The URL can be used to link to this page

1999, 06-09 Staff Report to Hearing Examiner� 1 , SPOKANE COUNTY STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FILE #: ZE -37 -96 DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING HEARING DATE: PROJECT PLANNER: June 9, 1999 @ 1:30 p.m.. Tammy Jones, Associate Planner FILE #: ZE- 37 -9■3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Light Industrial (1 -2) on approximately 105.8 acres for recre2tional /community facilities. a business park, limited commercial uses and those uses allowed in the Light Industrial (1 -2) zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See Staff Summary . Project Data Project Location: Parcel Number(s) Owner(s): Agent: The site is generally 1,-A south of r2r;d adjacent tc Euclid Avenue, north of Indiana Avenue, southwest of the Spokane River, and approximately 1000 feet e; t of Pines Road (Hwy. 27) in Section 10, Tcwnship 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington. 45104.9051. 45101.9071, 45105.9072, 45105.9066 Inland Empire Paper Co. 3320 N. Argonne Rd. Spokane, WA 99212 YMCA 507 N. Howard Spokane, WA 99201 Ramm Associates, Inc., c/o Cathy Ramm 25 S. Altamont Spokane, WA 99201 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning: Existing Land Use: Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: • North: Rural Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) Vacant and undeveloped land. Light Industrial (I -2) established in 1991, previously classified as Restricted Industrial (RI) in 1984 (ZE -94- 84C) and Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) established in 1991, previously classified as Agricultural (A) in 1942 (ZE- 424 -42). Land use to the north of the site consists of vacant, undeveloped land. ZE -37 -96 Staff Report - Jurie 9, 1999 HeGri;:g 1 of 8 • South: Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) established in 1991, previously classified as Agricultural (A) in 1991 and Light Industrial (1 -2) established in 1991, previously classified as Restricted Industrial (R -1) in 1978 (ZE- 180 -78C). Land use to the south of the site consists of vacant, undeveloped land south of the Euclid Avenue portion of the site, with scattered commercial uses, and undeveloped land located south of the railway right -of -way. • East: Light Industrial (1 -2) established in 1991, previously classified as Agricultural (A) in 1957 (ZE- 225 -57) and Heavy Industrial (1 -3) established in 1991, previously classified as Manufacturing (M) in 1956 (ZE- 16 -56). Land use to the east of the site consists of an aluminum rolling /processing plant and vacant, undeveloped land. • West: Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) established in 1991, previously classified as Agricultural (A) in 1942 (ZE- 424-42), and Industrial Park (1 -2) established in 1998 (ZE- 5 -98C), and previously classified as Urban Residential -3.5 (UR -3.5) and Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) in 1991, and Agricultural (A) in 1942 (ZE- 424-42). Land use to the west of the site consists of a single family home and business park along Euclid Avenue, and vacant, undeveloped land. Known Land Use Proposals and Recent Project Approvals in the Area of this Project Recent land use proposals include ZE -6 -99, a zone reclassification from RR -10 to UR -22 on 18 acres for multifamily uses and 1 -2 on 16.7 acres for industrial commercial uses, located southwest of the subject property along Indiana Ave. Recent project approvals include: ZE -5 -98, a zone reclassification from UR -3.5 and RR -10 to 1 -1 on approximately 15 acres located west of adjacent to the subject property to the intersection of Pines Road and Euclid Ave., and approved by the Hearing Examiner on November 23, 1998; ZE -9 -98, a zone reclassification from UR- 3.5 to UR -22 on 2.15 acres located east of and adjacent to Pines Rd., and approved by the Hearing Examiner on January 25, 1999; BSP- 48 -96, a Binding Site Plan to divide 86 acres into 6 tracts for a Regional Shopping Center located east of the subject site at the intersection of Sullivan Rd. and Indiana Ave., and approved by the Division of Building and Planning on March 12, 1996; PE- 1567- 89/ZE -3 -89, the preliminary plat of BSA Addition for the division of 35 acres into 8 lots for multifamily and commercial uses with a zone reclassification from Light Industrial (1 -2) to Urban Residential -22 (UR -22), Community Business (B -2) and Regional Business (B -3), located north of the site at the southeast corner of Pines Rd. and Euclid Ave. and approved by the Hearing Examiner Committee on February 23, 1989; PE- 1504-85, the preliminary plat of Sullivan Park Center, located east of the site and approved by the Hearing ZE -37 -96 Staff Report - June 9, 1999 Hearing 2 of 8 • • This proposal is located inside the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA). • This proposal is located inside the Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA). • This proposal is located outside the notification area for designated Natural Resource Lands. GMA /Critical Areas Aquifer Recharge Area: The subject property is located inside the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA) Overlay zone and inside the Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA). Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Spokane County Critical Areas Maps identify Urban Natural Open Space habitat located on the site. A habitat management plan was submitted and accepted. In addition, the site is located near the Spokane River which is designated as a Type I stream on the Spokane County Critical Areas Maps. A riparian buffer area ZE -37 -96 Staff Report • June 9, 1999 Hearing 3 of 8 Examiner Committee on November 19,1985; ZE- , 180 -78, a zone reclassification from Agricultural (A) to Restricted Industrial (RI) on 230 acres located east and south of the subject site along Indiana Ave., and approved by the Hearing Examiner Committee on March 6, 1981. Land Division Status: The subject property consists of a number of existing tax parcels. If the proposal is approved, a Lot Line Adjustment between the existing tax parcels will be required as a condition of approval in order to create lot lines consistent with the proposed zoning boundaries. Shoreline Designation: The Spokane County Shorelines Designation for the site is Pastoral and Conservancy. The Pastoral and the Conservancy designations require development to be a minimum of 200' from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Water Purveyor: The south 2/3 of the site is located within Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19. The north 1/3 is currently located outside the corporate limits of Irvin Water District No. 6. Boundary Review Board approval may be required if annexation into the District is anticipated. (see Boundary Review Board letter dated 10/21/97) Sewage Dispo—sal: The site is to be served by a public sewer system. Fire District #: Spokane County Fire District #1 School District and nearest K-1 2 schools: East Valley School District No. 361 Nearest Arterial and Distance: The site is located approximately 1000 feet east of Pines Road (HWY 27) which is designated as a State Highway by the Spokane County Arterial Road Plan and approximately 100 feet north of Indiana Avenue which is designated as a Minor Arterial. The site is also located approximately 400 feet north of Interstate 90. __ Neighborhood Association: _ Not applicable • This proposal is located inside the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA). • This proposal is located inside the Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA). • This proposal is located outside the notification area for designated Natural Resource Lands. GMA /Critical Areas Aquifer Recharge Area: The subject property is located inside the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA) Overlay zone and inside the Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA). Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Spokane County Critical Areas Maps identify Urban Natural Open Space habitat located on the site. A habitat management plan was submitted and accepted. In addition, the site is located near the Spokane River which is designated as a Type I stream on the Spokane County Critical Areas Maps. A riparian buffer area ZE -37 -96 Staff Report • June 9, 1999 Hearing 3 of 8 Floodplain of 250' is required from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Spokane River. Geologically Hazardous Areas Wetlands The site is located outside the 100-year flood plain. Spokane County Critical Areas Maps do not identify the presence of geo-hazard areas on the site. None illustrated on the Spokane County Critical Areas Maps or Wetland Inventory Maps. SEPA A Determination of Significance (DS) was issued for the proposal on August 30, 1996, with a comment period on the scope of the required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ending on September 20, 1996. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on October 2, 1997, with a comment period ending November 18, 1997. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on June 12, 1998. Detailed discussion of all potential impacts and possible mitigating measures for the proposed development are included within both the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Noticing Published: The proposal was published in the Legal Notice section of the Spokesman Review on May 21, 1999. Mailing Deadline: The deadline for mailing notice to all property owners /taxpayers within 400' of the proposal was May 21, 1999. Site Posting Deadline: The deadline for posting notice on the site was May 21, 1999. 