area, the natural vegetation appears to have been removed prior to agricultural pursuits, probably in the mid 20th century. Various grasses and weeds are now growing in these portions of the project area. Ground Surface Conditions: Numerous modern historic period disturbances to the project area including road and zoo facility construction and maintenance, utilities, recreational use areas, and agricultural activities have heavily impacted the project area. ETHNOGR&PHIC /HISTOPJC BACKGROUND The proposed project is within the traditional ethnographic territory of the Coeur d'Alene Indians (Teit 1930; Walker 1978; Ross 1991), although some ethnographers describe the area between the Spokane Falls and approximately the Idaho state line as being a joint occupation area with the Upper Spokan (Ray 1936:121; Gibbs 1967:20) . The Coeur d'Alene and Upper Spokan were Salishan language speakers most closely linked with Middle and Lower Spokan, Kalispel, and Flatheads. The interested reader should consult the following studies for detailed ethnographic accounts of the Coeur d'Alenes: Teit 1930; Spier 1936; Ray 1936; Gibbs 1967; Walker 1978; Ross 1991; Luttrell 1998. Traditional Cultural Properties: There are no known Traditional Cultural Properties within the project area. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within Project Area: Two previously recorded archaeological sites (45SP233, 45SP234) are located within the project area. Both sites were recorded as part of the cultural resources investigations along the Spokane Centennial Trail (Draper, Olson and Wyss 1991). Site 45SP233 is described as a prehistoric camp /historic homestead (Wyss 1989a) consisting of lithic debitage, stone tools, projectile points, fire- cracked rock, rock -lined flower bed, rock wall structure, domestic fruit trees, lilac bush, and a gate /bridge. The prehistoric component of the site was excavated as part of the Centennial Trail cultural resources investigations (Draper and Andrefsky 1991). Cultural material recovered from the ground surface and 11 test excavation units included 88 stone tools and flaked cobbles, 1,254 lithic flakes and shatter of different lithic material types representing all stages of reduction technology, and 9,406 faunal remains, including small, medium, and large mammal bone, Short Report No.: SR 590 Page No.: 3 County: Spokane rodent, bird and fish bone, and river mussel shell. A total of 216 bone fragments exhibit evidence of human modification, probably due to butchering, bone marrow extraction processes, and tool use and manufacture (Draper and Olson 1991:8.44). Thirteen faunal remains appear to be tools or tool fragments, including two beads, one of which is made of river mussel shell, and numerous mammal long bones shaft fragments with blunt or pointed polished ends (Draper and Olson 1991:8.45). Two human finger bones were also recovered from one test unit, but investigators were unable to determine if the bones were from isolated finds or part of a disturbed burial (Draper and Olson 1991:8.44). Five features including two depressions, one rock shelter, one concentration of fire - cracked rock, lithic debitage and faunal remains, and one possible knapping station were identified as a result of surface inspections or excavations. Archaeological site 45SP234 is described as two cairns constructed of "head- size" boulders (Wyss 1989b), located on the west side of Euclid Avenue within the project area, north and west of site 45SP233. During a recent revisitation of the site area prior to this study, the site could not be relocated, possibly due to the destruction of the cairns during fence removal or transportation activities (Andrefsky 1997; Attachment A) . CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY RESEARCH DESIGN Objectives: The objective of this study was to assist Spokane County in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, by the location, and preliminary characterization of both previously and as -yet unidentified cultural resources in the project area. Area surveyed: The project ROW and area surveyed is approximately 0.9 mi long and 40.0 ft wide for a total of 4.3 ac in area. Methods: Prior to fieldwork, a site file and literature search was conducted at the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. After a preliminary reconnaissance of the project area, it was decided that, due to vegetation density at the northern and southern ends of the project area, visual survey alone would be unreliable for identification of subsurficial cultural remains. Therefore, the undisturbed portions of the project area were subsurficially tested via hand - excavated shovel probes. Shovel probes were excavated along the centerline of the proposed ROW, as staked, every 40 m beginning at station 12 +00 to approximately station 24 +00 on the southern end and from station 44 +00 to approximately station 52+00 on the northern end of the project area. Additionally, four shovel probes spaced 20 m apart were excavated five m west of the existing unimproved road in the middle of the project area where the approximate boundaries for previously recorded site 45SP233 (as depicted in Thoms and Olson 1989) intersect the project area. The results of the shovel probes and pertinent stratigraphic information were recorded on AHS forms. The subsurface stratigraphy noted in the northern and southern project areas consisted of a dark brown loamy silt cap, Short Report No.: SR 590 Page No.: 4 County: Spokane approximately 20 -30 cm thick (possible plow zone), covering a light brown, very gravelly silt. The gravels are composed of subrounded /round pebbles and cobbles, with a few boulder size rocks, increasing with depth. Soils in the middle of the project area differed greatly in that they contained fine silts and sand with very few gravels. Shovel probes averaged 46 cm in diameter and 51 cm deep. All shovel probes proved negative for cultural resources. The shovel probe locations were mapped on project maps supplied by Spokane County. Those maps were then used as a guide for the project maps in this report (Figures 2a and 2b) . Photographs were taken of the project area and are on file at the AHS facility in Cheney. RESULTS _ positive X negative If negative, possible reasons for absence of cultural resources: Although two archaeological sites, 45SP233 and 45SP234 were previously recorded as present within the current Mirabeau Parkway project area, investigations by Dr. William Andrefsky, Jr. (1997) and by AHS failed to relocate either site. This may be due in part to recent disturbances such as construction, maintenance and recreational use of the Centennial Trail adjacent to the project area, may reflect original inaccurate site boundary identification, or may reflect less intensive use of site perimeters. In addition, other modern historic period disturbances such as road, utility, and zoo construction and maintenance may have destroyed cultural resources which may have been present in the project area. Cultural resources in project area potentially eligible for National Register: Archaeological sire 45SP233 has been formally determined eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D, it's ability to yield important information to the prehistory of the area; However, there is no indication that this site is present within the proposed Mirabeau Parkway project area. The eligibility determination was based on the results of the Spokane Centennial Trail investigations of the site (Thoms and Olson 1989). Possible effects of the proposed project on cultural resources: Since no cultural resources were identified or relocated within the project area, the proposed roadway construction as presently planned will have no effect on cultural resources. RECOMMENDATIONS Relocation of previously identified archaeological sites 45SP233 and 45SP234 within the proposed project area proved unsuccessful, and no new archaeological sites were identified in otter portions of the project area. Large portions of the project area, especially where the zoo was formerly located exhibit extensive subsurface disturbances in the form of cut and fill Short Report No.: SR 590 Page No.: 5 County: Spokane sequences, and building, parking lot, utility, and road construction, maintenance, and use. Therefore no further cultural resources research appears warranted for the Mirabeau Parkway project area Due to the apparent proximity of 45SP233 to the proposed project area, extreme care should be taken during roadway construction activities to insure that disturbances do not take place outside of the proposed project area. In the unlikely event that cultural resources are identified during roadway construction, work should be halted in the immediate vicinity of the cultural resources and AHS should be notified. This document should be submitted by Spokane County to the appropriate review agencies and interested parties for comment prior to the initiation of any land altering activities. BACKGROUND RESEARCH Sources consulted: Andrefsky, William Jr. 1997 Site Verification Study of 45SP234. Ms. on file, Spokane County Public Works Department, Spokane, Washington. Draper, John A., and William Andrefsky, Jr., editors 1991 Archaeology of the Middle Spokane River Valley: Investigations Along the Spokane Centennial Trail. Project Report Number 17, Center for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Draper, John A., and Deborah L. Olson 1991 "The Results of Test Excavations." In Archaeology of the Middle Spokane River Valley: Investigations Along the Spokane Centennial Trail, edited by John A. Draper and William Andrefsky, Jr. Project Report Number 17, Center for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Draper, John A., Deborah L. Olson, and Marilyn Wyss 1991 "Survey Results for the Centennial Trail Archaeology Project." In Archaeology of the Middle Spokane River Valley: Investigations Along the Spokane Centennial Trail, edited by John A. Draper and William Andrefsky, Jr. Project Report Number 17, Center for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Gibbs, George 1967 Indian Tribes of Washington Territory. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington. Short Report No.: SR 590 Page No.: 6 County: Spok:a _ Luttrell, Charles T. 1998 A Cultural Resources Survey for Spokane County's Upriver Drive Project, Spokane County, Washington. Short Report WSDOT98 -01, Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. Ray, Verne 1936 Native Villages and Groupings of the Columbia Basin. Pacific Northwest Quarterly' 27(2:99-152). Ross, John A. 1991 "Ethnographical and Ethnohistorical Investigations Along the Spokane River." In Archaeology of the Middle Spokane River Valley: Investigations Along the Spokane Centennial Trail, edited by John A. Draper and William Andrefsky, Jr. Project Report Number 17, Center for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Spier, Leslie 1936 Tribal Distributions in Washington. General Series in Anthropology, No. 3, George Banta Publishing Company, Menasha, Wisconsin. Teit, James H. 1930 The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateaus. In 45th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 23 -396. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Thoms, Alston V., and Deborah L. Olson 1989 Determination of Eligibility for the Mirabeau Park site (45SP233). On file, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Walker, Deward E. 1978 Indians of Idaho. University Press, Moscow, Idaho. Wyss, Marilyn 1989a Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form for 45SP233. On file, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 1989b Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form for 45SP234. On file, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Short Report No.: Page No.: County: SR 590 7 Spokane 147 q• ti • 4 . I' I J \ P ! � • V,Antotne Plante o \ • Ferry Site Park • 1,Myrtls . •! . • • r WiLLESL • a 1s •I. • O • •� Well =,960 "Mile 1 • • r •.85 . 10 Irwin i ▪ 1 PIE '9 /0 e • fit EMi 290) 1 • • I ` • o �qfn11I ��■ • 11•I!G (:.1:•.1* • ■ III • I Jr H S ! .¢h ch -_ OI` i C) i 2033 i:I•� iii• • 1▪ 1 i:I.••,li O 2036 II. • � 3 I� • ■I IF: 0 •.. 4 -2O2 ,c •• 20/6 •' 8M 1993 i We . • '989 !Trent Mirabeau Parkway s�� 1• Project Area t ..•l199< • II ••• • u • — . - • s•a, .a t — i • ". 2/02 y `' _;Sub • `_; -lam -, , �- •Zrolbo'`,k /\'• Q3�II Zoo 4, m . .,.