1724 Compliance Dates Application Accepted: June 6, 1996 Technically Complete / Determination of Completeness issued: March 23, 1999 Date Notice of Decision is Due: July 21, 1999 Reviewing Agencies 21 Agencies were notified on June 6, 1996, and May 12, 1999. Comments were due on June 27, 1996 and May 26, 1999. Agencies Notified Response Received Date Received Agencies Notified Response Received Date Received Spokane County Division of Engineering, Transportation Yes 5/26/99 Washington State Department of Transportation Yes 5/27/96 Spokane County Division of Engineering, Development Services No Spokane County Fire District #1 Yes 7/5/96 Spokane County Division of Utilities Yes 5/25/99 Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19 No Spokane County Division of Utilities, Water Resources No Irvin Water District No. 6 No Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning No Spokane Transit Authority Yes 6/12/96 Spokane Regional Health District Yes 5/24/99 Spokane County Division of Parks, Recreation & Fair No ZE -37 -96 Staff Report - June 9, 1999 Hearing 4 of 8 East Valley School District #361 No Boundary Review Board Yes 6/27/96 Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority No Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Yes 9/17/96 Spokane Regional Transportation Council Yes 96/96 Washington State Department of Natural Resources Yes 6/14/96 Washington State Department of Ecology Yes 9/19/96 Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission No Union Pacific Railroad No Responses from the Public: A letter was received from the Kaiser Aluminum company expressing support for the proposed zone reclassification. Description of the Site: The subject site is approximately 105.8 acres in size and consists of two separate areas within the same ownership. The north 1/3 of the site is approximately 17.3 acres in size and is accessed by Euclid Avenue. The north area of the site is generally flat, covered with native grasses and located west of the Spokane River. The area directly south of the site is the location of the former Walk in the Wild Zoo. The south 2/3 of the site is approximately 88.5 acres in size, is bordered on the south by the Union Pacific Railway right -of- way, and is to accessed by Mirabeau Parkway which is currently under construction. The south area of the site is generally flat, covered with native vegetation and located southwest of the Spokane River. The subject site consists of a portion of the proposed 229 acre Mirabeau Point development and master plan as described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Mirabeau Point Conceptual Master Plan includes adjacent parcels which are not part of the requested zone reclassification. Background: The proposal consists of a zone reclassification of approximately 105.8 acres from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Light Industrial (1 -2) for recreational /community facilities, a business park, limited commercial uses and those uses allowed in the proposed Light Industrial (1 -2) zone. The subject property was previously zoned Agricultural (A) (ZE- 424 -42), and crossed over to Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) with the implementation of the Spokane County Zoning Code in 1991. The application was submitted on June 6, 1996 and a Technical Review meeting was held on June 27, 1996. The application originally consisted of a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change approximately 157 acres from the Rural category to the Urban and Major Commercial categories with a concurrent zone reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Community Business (B -2) and Regional Business (B -3), and a conceptual master plan addressing development of adjacent Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) and Light Industrial (1 -2) zoning. A Determination of Significance (DS) was issued for the proposal on August 30, 1996. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on October 2, 1997, with a comment period ending November 8, 1997. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued on June 12, 1998. The applicants requested (see letter dated June 2, 1998) that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment be postponed pending adoption of the Updated Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA). On January 8, 1999, the applicants requested that the process for the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment be resumed. The Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning responded by stating that the amendment would not be resumed due to the workload demand of Growth Management Act related activities. On March 10, 1999, a revised application was submitted by the applicants requesting a zone reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Light Industrial (1 -2) to be processed without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The application was considered Technically Complete on March 23, 1999, and the Notice of Application was circulated on the same date. ZE -37 -96 Staff Report - June 9, 1999 Hearing 5 of 8 Spokane Gounty Critical Area Maps identify Urban Natural Open Space habitat located on the subject site. A habitat management plan was required for the proposal and was addressed through the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The habitat management plan was reviewed and accepted by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife with the request that the recommended mitigation measures within the plan, including the mapped Avian Buffer Zones of 50 -100 feet, be included as conditions of approval. The Avian Buffer Zones are not illustrated on the site plan of record. The site is located near the Spokane River and the Spokane County Shorelines program designates the adjacent shoreline management area as both Pastoral and Conservancy. The Conservancy designation allows for commercial development if location in an urban area is not feasible, and development is at least 100 feet from the ordinary high -water mark. The Pastoral designation does not allow commercial development within 200 feet of the ordinary high -water mark. The site plan of record does not illustrate the required shoreline setbacks. Spokane County Critical Area Maps also identify the Spokane River as a Type I stream. The Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance requires a 250 foot riparian buffer area from the ordinary high water mark of the Spokane River. The site plan does not illustrate the required 250 foot riparian buffer area. A traffic analysis was submitted as an Appendix to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and reviewed and accepted by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Division of Engineering and Roads. The Washington State Department of Transportation and the Division of Engineering and Roads have recommended conditions of approval requiring the execution of developer agreements, prior to the issuance of any building permit, for a number of off -site transportation improvements. These agreements will require the payment of fees towards the construction of the Evergreen interchange, and for improvements to Trent Avenue, Pines Road, Indiana Avenue and freeway on /off ramps. The Washington State Department of Transportation has also recommended that a project level air quality analysis be performed by the applicant prior to the construction of improvements documenting that the proposal will not exceed allowable carbon monoxide levels. The subject property is located within the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on April 7, 1997, Resolution #97 -032. Staff Analysis: Comprehensive Plan: The site is located within the Rural category of the Comprehensive Plan. The Rural category is intended to provide the opportunity for development of agricultural, timber or open environments in a "country like" setting. The and use within this category is intended to be primarily very large -lot residential with agricultural uses or open areas. Occasionally, small -scale commercial and industrial uses will be found to serve the local needs of the surrounding populations, including those associated with agricultural activities. These will usually be located in or near small incorporated or unincorporated communities. Detailed Definition C states that very few public services will be provided to development within the Rural category. Detailed definition D states that "Most Urban, Major Commercial and Industrial activities would be incompatible in the Rural category". The allowable uses of the proposed Light Industrial (1 -2) zone, including all uses allowed in the Regional Business (B -3) zone, are not supported by the Rural category of the Comprehensive Plan. Decision Guidelines 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 state that proposals should consider development impacts to wildlife habitat and be guided by policies within the County Shoreline Program. Both of these decision guidelines have been addressed thought the accepted habitat management plan, and require riparian buffer area shoreline setbacks. Objective 4.7.d recommends that the extension of utility services be orderly and properly coordinated. Goal 23.1 of the Sewer Facilities Section of the Plan is to coordinate private and public utility planning to promote efficient service, protect the natural resources, and ensure the orderly physical development of Spokane County's consistent with adopted plans and policies. Objective 23.1.b states that " Sewer planning should be consistent with the anticipated population growth and developed in coordination with general land use plans ". Objective 24.1.b of the Water Facilities Section of the Plan states that "Water system plans should be consistent with anticipated population growth and ZE -37 -96 Staff Report - June 9, 1999 Hearing 6 of 8 developed in coordination with general land use plans ". Goal 14.1 of the Urban Impact Area Section of the Plan is to "establish and utilize a concept of Spokane County Urban Impact Area to recognize that part of the unincorporated County which is steadfastly becoming urban and suburban in nature" and Objective 14.1.b states that where consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, public utilities and public services will be encouraged within the Urban Impact Area (UIA). The subject property is located within the Urban Impact Area (UIA) and Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA). The extension of public sewer to the served the proposed development will be required by the Division of Utilities. The subject property lies within two separate water districts and extension of water to the north 1/3 of the site may require Boundary Review Board (BRB) approval. Although public services can be extended to serve the subject property, the extension of these services are not supported by the Goal, Objectives and Decision Guidelines of the Rural category. The Waterfront Development Section of the Comprehensive Plan, Section 15, is intended to provide the opportunity for the development of water related developments within the Rural category. Detailed Definition F states that the "waterfront development" areas area intended to be residential with water related recreational uses. `Therefore, industrial, major commercial (other than local serving) and mining are incompatible within qualifying development areas ". The proposed zone reclassification to the Light Industrial (1 -2) zone is not supported by the policies of the Waterfront Development Section of the Comprehensive Plan. The southern 2/3 of the site located near Indiana Avenue is located adjacent to both the Industrial category to the east and the Major Commercial category to the south. Because this area of the site is bounded by two land use categories, the transition area definition of the Comprehensive Plan may apply. The transition area recognizes that a specific proposal may cross or be adjacent to these boundaries and that this may allow development complying with either of the land use map categories without a Comprehensive Plan amendment dependent upon the decision maker's site specific approval. The north 1/3 of the site located along Euclid Avenue is bounded on two sides by the Urban category. Although, the transition area definition may be found to be applicable, the Urban category of the Comprehensive Plan is not implemented by the Light Industrial (1 -2) zone and does not support the proposed development The proposed zone reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Light Industrial (1 -2) is generally inconsistent with the Goals, Objectives and Decision Guidelines of the Rural category and Sections 14, 15, 23 and 24 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Rural category is intended to be implemented by the General Agricultural (GA) zone or Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) zones. The transition area definition of the Comprehensive Plan may be applicable to the south 2/3 of the site, however, it does not apply to the north 1/3 of the site for the proposed zone reclassification. Zoning: The applicant is proposing a zone reclassification from the Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to the Light Industrial (1 -2) zone. The purpose of the Light Industrial (1 -2) zone is to meet the needs for industrial land identified in the Industrial category of the Comprehensive Plan. Industrial uses in this zone will include processing, fabrication, light assembly, freight handling and similar operations, all of a non - offensive nature. It is the intent of the Light Industrial (1 -2) zone to allow for these uses by making them compatible with surrounding uses. Section 14.629.080 (Industrial Matrix) of the Spokane County Zoning Code states that permitted uses within the Light Industrial zone shall include all uses listed in the Business Zones Matrix under Regional Business (B -3). Zoning in the surrounding area consists of Light Industrial (1 -2) and Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to the north, Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) and Light Industrial (1 -2) to the south, Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) and Light Industrial (1 -2) the east, and Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) and Industrial Park (1 -1) to the west of the site. Recent land use actions in the vicinity of the site include ZE -5 -98, ZE -9 -98, BSP -48 -96 and ZE180C- 78. ZE- 180C -78 consisted of a zone reclassification of approximately 230 acres from Agricultural (A) to Restricted Industrial (RI), for property that includes the Spokane Valley Mall development, and was approved prior to the adoption of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. The zone classifications for the ZE -37 -96 Staff Report - June 9, 1999 Hearing 7 of 8 site crossed over to Community Business (B -2), Regional Business (B -3), and Light Industrial (1 -2) with the implementation of the Spokane County Zoning Code in January, 1991. Site Plan: The site plan submitted by the applicants is a conceptual master plan for the entire 229 acre Mirabeau Point development and includes the 150.8 acres addressed by the proposed zone reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Light Industrial (1 -2). The areas illustrated on the site plan that are not included as part of this action are currently zoned Light Industrial (1 -2) and Rural Residential -10 (RR -10). The site plan of record is conceptual in nature and illustrates proposed development on both the north and south areas of the subject property. Because the site plan is general in nature, and the range of allowable uses in the proposed Light Industrial (1 -2) zone is broad and includes a number of high intensity uses, it is recommended that a detailed review to determine compliance with all development standards of the proposed Light Industrial (1 -2) zone, Critical Areas Ordinance, Shorelines Program and Conditions of Approval for each phase of development to be subject to a public hearing. Changed Conditions: Section 14.402.020(2) of the Spokane County Zoning Code states that amendments to the Zoning Map may occur when it is found that "Changes in economic, technological, or land use conditions has occurred to warrant modification." Changed conditions in the area of the site may include recent improvements to local transportation systems, including the construction of Indiana Avenue, and the development of the Spokane Valley Mall. It is recommended that the applicants bear the responsibility to demonstrate that conditions have substantially changed in the area of the site to support the proposed zone reclassification. Staff Recommendation: As proposed, the zone reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Light Industrial (1 -2) is generally inconsistent with the Goals, Objectives and Decision Guidelines of the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. Because of location adjacent to two land use categories, the transition area definition may be found to apply to the south 2/3 of the site. The Division of Building and Planning recommends denial of the proposed zone reclassification, unless the Hearing Examiner can find the transition area definition of the Comprehensive Plan applicable, and find that conditions in the vicinity have changed substantially since the adoption of the Spokane County Zoning Code to warrant the proposed zoning amendment. Attachments: A. Maps • Vicinity Map • Site Development Plan • Comprehensive Plan • Zoning B. Conditions of Approval C. Agency and Public Comments ZE -37 -96 Staff Report - June 9, 1999 Hearing 8 of 8 VICINITY MAP SITE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP ZONING MAP ZE -37 -96 Vicinity Map 1 1 34 1 1 Wellesley Sanson pvt__ 0 1 35 6 I Ads Ownersh Adfacent owneish 14 SudivanCente V) 12 scion r u 13 Not to Scale N- VICINITY MAP ZE -37 -96 Site Development Plan Not to Scale N ► SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP ZE -37 -96 Comprehensive Land Use Plan ■. -- _ rs �a ■■:git�r~ 7G 2n \UIItIIi gmlgpi Ti 'li " 11 J1I,..111111111111 10 Eli - -� ��•r11gU11111n1(1 t11I11111 1.1111111► 1111.:111W111 11J 11M1=111111MM WAN 02 UHF MN �z 110 1111 11001111■ 111111101 111111an 11 41•41, t 4I ME Ilir4. aili iffith 1 ginionmoll.. S s ET n I ��U � ! IIm 4.00 il: 'i111 � 11111 11111; ...11= um ■�I� I0�1= Q 111111 rum fn1 io" 111011110 nue O 1l I�IIII 111* In 11111111111 AI 1 gm '= ma' .11111111 MIE 3'If � = . �0- 11 ips • 1m I I-1 Li I I Not to Scale N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP ZE -37 -96 Existing Zoning gi WI �� lg �'� • R" _ -iii�r :viii %�iii .�� ,yri� =tee: a� �` r �� g -2 ■ 1 ;rfC.T INEZ Imo tit wow COW 1 -3 r2 )2 22 22 •IIIIII 1111111111111111111 :1111111111 • 1 1 -2 1 -2 IR -22 (1 Not to Scale N ZONING MAP ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL J SPOKANE COUNTY RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZE -37 -96 DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING 1. All conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall be binding on the "Applicant," which term shall include the owner or owners of the property, heirs, assigns and successors. 2. The zone change applies to the following real property: That part of the North 1/2 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane, Washington, described as follows: The 300.00 feet of the East 280.00 feet of the West % of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10; The North 300.00 feet of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10; The North 300.00 feet of Government Lot 2 lying westerly of the westerly right -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 'A of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington, described as follows: The South '% 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 right -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 said Government Lot 3; That part of the Southeast 1/4 lying north of the northerly right -of -way line of the Union Pacific Railroad. Except Mirabeau Parkway as recorded under File No. CRP 2762, Spokane County, Washington. 