� W` ` \t 45SP23411 •1 I,C t 1 x- ' • 45SP233' —? - `\ •� �� 969 "_Weft ;I; - -7= x. •••„: TIONAL A 10 2000 �� •� I ^'LEI)"' • !I Tra,ler I 1, fn 'N _•o SPOKANE • -.1 Borrow Plt' a �\ • BURLIN .GTON •• •• LANE -V lI • i II MIS510r• i II,_ it c. I ...12 a BOO AVE • rte♦: 104. II Spoka e Valle �IHo • t�I GREENACRES, WASH. Nw /< OREENACRES 15 QUADRANGLE AY 16 N4737.5— W11707.5/7.5 1973 3 AVENUE Welt 2052 T-- • WASHINGTON CC ti rogre ch QUADRANGL- E - LOCATION Figure 1. Map of project area. Short Report No.: SR 590 Page No.: 8 County: Spokane Project ROW Shovel probe Building Trails Disturbed area __Figure 2a. Project ROW plans, south, with shovel tat line A, probes 1 710 down centerline. Short Report No.: Page No.: County: SR 590 9 Spokane EUCLID AVE. End of Project Sta 50+00 LEGEND: Centerline Project ROW • Shovel probe Centennial Trail Existing roadway 45SP233 West Boundary Parking Lot \ V; 9 4 \ 45SP233 . . . . . . ...• • • N Sta 45+00 —Y 1 • Sta 40+00 West Boundary \\ \\ • • \\ 11 Sta 35+00 MATCH LINE A 1 N. N. Figure 2b. Project ROW plans, north, with shovel test line B, probes 1-8 down centerline. Shovel probes 11-14 outside centerline near 45SP233 boundary. Attachment A • - 2 ff.....- 4.241,, d.., 400.77: 21.1y S'r,..,, /? lG...., 1i1.►l;yr... 99163. October 24, 1997 Mr. Gary Nelson Spokane County Public Works 1026 W. Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 Dear Gary: o RECFIVED S��N� CO ry 2ENGINEER I visited the site area for 45SP234 on Tuesday October 21, 1997 for the relocation study. From my review of the site area it appears your team plans to widen the road along the Spokane River and that effort will impact the recorded site. Based upon my investigations such a project may proceed because the site has lost all integrity. In fact, no recognizable artifacts or features currently exist as reported on the site inventory form in the location identified as site 45SP234. Please consider this letter and any attachments a formal report on my investigations. If you have any questions or need clarification on any matter please let me know. Sincerely: _ \ R\ 1 tkA Wilfiam Andre sh , :Tir. Ph.D. y Consulting Archaeolog t SPOKANE COUNTY FEARING EXAMINER RE Zone Reclassification from Rural ) FINDINGS OF FACT, Residential -10 (RR -10) Zone to ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, Light Industrial (1 -2) Zone ) AND DECISION Applicant Inland Empire Paper Co ) File No ZE -37 -96 ) I SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND DECISION Proposal Application for a zone reclassification from the Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) zone to the Light Industnal (I -2) zone, on approximately 105 8 acres of land, for development of recreational/community facihties, a business park, various commercial uses and those uses allowed in the Light Industnal (I -2) zone Decision Approved, subject to conditions 11 BACKGROUND/FINDINGS OF FACT A General Information Applicant/Legal Owner Inland Empire Paper Company, 3320 North Argonne Road, Spokane WA 99212, and YMCA, 507 North Howard, Spokane, WA 99201 Address Not assigned Location Generally located south of and adjacent to Euclid Avenue, north of Indiana Avenue, southwest of the Spokane River and one - fourth (1 /4) rule east of Pines Road (Hwy 27), in Section 10, Township 25 N , Range 44 EWM , Spokane County Legal Description That part of the North 1/2 of Section 10 Township 25 North Range 44 EWM, Spokane, Washington descnbed as follows The North 300 00 feet of the East 280 00 feet of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, the North 300 00 feet of the East '/2 of the Northwest 1/4, the North 300 00 feet of Government Lot 2 lying westerly of the westerly nght -of -way line of the Inland Empire Co Railroad, as shown on Record of Survey, Book 45, Page 78, Except Mirabeau Parkway as recorded under File No CRP 2762, Spokane County, Washington, AND that part of the East 1/2 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington described as follows The South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, Except the West 200 00 feet, Government Lot 3 lying southerly and westerly of the southwesterly nght -of -way line of the Inland Empire Co Railroad as shown on Record of Survey, Book 45, Page 78, Except the North 1/2 of the North 1/2. of said Government Lot 3, and that part of the Southeast 1/4 lying north of the northerly nght -of -way line of the Union Pacific Railroad, Except Mirabeau Parkway as recorded under File No CRP 2762, Spokane County, Washington HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 1 crossing and a transition from 3 lanes to 5 lanes Indiana Avenue, which is designated as a Minor Arterial by the Artenal Road Plan, lies at varying distances 100 -200 feet southerly of the south portion of the site Trent Avenue, a state highway, is located a mile north of the site Interstate 90 lies less than 600 feet southerly of the south portion of the site at its closest pomt A new freeway interchange at Evergreen Road and Interstate 90 is planned for construction within a few years The Artenal Road Plan illustrates Evergreen Road extended north of Interstate 90 as a future Pnncipal Arterial, following the east boundary of the south portion of the site, crossmg the Spokane River and continuing north to Trent Avenue The County has abandoned such alignment north of Indiana Avenue, in favor of artenal road type improvements to Euclid Avenue and Mirabeau Parkway Surrounding Conditions The land lying north of the north portion of the site is zoned Light Industrial (I -2) and undeveloped A single - family home on land zoned RR -10 is located dust west of the north portion of the site Approximately 44 acres of land lying between the two portions of the site are zoned RR. 10, and include facilities and exhibits left oie. from the old Walk m the Wild Zoo which previously existed on such acreage Such acreage is otherwise undeveloped, and compnsed of ponderosa pine woodland, with large rock outcroppings nsmg more than 100 feet above a native grass plain Immediately east of such area lies approximately 88 acres of undeveloped land owned by the State Department of Natural Resources in a conservancy status Such land is zoned RR -10, is undeveloped, and also includes part of the old zoo The land fronting along the east side of Pmes Road m the area, between Euclid Avenue and Mansfield Avenue, is zoned either UR -22 or I -2, and includes a business park, offices, multi- family housing and_vacant land_ This includes 15 acres of landlocated atihe southeast - corner of Euclid Avenue and Pmes Road„wluch were recently rezoned 1-2 and are bemg developed for a business park The land lying along the west side of Pines Road m the area, between Euclid and Mansfield Avenues, includes an elementary school, vacant land and residential housing