3. The proposal shall comply with the Light Industrial (1 -2) zone, as amended. 4. A public hearing review by the Hearing Body is required prior to any site development. The detailed site plan presented at a subsequent hearing must address all conditions of approval imposed by the Hearing Body. 5. Approval is required from the Director of the Division of Building and Planning /designee of a specific lighting and signing plan for the described property prior to the release of any building permit. 6 Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property boundary. 7 A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for the maintenance acceptable to the Director of the Division of Building and Planning /designee shall be submitted with a performance bond or other suitable guarantee for the project prior to ZE -37 -96 June 9, 1999 Public Hearing Division of Building and Planning Recommended Conditions of Approval release of any building permits. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained so that sight distance at access points is not obscured or impaired. 8. The Division of Building and Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County Auditor a Title Notice noting that the property in question is subject to a variety of special conditions imposed as a result of approval of a land use action. This Title Notice shall serve as public notice of the conditions of approval affecting the property in question. The Title Notice should be recorded within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be released, in full or in part, by the Division of Building and Planning. The Title Notice shall generally provide as follows: 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 proposal shall comply with Section 11.20.060(C)(2.a -e) of the Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance and the site plan presented at time of building permit shall illustrate the required a 250 foot riparian buffer area from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Spokane River. 10. The proposal fall under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58, and the Spokane County Shoreline Program, WAC 173 -19 -400. 11. This proposal falls under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Shorelines Management Act, and the applicant is advised that one or more shoreline permits may be necessary. 12. The proposal shall comply with the Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance, as amended. 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: "Prior 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: ZE -37 -96 June 9, 1999 Public Hearing Division of Building and Planning Recommended Conditions of Approval OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 1 026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99200 -0170 (509)477-3600 Fax 477 -2243 "ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL" ZONE TO: Spokane County Planning Department FROM: Division of Engineering & Road, DATE: May 26, 1 999 PROJECT: RR -10 TO 1 -2 MIRABEAU POINT REC & BUS PK FILE #: Z3- 0037 -96/ (DRZE- 199 -96) Hearing: 06/09/1999 @ 1 :30 Review Date: © Sponsor /Applicant: CATHY RAMM Section Township Range: 03/10/11-25-44 Planner: TAMMY JONES Technical Review Date: (06/27/1996 @ 1 :15) The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced application. The following 'Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order /Decision" should the request be approved_ Prior 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: Applicant shall dedicate -54.-feet in width extending frorn Mirabeau Parkway west 10 the western property boundary of this proposal on the new Mansfield alignment for right of -way, this dedication may be required anytime after the first building permit is issued \vhich vests this zone change. Applicant shall dedicate 48 feet on all internal public roads other than !Mansfield for right of way. Applicant shall dedicate the applicable radius on Mansfield and Mirabeau Parkway, 4. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the County Engineer. 5. Access permits and improvements to all State facilities must be approved by the Washington State Department of Transportation (W.S. D.O.T. ). 6. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a signal at Mansfield and Mirabeau Parkway when signal warrants are met. Incremental traffic analysis reviewing signal warrants at this intersection will be required at time of building permits. CC: Applicant =? i RAMM Engineer/Surveyor Planner TAMMY JONES Page 2 06/09/1999 06/27/1996 Z3 -0037 96DRZE- 199 -96 7 Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage and access plans. 8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District a detailed combined on -site sewage system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project or portion thereof if the development is phased. 9 A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane County Engineer. The design, location and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles 10. Spokane County has approved the creation /formation a Road Improvement District No.513 (County Commissioners Res. No. 99- 0311), to improve Mirabeau /Euclid to a three lane arterial beginning at Pines Road and continuing easterly to a point constructed by County Road Project No. 2730. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a standard Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction sidewalk at the time of each building permit. 11 In addition to the base financial contribution toward the Evergreen Interchange Spokane County purchased reserve capacity above the public participation requirement on Evergreen Interchange. Spokane County invested 2.1 million dollars, this capital investment will require the applicant to execute a Developer Agreement for transportation fees to be approved by the Spokane County Board -of County - Commissioners prior to the issuance of any building permits. This development agreement is pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060, RCW 82.02.020, and Article XI of the Washington State Constitution which provides the County with the authority to impose mitigation fees for the costs of certain road projects made necessary by development, provided the County has identified future road projects necessitated by planned development in certain areas of Spokane County and is enacted through conditions of approval of a and use action including a State Environmental Policy Act review, where a reasonable relationship between impacts to the transportation system from the proposed development and the financial contribution are roughly proportional. Trips generated by this proposal as detailed in the Mirabeau Point Environmental Impact Statement warrant financial participation in the Evergreen Interchange. The Washington State Department of Transportation has other transportation infrastructure improvements also required based on impacts as discussed in 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. Page 3 06/09/1999 06/27/1996 Z3 -0037 96DRZE- 199 -96 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge 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. 16. Per the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Mirabeau Point under response number 13 to Letter Number 7,(Steve Stairs Memorandum dated November 18, 1997). Spokane County Engineering requires the following condition: If the build -out of this project does not occur prior to December 31, 2006, the traffic study shall be updated. 17. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners resolution 95 -0498 as amended and are applicable to this proposal. 18. That the regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program 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 specie! flood hazard zone (reference Spokane County Ordinance 80 -0726) 19. No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed right of way until a permit has been issued by the County Engineer. All work within the public road right of way is subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer. 20. All required construction within the existing or proposed public right of way is to be completed prior 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. 21. The applicant should be advised that there may exist utilities either underground cr 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 regarding these utilities. The applicant should check with the applicable utilities and Spokane County Engineer to determine whether the applicant or utility is responsible for adjustment or relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work. Page 4 06/09/1999 06/27/1996 Z3 -0037 96DRZE- 199 -96 22. The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to Spokane County Right of Way per Spokane County Standards. END To: TAMMY JONES (Building & Planning) CC: From: JIM RED (Utilities) Date: 5/25/99 Subject: ZE- 0037 -96 Stage: Hearing Examiner Phase: Mirabeau Point Zone Reclass SS09 A wet (live) sewer connection to the area -wide Public Sewer System is to be constructed. Sewer connection permit is required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior to the issuance of the connection permit in order to establish sewer fees. SS12A Applicant shall submit expressly to Spokane County Division of Utilities "under separate cover ", only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for the public sewer connections and facilities for review and approval. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal. SS12F Sewer plans acceptable to the Division of Utilities shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the sewer construction permit. SS15A Arrangements for payment of applicable sewer charges must be made prior to issuance of sewer connection permit. Sewer charges may include special connection charges and general facilities charges. Charges may be substantial depending upon the nature of the development. WS01 Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. OKANE EGIbNAL.I EALTH DISTiuCT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION Inter -office Communication DATE: May 24, 1999 TO: Tammy Jones, Associate Planner, Spokane County Building and Planning Division FROM: Donald T. Lynch, EHS II - EHD, SRHD SUBJECT: Proposed Zone Change: ZE -37 -96 (Inland Empire Paper Company) 1. References: a) Map of subject, scale 1" = 200', by applicant, dated May 1996, received by this office June 10, 1996. b) Reconnaissance Geolo • is Ma of the West Half of the S okane • Allan B. Griggs, 1966. uadran • le. Washington and Idaho, c) Soil Survey. Spokane County, Washington, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A., March, 1968. d) Spokane County, Washington, Engineering Interpretations, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A., August, 1974. e) Spokane County Rules and Regulations for Sewage Disposal Systems, January 19, 1995. f) Logs of water wells in Range 44E, Township 25N, Sections 3, 9, 10, 11, and 15. g) Map: Greenacres Quadrangle, U.S.G.S., 1973, and Spokane N.E., U.S.G.S., 1973. 2. Findings: a) This project lies over the Spokane - Rathdrum Aquifer. b) The project is within Critical Water Supply Service Area #3 and within the service area of Irvin Water District #6 Water supply will be a public system. c) The project is inside the Spokane County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Area, inside the General Sewer Service Area, and inside the Priority Sewer Service Area recommended in the '201' Study. The method of sewage disposal is subject to approval of the Director of Utilities, Spokane County, pursuant to County Resolution 80.0418 adopted March 24, 1980. The topography and soils in the area are generally suitable for use of individual on -site sewage disposal systems. The lots are of the proper dimensions to permit the use of both individual wells and sewage systems. d) The project lies in a relatively flat to steep sloping area east of Pines Road and south of Euclid Avenue. Local drainageways are insignificant. e) Surface soils are classed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Garrison gravelly loam, Garrison very stony loam, Spokane very rocky complex, and Spokane extremely rocky complex with 0% to 70% slopds. They have aseptic tanks liter fled limitation of slight to severe. There is also possible contamination of groundwater.) This soil would be classified as a Type IV. f) Geologically, the soils are glaciofluvial and quartz - feldspar - biotite paragneiss deposits. These geological structures generally yield small to very large amounts of water. Data from wells in the area referenced in section 1 f shows they are from 59' to 170' deep and have static water levels varying from 40' to 158' below the surface. The Irvin Water District #6 has indicated that it can supply domestic use water for the project upon completion of agreements with the proponent. 3. Required (mandatory) Conditions If Approved: a) Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. b) Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities, Spokane County. c) Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health. d) A public sewer system will be made available for the project and individual service will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of individual on -site sewage disposal systems shall not be authorized. 4. Recommended Conditions of Approval: a) Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited. c: Director of Utilities, Spokane County c: Sponsor: RAMM ASSOCIATES INC C/O CATHY RAMM 25 S ALTAMONT SPOKANE WA 99202 Ianduse.ltr\ZE -37 -96 RECEIVED SPOKANE COUNTY MAY 2d 1Y DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING BY: Washington State FReMISlnent of Transportation SPO Mil Ba hINTY Secretary of Transportation MAY 27 1999 DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING SY: Ms. Tammy Jones Spokane County Planning West 1026 Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0240 Dear Ms. Jones; Eastern Region 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 -2090 (509) 324 -6000 May 25, 1999 Re: Mirabeau Point Rezone (ZE- 37 -96) The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the previously submitted environmental information on this project and as a result recommends that certain conditions of approval be implemented for this project. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved: 1. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase 1 of this project the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the following improvements (Phase I of the project is defined on page 31 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B; not to exceed 521 peak hour trips.): • Provide a right turn lane on eastbound Trent Avenue at the Pines Road intersection. • The reconfiguration of the westbound approach at the Indiana Avenue/Evergreen Road intersection to provide a second westbound left turn lane and one westbound through lane. • Widening of the south leg of the Indiana Avenue/Evergreen Road intersection to provide an adequate turning radius for westbound left turning trucks with a 50 foot wheelbase (WB 50). 2. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase II the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the following improvements (Phase II of the project is defined on page 33 of the Final Ms. Jones , May 25, 1999 Page 2 Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B; not to exceed 1,800 cumulative peak hour trips.): • • • • • Revise the existing signal and channelization at the Pines Road/Mission Avenue intersection to allow eastbound and westbound protected plus permitted left turn movements. Provide a second eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane at the Pines Road/eastbound ramp intersection. Revise the location of the westbound off ramp terminal from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue and install a new traffic signal and illumination system at the Indiana/westbound off ramp intersection. At the Pines Road/Indiana Avenue intersection: - Provide an eastbound right turn lane Reconfigure the east approach to provide one left turn lane, one through and left lane, and one right turn lane — Revise the signal phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches to split phasing Provide a traffic signal and illumination system at the Pines Road/Euclid Avenue intersection. 3. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase III the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the following improvements (Phase III of the project is defined on page 33 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B; not to exceed 2,025 cumulative peak hour trips.): • Provide an improvement for the Pines Road/Mansfield Avenue Intersection that will ensure that the level of service based on delay time at this intersection will not be further degraded by this project. 4. General conditions to apply to this development: • While the threshold air quality analysis submitted by the applicant suggests these projects will meet the air quality standards for Carbon Monoxide (CO), a project level air quality analysis will need to be conducted by the applicant. This analysis will need to be accepted by WSDOT and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council prior to the needed improvements being constructed. This analysis shall Ms. Jones . . Max 25, 1999 Page 3 • • • document that the allowable limits of CO will not be exceeded and that an existing CO hot spot will not be further impacted by the proposed project. Should this occur the proposed project will need to be modified accordingly to ensure the allowable levels of CO will not be exceeded. The traffic analysis conducted for this development shall be updated by the applicant for the portion of this development for which building permits have not been obtained by the end of the year 2006. This traffic study shall also be updated by the applicant if the cumulative traffic generation of this development exceeds 881 entering and 1,144 exiting peak hour trips. This updated analysis shall be reviewed and accepted by both WSDOT and Spokane County. All improvements to WSDOT facilities shall be approved by WSDOT prior to construction (ie: design, drainage, illumination, electrical, surfacing, etc.). Spokane County is now developing a traffic mitigation plan in conjunction with WSDOT for the Pines and Sullivan Corridors. Should this plan be adopted by the Board of Spokane County Commissioners the applicant may choose to participate in the plan in lieu of construction of the improvements called out in items 1 and 2 above. • Signage visible to I -90 will need to conform to the Federal and State Scenic Vista's Acts. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to contact me at 324 -6199. Sincerely, G� /-'4-‘/V Greg Figg Transportation Planner GF: cc: Cathy Ramm, Ramm and Associates Glenn Miles, Spokane Regional Transportation Council Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Jerry Lenzi, WSDOT Regional Administrator Harold White, WSDOT Program Management Ted Trepanier, WSDOT Traffic Project File: 027 - 087 -03 KAISER ALUM /NUM 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 May 28, 1999 John W. Pederson Spokane County Planning 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Mirabcau Point Rezone Request — Project File ZE -37 -96 Dear Mr_ Pederson- The purpose of this letter is to provide comment by Kaiser Aluminum on the request by Inlan Empire Paper Company (IEP) to change the zoning from Rural Residential RR -10 to Light Industrial -2) on thc above referenced property. Kaiser Aluminum supports the rezone request. Growth issues are never easy. However, the proponent has worked diligently with the various agencies and area stakeholders to develop final plans for the site that reasonably mitigate impacts from the development on the key issues of traffic and resultant air quality_ The rezone to I -2 also provides for managed growth and addresses the need for appropriate transitional zoning. The proponent should be commended for committing substantial resources to making this a positive project and we encourage Spokane ounty to approve thc rezone without further delay. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on this matter and look foreword to working wirh the project in the future as a neighbor_ If you have any questions concerning this issue please call me at (509)- 927 -6350. Sincerely, Patrick J. Blau Environmental Engineering Supervisor cc: Wayne Frost — Inland Empire Paper TRENIV/000 WORKS N.O. Box 15108 Spokane. Warhingtcr. 99215 110'6 509 924 1500 MIRABEAU POINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVISED SCHEDULE PROJECT ELEMENTS Mo. Yr. 1. Submit Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Apps & monitor with County May/ June 1996 July 1996 Aug. 1996 Sept 1996 Oct. 1996 Nov. 1996 Dec. 1996 Jan. 1997 Feb. 1997 Mar 1997 Apr. 1997 May 1997 June 1997 3. EIS Scoping Period Finalize EIS Scope • 4. 5. 6. 7. Data Collection/Supporting Studies Impact Analysis and Mitigation Preliminary Draft EIS to Client (3 weeks) & revisions (1 week) Internal Review of Preliminary Draft EIS (County) 8. 9. Edits/Revisions Draft EIS Issuance { 10. Public Comment Period (30 -45 days) 11. Draft EIS Public Hearing (if required) 12. Review and Categorize Comment Letters 13. Final EIS Preparation & Response to Comments (inc. client review) 14. 15. Internal Review of Final EIS Edits/Revisions 16. Final EIS Issuance • RA MM/EISSCHD L. FRM 6/18/95 R Zr i 97 %b • SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE (WAC 197 -11 -980) SECTION 11.10.230(4) RECEIVED AUG 2 61996 County Engineering Determination of Significance and request for comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Description of Proposal: The Mirabeau Point proposal consists of an amendment to the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan map to change approximately 157 acres from the Rural land use designation to the Major Commercial and Urban designations. The proposal also includes a concurrent zone reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Community Business (B -2) on approximately 27 acres and Regional Business (B -3) on approximately 94.67 acres for a mixed use development which includes recreational /community facilities, offices, retail sales, residential development, and those uses allowed in the proposed zones. The project also includes a Concept Master Plan which includes development commensurate with the existing Rural Residential -10 (RR -10), and Light Industrial (1 -2) zones. Location of Proposal: Generally located north of I -90, south and west of the Spokane River, east of Pines Road in portions of Section 3, 10 and 11, Township 25 N., Range 44, EWM., Spokane County, Washington. Proponent: Inland Empire Paper Company c/o Ramm Associates 25 S. Altamont Spokane, WA. 99202 (509) 534 -8086 Lead Agency: Spokane County Division of Building and Planning Responsible Official: James L. Manson, Director Spokane County Division of Building & Planning MS -P 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA. 99260 EIS Required: The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under WAC 197 -11- 360 and RCW 43.21.0 030(2(C) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed at our offices. The Lead Agency has identified the following outline for the EIS: , b Project Summary: Alternatives: A. Proposed action B. Development under existing zoning C. No action Affected Environment, Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures I. Natural Environment A. Earth 1. Soils, unique physical features B. Air 1. Air quality C. Water 1. Surface water movement/quantity, quality 2. Floodplain, wetlands 3. Groundwater movement/quality /quantity 4. Public water supply /quantity D. Plants and animals 1. Habitat for and numbers of species of plants, fish or other wildlife (Critical Areas) w II. Built Environment A. Land use 1. Relationship to existing/proposed land use plans; Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and pending Comprehensive Plan amendment 2. Relationship /impacts of Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) 3. Relationship to existing/proposed land uses - cumulative impacts of these B. Shorelines 1. Relationship to Spokane County Shoreline Program (RCW 90.58) C. Recreation 1. Relationship to Centennial Trail, recreational uses, and public parks D. Historic and Cultural Preservation 1. Impact/relationship to historical, archaeological, or cultural resources E. Transportation 1. Transportation systems a. Vehicular traffic b. Rail traffic, impact of railroad crossing/status of railroad crossing c. Spokane County Arterial Road Plan d. Relationship to adjacent development - cumulative traffic impacts of these e. Relationship to proposed infrastructure improvements F. Public Services Utilities 1. Public water supplies 2. Public sewer Special Studies: 1. Stormwater /drainage analysis 2. Traffic analysis 3. Air quality conformity analysis Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on the alternatives, subjects addressed, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, licenses, permits as approvals that may be required. Send written comments to: John Pederson Spokane County Division of Building & Planning 1026 W. Broadway, MS -P Spokane, WA. 99260 Comments must be received by September 20, 1996 In addition, a scoping meeting will be held on September 18, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at the Commissioners Hearing Room, Lower Level - Public Works Building, 1026 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA. 99260. Responsible Official: James L. Manson, Director, Division of Building & Planning For Information Contact: John Pederson, Senior Planner Spokane County Division of Building & Planning 1026 W. Broadway, MS -P Spokane, WA. 99260 Signature: L Date: August 30, 1996 You may appeal this Determination of Significance at the Spokane County Division of Building and Planning, 1026 W. Broadway (MS -P), Spokane, WA. 99260, no later than 4:00 p.m., September 9, 1996 by completion of an appeal form. The appellant should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact John Pederson for questions on the procedural requirements for SEPA appeals. Washington State Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation Mr. John Pederson Spokane County Planning Department W. 1026 Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99260 -0240 Dear Mr. Pederson: Eastern Region 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 -2090 (509) 324 -6000 August 21, 1996 Re: Maribeau Point In response to the request for information on the scope of the traffic study for the above development the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) requests that the following areas be analyzed or included in the forthcoming traffic study. Background Developments for Maribeau Point: • SRTC Valley Study for residential developments (Approved Proposals) • IPEC Frucci/Wolf Apartment study and Background projects addressed in this study • Phase l A of the Price Hanson Developments (No Evergreen Interchange) • Roy Wyatt Cherry Street Apts. • Roy Wyatt Pines Street Apts. • Metro Valley Plaza • Summit Properties Mall/Power Center • Industrial Park Expansion • Lawson/Gunning Mansfield Development Areas of Study: • Pines/Mission • Pines/WB Ramps- Including Slip Ramp • Pines /EB Ramps • Pines /Indiana • Pines /Indiana • Pines /Mansfield • Pines/Euclid • Pines /Trent • Sullivan/Indiana- Including Slip Ramps • Sullivan/WB Ramps • Sullivan/EB Ramps • Sullivan/Mission • With and Without Evergreen Interchange • Queue /Spillback Analysis- To Determine Validity of LOS • LOS Analysis Mr. Pederson August 21, 1996 Page 2 . • Air Quality Analysis of the Pines Road Corridor. (WSDOT requests this because is our facility and it is our responsibility to ensure air quality is maintained). Please be aware this above scope is for WSDOT facilities only and does not include County or other facilities which will also be impacted by this development. If you should have any questions on this above scope please feel free to contact myself or Greg Figg in our Planning Department at 324 -6199. LCC /gf cc: Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Ann Winkler, Inland Pacific Engineering Sincerely, ,,e,„_,i &_,L LEONARD C. CASH, PE Regional Planning Engineer VWWashington State Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secr"ary of Transportation Mr. John Pederson Spokane County Planning Department W. 1026 Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99260 -0240 Dear Mr. Pederson: Eastern Region 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 -2090 (509) 324 -6000 August 21, 1996 Re: Maribeau Point In response to the request for information on the scope of the traffic study for the above development the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) requests that the following areas be analyzed or included in the forthcoming traffic study. Background Developments for Maribeau Point: • SRTC Valley Study for residential developments (Approved Proposals) • IPEC Frucci/WolfApartment study and Background projects addressed in this study • Phase 1A of the Price Hanson Developments (No Evergreen Interchange) ,VO4. Roy Wyatt Cherry Street Apts. Roy Wyatt Pines Street Apts. Y P • Metro Valley