The Staff Report on p 2 incorrectly lists the location and zoning of the 35 -acre property rezoned in File No PE- 1567- 89/ZE -3 -89 Such land is actually located at the northeast corner of Pines Road and Mansfield Avenue, and was rezoned in 1989 from the Restricted Industrial zone and Residential Office zone of the now expired County Zoning Ordinance to the I -2 zone and Neighborhood Busmess (B -1) zone The land lymg east of the southerly part of the south portion of the site is zoned I -2, and is undeveloped The land lymg east of the Spokane River m the vicinity is zoned I -2 and Hea iy Industrial (I -3), and includes an aluminum rolling/processmg plant and vacant land The land lying south and southeast of the south portion of the site, south of the railroad nght of way, is zoned I -2, Community Busmess (B -2) and Regional Business (B -3), and consists of vacant land, a regional shopping mall and a large retail center The land lying southwest of the site, south of Indiana Avenue, is zoned I -2 and developed pnmanly with light industrial uses and vacant land Recent land use approvals m the area are listed on page 2 of the Staff Report The land lymg between the Mirabeau Point project and the nver is owned by the State Department of Parks and Recreation, is zoned RR -10 and includes the Centennial Trail HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 3 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) conditions require the applicant to fund or mstall off -site improvements at vanous road intersections with state highways in the area, and at the I- 90/Pmes Road freeway interchange Such conditions also require the applicant to modify the project, if necessary, to ensure that carbon monoxide limits are not exceeded County Engineering and WSDOT conditions require the traffic analysis for the project to be updated if buildout is not completed by the year 2006, or if traffic generation exceeds certain trip generation volumes WSDOT and the County are currently working on a traffic mitigation plan for the area, which the applicant may participate in, if adopted, m lieu of the improvements to the State transportation system described above Procedural Matter The Staff Report and Determination of Completeness issued 3 -23 -99 indicates that the application was deemed "counter- complete" effective June 6, 1996 This is incorrect, since the current application for a rezone to the I -2 zone was not filed until March 10, 1999 Since the application requested a completely different zone than the onginal rezone application submitted in 1996, there is no relation back to the previous application and a new counter- complete date should have been established The Examiner assumes this date to be March 10, 1999 The current application was deemed "technically complete" on March 23, 1999 The Examiner considers the project to have "vested" on March 23, 1999, for the purpose of determining the development regulations applicable to the rezone See County Resolution No 96 -0293, paragraph 040 B 9 B Procedural Information Applicable Zoning Regulations Spokane County Zoning Code Chapters 14 632 and 14 402 Hearing Date and Location June 9, 1999, Spokane County Public Works Building, Lower Level, Commissioners Assembly Room,. 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, WA - -- - Notices Mailed May 21, 1999 by applicant Posted May 21, 1999 by applicant Published May 21, 1999 Compliance The legal requirements for public notice have been met Hearing Procedure Pursuant to County Resolution Nos 96 -0171 and 96 -0294 Testimony Tammy Jones Division of Building and Planning 1026 West Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 -0240 Cathy Ramm 25 South Altamont Spokane, WA 99202 Wyn Birkenthal Pat Harper Division of Engineenng and Roads 1026 West Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 John Konen 110 West Cataldo Spokane, WA 99201 Greg Figg HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 5 A comprehensive plan is considered as a general blueprint for land use regulation by local governments Only general conformance with a comprehensive plan is required to approve a rezone See Citizens for Mount Vernon v City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn 2d 861, 873, 947 P 2d 1208 (1997), Cathcart v Snohomish County, 96 Wn 2d 201, 211 -12, 634 P 2d 853 (1981) Where a comprehensive plan conflicts with zoning regulations, zoning regulations will usually be construed to prevail See Weyerhaeuser v Pierce County, 124 Wn 2d 26, 43 (1994), 873 P 2d 498 (1994) The County Heanng Examiner Ordinance authonzes the Hearing Examiner to grant, deny or grant with such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the Examiner finds necessary to make a rezone application compatible with the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations See County Resolution No 96 -0171, Attachment "A ", paragraphs 7 (d) and section 11, and RCW 36 70 970 Development regulations include, without limitation, the County Zoning Code, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the County's Local Environmental Ordinance (chapter 11 10 of the Spokane County Code) Section 14 402 020 of the Zoning Code authorizes amendments to the Code based on any one of 6 grounds, without differentiating between zoning text revisions and amendments to the official zoning map Zoning Code 14 402 020 (1) authorizes the Code to be amended if it is " consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not detrimental to the public welfare" Zoning Code 14 402 020 (2) authorizes a Code amendment where " [c]hange in economic, technological, or land use conditions has occurred to warrant modification of this Code" These are the most relevant local cntena for consideration of the current rezone application. Section 14 100 104 of the County Zoning Code states that the provisions of the Code shall be interpreted to carry out and implement the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and the general -plans for - physical development of the county adopted by the Board of County - Comnussioners Zoning Code 14 100 106 indicates that when the provisions of the Zoning Code conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans and development regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall govern to the extent legally permissible and the Zoning Code provisions will be met as a minimum Spokane County has designated a wide array of local SEPA policies which may be used to condition or deny land use actions under the County's Local Environmental Ordinance Such policies include the Comprehensive Plan, County Zoning Code, County Code County Road Standards, County Stormwater Guidelines, recommendations received from County departments and other public agencies on land use actions, studies performed on a land use action voluntanly or at the request of a County department, and other listed regulations and policies See chapter 11 10 of Spokane County Code B The proposal as conditioned, generally conforms with the Spokane County Generalized Com rehensive Plan bears a substantial relationshi to and will not be detrimental to the ublic • • health safe and eneral welfare and com + hes with the S okane Coun Zonin • Code and • • other applicable development regulations The site is designated m the Rural category of the Comprehensive Plan The Rural category is intended to provide the opportunity for development of agncultural, timber or open HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 7 wildlife management and similar uses, would be compatible with timber management and existing agncultural activities m the Rural category Objective 4 5 b of the Rural category states that residential areas should be discouraged within high noise level zones, such as m the vicuuty of airports, railroads and freeways Decision Guideline 4 7 b encourages a vanety of lot sizes m outlying areas, with small acreage tracts distinguished from agncultural areas, to retain a relatively low density and to provide limited agricultural activities Decision Guideline 4 7 2 indicates that single- fanuly development is appropnate within the Rural category, provided the development is at a density of one unit per ten (10) acres or less, there is reasonable access and fire protection, adequate groundwater supplies exist, soil conditions and topography are considered acceptable for building sites and on -site sewage disposal systems, and there is adequate energy availability Decision Guideline 4 7 3 of the Rural category indicates that land use proposals should conform to plans, policies and regulations of County utility and special service distracts, and for County transportation systems, resolve any significant adverse impacts on existing utility, special service district and traffic systems, and conform to County water, sanitary and drainage policies and regulations Objective 4 3e and Decision Guideline 4 3 4 state that future activities affecting the shoreline areas m the county should be guided by policies outlined within the State Shoreline Management Act and the County's Shoreline Master Program The site has not been farmed for several years, nor is there any evidence that the site would be productive farm land Accordingly, the policies of the Rural category protective of agncultural lands generally do not apply to development of the current site The applicants propose to rezone the site to the Light Industrial (I -2) zone The purpose of the 1-2 zone is to meet the needs for mdustnal land identified in the Industrial category of the - Comprehensive Plan Industrial uses m this zone - typically mclude processing, fabrication, light assembly, freight handling and similar operations, all of a non - offensive nature It is the intent of the Light Industnal (I -2) zone to allow for these uses by making them compatible with surrounding uses Zoning Code 14 632 100 In 1996, the County amended the Zoning Code to allow several new manufacturing uses and commercial uses to the list of uses permitted m the industrial zones The I -2 zone was also amended to allow development of all Regional Business (B -3) zone uses except adult book stores and adult entertainment establishments, provided all the B -3 zone development standards listed m Zoning Code 14 628 315 through 14 628 380 are met See Zoning Code 14 629 080 Such development standards mcluded, without limitation, the requirement that any building site have frontage on a public road of Pnncipal Artenal or higher road classification sufficient for proper ingress and egress as determined by the County Engineer See Zoning Code 14 628 315 The amendments to allow more commercial uses m the I -2 zone recognize a need for more mtensive and a greater variety of commercial uses to provide support for light mdustnal uses m the I -2 zone, and the potential compatibility between light industrial uses and mtensive commercial uses HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 9 Artenal Streets by the County Engineer County Engineering currently considers Euclid Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway as a Collector Arterial This appears to be a functional classification by the County Engineer under the County's 1995 Standards for Road and Sewer Construction ( "Road Standards ") for the purpose of improvement, rather than a designation by the Board of County Commissioners under the Arterial Road Plan County Engineenng has proposed upgrading such designation to a Minor Artenal, but a Principal Arterial designation is unlikely See testimony of Pat Harper, Zoning Code 14 300 100, definition of "artenals, principal, major and minor ", and definition of "arterials, principal, minor and collector ", Road Standards, p 7 -9, and Comprehensive Plan, Section 21 This means that the B -3 zone uses permitted m the project would be limited, at best, to those specifically listed as permitted outright or as a conditional use m the I -2 zone, without specifically being subject to the B -3 zone development standards The south portion of the site is located adjacent to the Major Commercial category of the Comprehensive Plan on the south and the Industnal category on the east This tuggers consideration of the "transition area" policy of the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan defines the "transition area" as the area along the boundary between two or more land use categones Under the "transition policy ", where a specific proposal crosses the boundary between 2 or more land use categones, or lies adjacent to another land use category, the proposal may be deemed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if 1) it complies with the policies of either category, and 2) will not adversely impact or excessively intrude into the land use categones involved Buffenng may be used to mitigate such unpacts and intrusion See Comprehensive