Plaza Q� Summit Properties Mall/Power Center • Industrial Park Expansion • Lawson/Gunning Mansfield Development Areas of Study: • Pines/Mission • Pines/WB Ramps- Including Slip Ramp • Pines/EB Ramps • Pines/Indiana • Pines/Indiana • Pines/Mansfield • Pines/Euclid • Pines /Trent • Sullivan/Indiana- Including Slip Ramps • Sullivan/WB Ramps • Sullivan/EB Ramps • Sullivan/Mission • With and Without Evergreen Interchange • Queue!Spillback Analysis- To Determine Validity of LOS • LOS Analysis Mr. Pederson August 21, 1996 Page 2 • Air Quality Analysis of the Pines Road Corridor. ( WSDOT requests this be;:ause is our facility and it is our responsibility to e;.sure air vality is maintained). Please be aware this above scope is for WSDOT facilities only and does not include County or other facilities which will also be impacted by this development. If you should have any questions on this above scope please feel free to contact myself or Greg Figg in our Planning Department at 324 -6199. LCC /gf cc: Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Ann Winkler, Inland Pacific Engineering Sincerely, 4- • s,4 LEONARD C. CASH, PE Regional Planning Engineer FINAL SCOPING NOTICE MIREABEAU POINT ZONE RECLASSIFICATION AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The Spokane County Division of Building and Planning issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and request for comments on the scope for the Mirabeau Point proposal which consists of an amendment to the Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Plan and a zone reclassification on August 30, 1996 to receive comments on issues to be discussed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be prepared for the project. The scoping/comment period ended on September 20, 1996. A public scoping meeting was also held on September 18, 1996. Three comment letters were received. The Spokane County Division of Building and Planning has reviewed all the comments received and the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement has been modified to reflect the comments received. Comments received are primarily concerned with impacts to the Centennial Trail, the Spokane River and adjoining wetlands, stormwater runoff, impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, impacts to an adjacent natural area, transportation impacts, air quality impacts, and the need to provide alternate modes of transportation. At the time of this notice, the subject property is located within the Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA) and inside the Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA). Spokane County is planning under the full requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Table of Contents may be reorganized and some additions may be made during preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Division of Building and Planning maintains responsibility for interpreting the language in the final scoping notice. FINAL SCOPING NOTICE MIRABEAU POINT ZONE RECLASSIFICATION AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover letter from lead agency Fact Sheet Table of Contents List of Maps and Figures List of Elements of the Environment Projected Summary Alternatives I. Proposed Action II. Development under existing zoning III. No action Affected Environment, Significant Impacts and Mitigating Measures I. Natural Environment A. Earth 1. Soils - unique physical features, impact on prime /unique soils B. Air Quality C. Water 1. Surface water movement/quantity /quality 2. Floodplain - impacts to floodplains 3. Groundwater movement/quality /quantity 4. Wetlands - impacts to wetlands on or adjacent site 5. Public water supply, groundwater quality D. Plants and Animals 1. Habitat for and impacts on plants, fish or other wildlife (Critical Areas) II. Built Environment A. Land Use 1. Relationship to existing land use plans and surrounding development, Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, and pending Comprehensive Plan amendment. 2. Relationship /impacts of the proposal on Spokane County requirements to plan under Chapter 36.70A. RCW Growth Management Act. 3. Relationship to existing /proposed land uses - cumulative impacts of these. B. Shorelines 1. Relationship to Spokane County Shoreline Program (RCW 90.58). C. Recreation 1. Impacts of proposal on Centennial Trail, public parks, natural areas and other recreational uses. D. Historic and Cultural Preservation 1. Impactlrelationship to historical, archaeological or cultural resources. E. Transportation 1. Transportation systems a. Vehicular traffic b. Rail traffic /impact of proposal on adjoining railroad crossing /status of existing /future crossing c. Spokane County Arterial Road Plan d. Relationship to adjacent development, cumulative traffic impacts of these e. Relationship /impact to proposed infrastructure improvements F. Public services and utilities 1. Public water supply 2. Public sewer capacity Special Studies I. Stormwater/Drainage Analysis II. Traffic Impact Analysis III. Air Quality Conformity Analysis "Aft, 11,7Am Washington State 1; Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation Ms. Tammy Jones Spokane County Planning West 1026 Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0240 Dear Ms. Jones; Eastern Region 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 -2090 (509) 324 -6000 June 9, 1999 Re: Mirabeau Point Rezone (Correction) (ZE- 37 -96) It has been brought to our attention by the applicant that our May 25, 1999 letter addressed to you on the above development contained an error. In reviewing our letter we concur that a typographical error did occur on item 4 in the next to last bullet. This bulleted item should have referred to items 1 through 4, not items 1 and 2 as was originally stated. This item has been corrected and a modified letter to replace the one originally submitted is attached for inclusion in your report and files on this project. Thank you again for your assistance in this matter and if you have any questions regarding this change, please do not hesitate to contact me at 324 -6199. Sincerely, Greg Figg Transportation Planner GF: attachment: cc: Cathy Ramm, Ramm and Associates Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Harold White, WSDOT Program Management Project File: 027 - 087 -03 Washington State . 11.0 Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation Ms. Tammy Jones Spokane County Planning West 1026 Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0240 Dear Ms. Jones; Eastern Region 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 -2090 (509) 324 -6000 June 9, 1999 Re: Mirabeau Point Rezone (Revised) (ZE- 37 -96) The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the previously submitted environmental information on this project and as a result recommends that certain conditions of approval be implemented for this project. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved: 1. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase I of this project the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the following improvements (Phase I of the project is defined on page 31 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B; not to exceed 521 peak hour trips.): • Provide a right turn lane on eastbound Trent Avenue at the Pines Road intersection. • The reconfiguration of the westbound approach at the Indiana Avenue/Evergreen Road intersection to provide a second westbound left turn lane and one westbound through lane. • Widening of the south leg of the Indiana Avenue/Evergreen Road intersection to provide an adequate turning radius for westbound left turning trucks with a 50 foot wheelbase (WB 50). 2. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase II the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the following improvements (Phase 11 of the project is defined on page 33 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B; not to exceed 1,800 cumulative peak hour trips.): 4 Ms. Jones June 9, 1999 Page 2 • Revise the existing signal and channelization at the Pines Road/Mission Avenue intersection to allow eastbound and westbound protected plus permitted left turn movements. • Provide a second eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane at the Pines Road/eastbound ramp intersection. • Revise the location of the westbound off ramp terminal from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue and install a new traffic signal and illumination system at the Indiana/westbound off ramp intersection. • At the Pines Road/Indiana Avenue intersection: - Provide an eastbound right turn lane - Reconfigure the east approach to provide one left turn lane, one through and left lane, and one right turn lane — Revise the signal phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches to split phasing • Provide a traffic signal and illumination system at the Pines Road/Euclid Avenue intersection. 3. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase III the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the following improvements (Phase 111 of the project is defined on page 33 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B; not to exceed 2,025 cumulative peak hour trips.): • Provide an improvement for the Pines Road/Mansfield Avenue Intersection that will ensure that the level of service based on delay time at this intersection will not be further degraded by this project. 