Plan, p 11, and definition of "transitional area" and "transitional buffering" m the glossary The Industnalxategory is intended to provide the opportunity for industrial development and reserve land for industrial. purposes The Industrial category will be composed of a vanety of industrial, mining and transportation uses Few commercial and residential uses will be found Small -scale activities related to industrial uses such as cafes, service stations and parts and service stores will also be charactenstic of industrial areas Other commercial services may be provided to serve the industrial businesses and employees as industrial areas develop See Comprehensive Plan, Section 7 Objective 7 2 a of the Industnal category encourages balanced communities of commercial, industrial and residential development in a compatible relationship Industrial proposals, and industrial and commercial uses proposed as one development, may be allowed in the Industnal category when the development proposal conforms to County sewer, water, utility and transportation plans, identifies and takes steps to resolve significant adverse impacts upon existing infrastructure, and provides necessary landscaping and buffering Decision Guidelines 7 1 4, 7 3 1 The Industrial category discourages strictly non- mdustnal proposals, unless it is shown that the land involved is near other non - industrial land use categones, there is sufficient remaining land in the Industnal category to meet existing or near future mdustnal needs, and the proposal is compatible with existing or potential industrial uses through the use of buffenng or suitable development covenants See Decision Guideline 7 2 5 Large or medium scale mdustnal sites, relative to other sites m the Industrial category, should be directly accessible to highways, freeways, artenal roadways or airways, and should not overload or HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 11 implement commercial development along Pnncipal Artenals or highways and establish regional- serving commercial areas See Zoning Code 14 628 100 The northerly portion of the site abuts the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan on the north and west The Urban category is intended to provide the opportunity for a "citylike" environment, which includes various land uses, residential development and a high level of public facilities and urban services It is prunanly a residential category of single - family, two - family, multi - family, and condomuuum buildings along with some neighborhood commercial, light industrial, and public and recreational facilities The Urban category recommends a residential net density range of 1 -17 units per acre The more intensive uses in the Urban category, such as light mdustnal and neighborhood commercial, would typically be located near or along the heavily traveled streets The least intensive single - family residential uses should be isolated from the noise and heavy traffic, and multifamily structures will usually be a transitional use located between single -family residential and the more intensive areas Major commercial uses and heavy industrial are discouraged See Comprehensive Plan, Section 1, "Purpose" and "Detailed Definition" The I -2 zone is not intended to implement the Urban category The only industrial zone that can reasonably implement such category, in certain limited circumstances, is the Industrial Park (I -1) zone See Zoning Code 1 4 630 100 The only business zone in the zone that can reasonably implement the Urban category is the Neighborhood Business (B -1) zone The applicant has not proposed either such zone The Staff Report, prepared by the County Division of Buildmg and Planning, and the County Division of Long Range Planning tended to support application of the transition policy to the south portion of the project, but not the north portion of the project The Division of Long - Range Planning, as well as the County Parks and Recreation Department, generally opposed the proposed rezone because it did not provide a sufficient mix of uses, including residential uses which could be served by the proposed County Park and the shoreline area Visual impacts to the shoreline from industrial building were also an expressed concem Such agencies contended that the applicant should wait until the County completed its planning process under the Growth Management Act, including the preparation of a new Comprehensive Plan Because of the general nature of the conceptual site plan for the project, the range and high intensity of uses possible under the I -2 zone, the need to determine compliance with the County Shoreline Master Program and County Critical Areas Ordinance, and the need to determine compliance with all development standards and conditions of approval, that each phase of the project be subject to detailed site plan review through the public hearing process The only area of concern to the Examiner in the south portion of project with regard to application of the transition policy is with regard to the intensity and types of business park uses located along or near the nver, east of Mirabeau Parkway Some of these uses as illustrated are located within the 250 -foot wide npanan buffer and the 200 -foot wide shoreline area The Examiner agrees that it would be beneficial to require review of the uses developed in this area under the I -2 zone through the public hearing process, as a change of condition, considering their proximity to the shorelines and npanan buffer Some uses allowed in the I -2 zone would be too intensive to be located in this area The Examiner does not agree with the applicants that the HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 13 C Conditions m the area m which the property is located have changed substantially since the property was last zoned In applying the changed circumstances test, courts have looked at a variety of factors, including changed public opmion, changes m land use patterns in the area of the rezone proposal and changes on the property itself The Zoning Code references changes m "economic, technological or land use conditions" as factors that will support a rezone Spokane County Zoning Code Section 14 402 020 (2) Washington courts have not required a "strong" showing of change The rule is flexible, and each case is to be judged on its own facts Bassani v County Commissioners, 70 Wn App 389, 394 (1993) Recent cases have held that changed circumstances are not required for a rezone if the proposed rezone implements policies of a comprehensive plan Bjornson, at 846, Save Our Rural Environment v Snohomish County, 99 Wn 2d 363, 370 -371 (1983) As discussed above, the proposal, as conditioned, generally conforms with the Comprehensive Plan There is also ample evidence of changed conditions in the area to surrnort a rezone of the site See Exhibit E, and testimony of Cathy Ramm Among the most significant changes are the demise of the Walk in the Wild zoo, the development of the Spokane Valley mall to the south and other commercial development south of the site, road improvements to Euclid Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway and its extension to Indiana Avenue, the planned Evergreen Road/I- 90 interchange, improvements to Indiana Avenue, the availability of public sewer to the area, residential growth m the Spokane Valley area, and recent zone changes along Pines Road and south of the site IV DECISION Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions above, The above application for a zone reclassification is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of the vanous public agencies specified below Conditions of public agencies which have significantly been altered or supplemented by the Exammer are italicized Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result m revocation of this approval by the Hearing Exammer This approval does not waive the applicant's obligation to comply with all other requirements of other agencies withjunsdiction over land development SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING 1 All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant," which term shall include the developer (s) or owner (s) of the property, and their heirs, assigns and successors 2 The zone change applies to the following real property That part of the North '/z of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane, Washington descnbed as follows The North 300 00 feet of the East 280 00 feet of the West '/2 of the Northwest'/, the North 300 00 feet of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, the North 300 00 feet of Government Lot 2 lying HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 15 The parcel of property legally described as is the subject of a land use action by a Spokane County Hearing Examiner on June 9, 1999, imposing a variety of special development conditions File No ZE -37 -96 is available for inspection and copying in the Spokane County Division of Building and Planning 9 The applicant and proposal shall comply with the Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance as amended The site plan presented at time of building permit shall illustrate the required 250 - foot npanan buffer area from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Spokane River 10 The applicant shall comply with and implement the recommendations contained in the Mirabeau Point Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan, with regard to the project site and the off -site portions of the 229 -acre Mirabeau Point development This includes, without limitation, reservation of the central natural area of the development provision for avian buffer zones and dedication of 10 -11 acres of park land to Spokane County The timing of such dedication of park land shall be determined by the County Parks and Recreation Department after consultation with the applicants and the Division of Building and Planning 11 The Division of Building and Planning shall consult with the Washington State Department of Wildlife in implementing the habitat management plan for the Mirabeau Point development 12 The proposal fall under the junsdiction of the Washington State Shorelines Management Act, RCW 90 58, and the Spokane County Shoreline Master Program, WAC 173 -19 -400 The applicant is advised that one or more shorelme permits may be necessary for development within the shorelines 13 The Division of Building and Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County Auditor a Title Notice, which shall generally provide as follow "Pnor to the issuance of any building permit for any building or any use on the property described herein, the applicant shall be responsible for complying with the provisions of the Zoning Code for Spokane County, Section 14 706 (Aquifer Sensitive Area Overlay Zone) The property which is the subject of this notice is more particularly described as follows " SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING Pnor to issuance of a building permit or at the request of the County Engineer in conjunction with a County Road Project/Road Improvement District, whichever comes first 1 The applicant shall dedicate 54 feet m width extending from Mirabeau Parkway west to the western property boundary of this proposal on the new Mansfield alignment for nght of way, this dedication may be required anytime after the first building permit is issued which vests this zone change 2 The applicant shall dedicate 48 feet on all internal public roads other than Mansfield HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 17 Interchange The Washington State Department of Transportation has other transportation infrastructure improvements also required based on impacts as discussed m the Mirabeau Point Environmental Impact Statement affecting State facilities all could be addressed through the formation of a area wide SEPA Mitigation Area for transportation 12 The construction of the roadway improvements stated herein shall be accomplished as approved by the Spokane County Engineer 1 The County Engineer has designated a three lane Special Roadway Section for the improvement of Mansfield west of Mirabeau Parkway which is to constructed within the proposed development This will require the installation of 46 feet of asphalt Curbing and sidewalk must also be constructed 2 The County Engineer has designated a Commercial Local Access Roadway Section for the improvement of all other public roads within the proposed development This will require the addition of approximately 40 feet of asphalt Curbing and sidewalk must also be constructed 3 All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road and Bndge construction and other applicable county standards and/or adopted resolutions pertaining to Road Standards and Stormwater Management in effect at the date of construction, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer 4 Per the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Mirabeau Point under response #13 to Letter No 7,(i e Steve Stairs Memorandum dated November 18, 1997), the following additional condition is requested If the build -out of this project does not occur prior to December 31, 2006, the traffic study shall be updated 5 Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found m Spokane County Resolution No 95 -0498 as amended and are applicable to this proposal 6 The regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program shall be observed since the proposed development is affected by a flood hazard zone A development permit shall be obtained from the County Engineer before construction or development begins within any area of the special flood hazard zone (reference Spokane County Ordinance 80 -0726) 7 No construction work is to be performed within the existmg or proposed right of way until a permit has been issued by the County Engineer All work within the public road nght of way is subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer 8 All required construction within the existing or proposed public nght of way is to be completed pnor to the release of a building permit or a bond in an amount estimated by the County Engineer to cover the cost of construction or improvements shall be filed with the County Engineer 9 The applicant is advised that there may exist utilities either underground or overhead affecting the applicants property, including property to be dedicated or set aside future acquisition Spokane County will assume no financial obligation for adjustments or relocation HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 19 SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL, AUTHORITY 1 All air pollution regulations must be met WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 The applicant shall design, fund and install to WSDOT standards a left turn lane along with all other needed components (illumination, sidewalk replacement, etc) on Pines Road to serve Euclid Avenue both westbound and eastbound This left turn lane shall be constructed as part of the first phase of this development to allow safe and efficient access to and from Euclid for this development Prior to the release of building permits for this development, the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developers agreement for this improvement and prepare an intersection plan for WSDOT approval The applicant is also aware that the construction of this left turn lane requires that the applicant obtain additional right of way which is controlled by others 2 In order to adequately accommodate dramage as a result of the widening for the left turn lane, the applicant shall grant WSDOT a permanent dramage easement on this site This easement area shall be of sufficient size to treat the stormwater per Spokane County standards and be accessible by truck for maintenance These drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by WSDOT prior to construction of these drainage facilities 3 The applicant shall design, fund and install to WSDOT standards a traffic signal at the Pines Road and Euclid Avenue mtersection This traffic signal shall be installed when signal warrants are met and when traffic volumes necessitate its installation Pnor to the release of building permits for this development, the applhcantshall provide a surety bond to WSDOT- in -an-- amount acceptable to WSDOT for the installation of this signal 4 The applicant shall construct sidewalk along the property frontage adjacent to Pines Road, and reconstruct the sidewalk where it is to be removed as a result of the left turn lane 5 As a result of the left turn channelization, the one proposed direct access to Pines Road will be for nght turns m and out only No left turns will be allowed 6 The proposed pnvate access to Pines Road requires that the applicant obtain a WSDOT Road Approach Permit for the mtended site use HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 21 SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER RE Zone Reclassification from Rural ) Residential -10 (RR -10) Zone to ) Light Industrial (I -2) Zone ) Apphcant Inland Empire Paper Co ) File No ZE -37 -96 ) ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL ERRORS 1 SUMMARY OF CLERICAL ERRORS On August 17, 1999, the Hearing Examiner entered a final written decision m the above matter The decision erroneously mcluded Washington State Department Transportation (WSDOT) conditions of approval recommended for a different project The correct WSDOT conditions of approval are contamed m a letter dated June 9, 1999 from Greg Figg of WSDOT to Tammy Jones of Spokane County Planning re Mirabeau Point Rezone (Revised) (ZE- 37 -96) file The decision also contains an error m the numbering of County Engineering conditions # 13 -22, which are erroneously numbered #1 -10 after the first 12 conditions II ORDER The Hearing Examiner Fmdings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision entered on August 17, 1999 in the above - entitled file is hereby revised to delete the conditions of approval listed for the Washington State Department of Transportation m such decision, and to add the conditions of approval contained m the letter dated June 9, 1999 from Greg Figg of WSDOT to Tammy Jones of Spokane County Planning, re Mirabeau Point Rezone (Revised) (ZE- 37 -96) Such conditions are hereby adopted and mcorporated by reference herem Such decision is also hereby revised to renumber the ten (10) County Engmeermg conditions appearing after condition #12 as conditions #13-22 The appeal period indicated m the decision is not modified by this order DATED this 18th day of August, 1999 SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Micha 1C Dempsey, WSBA #8 5 HE Findmgs, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 1 Hemmings, Bill From: Hemmings, Bill Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 1:30 PM To: Pederson, John Cc: Harper, Pat; Franz, Dean; Kimball, Sandy; Engelhard, Scott Subject: Mirabeau Point IES Importance: High 11 -3 -97 I received the above referenced project application on Oct. 3, 1997. We accept the 208 swale /drywell concept that is proposed for this project. I consider this proposal to be technically complete. I recommend using the standard drainage condition. &ll 's'e a.w 494 Page 1