4. General conditions to apply to this development: • While the threshold air quality analysis submitted by the applicant suggests these projects will meet the air quality standards for Carbon Monoxide (CO), a project level air quality analysis will need to be conducted by the applicant. This analysis will need to be accepted by WSDOT and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council prior to the needed improvements being constructed. This analysis shall document that the allowable limits of CO will not be exceeded and that an existing CO hot spot will not be further impacted by the proposed project. Should this Ms. Jones June 9, 1999 Page 3 • w occur the proposed project will need to be modified accordingly to ensure the allowable levels of CO will not be exceeded. • The traffic analysis conducted for this development shall be updated by the applicant for the portion of this development for which building permits have not been obtained by the end of the year 2006. This traffic study shall also be updated by the applicant if the cumulative traffic generation of this development exceeds 881 entering and 1,144 exiting peak hour trips. This updated analysis shall be reviewed and accepted by both WSDOT and Spokane County. • All improvements to WSDOT facilities shall be approved by WSDOT prior to construction (ie: design, drainage, illumination, electrical, surfacing, etc.). 5. Spokane County is now developing a traffic mitigation plan in conjunction with WSDOT for the Pines and Sullivan Corridors. Should this plan be adopted by the Board of Spokane County Commissioners the applicant may choose to participate in the plan in lieu of the improvements called out in items 1 through 4 above. 6. Signage visible to I -90 will need to conform to the Federal and State Scenic Vista's Acts. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to contact me at 324 -6199. Sincerely, Greg Figg Transportation Planner GF: cc: Cathy Ramm, Ramm and Associates Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Harold White, WSDOT Program Management Ted Trepanier, WSDOT Traffic Project File: 027 - 087 -03 jrWashington State ,„ Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation Ms. Tammy Jones Spokane County Planning West 1026 Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0240 Dear Ms. Jones; Eastern Region 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 -2090 (509) 324 -6000 May 25, 1999 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1499 SPOKANE COUNTY ENv" l`'` Re: Mirabeau Point Rezone (ZE- 37 -96) The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the previously submitted environmental information on this project and as a result recommends that certain conditions of approval be implemented for this project. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved: 1. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase I of this project the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the following improvements (Phase I of the project is defined on page 31 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B; not to exceed 521 peak hour trips.): • Provide a right turn lane on eastbound Trent Avenue at the Pines Road intersection. • The reconfiguration of the westbound approach at the Indiana Avenue/Evergreen Road intersection to provide a second westbound left turn lane and one westbound through lane. • Widening of the south leg of the Indiana Avenue/Evergreen Road intersection to provide an adequate turning radius for westbound left turning trucks with a 50 foot wheelbase (WB 50). 2. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase II the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the following improvements (Phase II of the project is defined on page 33 of the Final Ms. Jones May 25, '1999 Page 2 Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B; not to exceed 1,800 cumulative peak hour trips.): • • • • • Revise the existing signal and channelization at the Pines Road/Mission Avenue intersection to allow eastbound and westbound protected plus permitted left turn movements. Provide a second eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane at the Pines Road/eastbound ramp intersection. Revise the location of the westbound off ramp terminal from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue and install a new traffic signal and illumination system at the Indiana/westbound off ramp intersection. At the Pines Road/Indiana Avenue intersection: - Provide an eastbound right turn lane - Reconfigure the east approach to provide one left turn lane, one through and left lane, and one right turn lane - Revise the signal phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches to split phasing Provide a traffic signal and illumination system at the Pines Road/Euclid Avenue intersection. 3. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase III the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the following improvements (Phase III of the project is defined on page 33 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B; not to exceed 2,025 cumulative peak hour trips.) : • Provide an improvement for the Pines Road/Mansfield Avenue Intersection that will ensure that the level of service based on delay time at this intersection will not be further degraded by this project. 4. General conditions to apply to this development. • While the threshold air quality analysis submitted by the applicant suggests these projects will meet the air quality standards for Carbon Monoxide (CO), a project level air quality analysis will need to be conducted by the applicant. This analysis will need to be accepted by WSDOT and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council prior to the needed improvements being constructed. This analysis shall r Ms. Jones May 25;1999 Page 3 • • • document that the allowable limits of CO will not be exceeded and that an existing CO hot spot will not be further impacted by the proposed project. Should this occur the proposed project will need to be modified accordingly to ensure the allowable levels of CO will not be exceeded. The traffic analysis conducted for this development shall be updated by the applicant for the portion of this development for which building permits have not been obtained by the end of the year 2006. This traffic study shall also be updated by the applicant if the cumulative traffic generation of this development exceeds 881 entering and 1,144 exiting peak hour trips. This updated analysis shall be reviewed and accepted by both WSDOT and Spokane County. All improvements to WSDOT facilities shall be approved by WSDOT prior to construction (ie: design, drainage, illumination, electrical, surfacing, etc.). Spokane County is now developing a traffic mitigation plan in conjunction with WSDOT for the Pines and Sullivan Corridors. Should this plan be adopted by the Board of Spokane County Commissioners the applicant may choose to participate in the plan in lieu of construction of the improvements called out in items 1 and 2 above. ' Signage visible to I -90 will need to conform to the Federal and State Scenic Vista's Acts. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to contact me at 324 -6199. Sincerely, "e-ely71--e-4411 Greg Figg Transportation Planner GF: cc: Cathy Ramm, Ramm and Associates Glenn Miles, Spokane Regional Transportation Council Jerry Lenzi, WSDOT Regional Administrator Harold White, WSDOT Program Management Ted Trepanier, WSDOT Traffic Project File: 027 - 087 -03 OFFICE OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 1026 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 (509)477 -3600 Fax 477 -2243 "ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL" ZONE TO: Spokane County Planning Department FROM: Division of Engineering & Road 1 IA DATE: May 26, 1999 PROJECT: RR -10 TO 1 -2 MIRABEAU POINT REC & BUS PK FILE #: Z3- 0037 -96/ (DRZE- 199 -96) Hearing: 06/09/1999 @ 1:30 Review Date: © Sponsor /Applicant: CATHY RAMM Section Township Range: 03/10/11 -25 -44 Planner: TAMMY JONES Technical Review Date: (06/27/1996 © 1:15) The Spokane County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced application. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order /Decision" should the request be approved. Prior 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. Applicant shall dedicate 54 feet in width extending from Mirabeau Parkway west to the western property boundary of this proposal on the new Mansfield alignment for right of way, this dedication may be required anytime after the first building permit is issued which vests this zone change. 2. Applicant shall dedicate 48 feet on all internal public roads other than Mansfield for right of way. 3. Applicant shall dedicate the applicable radius on Mansfield and Mirabeau Parkway. 4. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the County Engineer. 5. Access permits and improvements to all State facilities must be approved by the Washington State Department of Transportation (W.S.D.O.T.). 6 The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a signal at Mansfield and Mirabeau Parkway when signal warrants are met. Incremental traffic analysis reviewing signal warrants at this intersection will be required at time of building permits. CC: Applicant CATHY RAMM Engineer /Surveyor Planner TAMMY JONES Page 2 06/09/1999 06/27/1996 Z3 -0037 96DRZE- 199 -96 7 Applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage and access plans. 8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane County Health District a detailed combined on -site sewage system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project or portion thereof if the development is phased. 9 A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane County Engineer. The design, location and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles 10. Spokane County has approved the creation /formation a Road Improvement District No.513 (County Commissioners Res. No. 99- 0311), to improve Mirabeau /Euclid to a three lane arterial beginning at Pines Road and continuing easterly to a point constructed by County Road Project No. 2730. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a standard Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction sidewalk at the time of each building permit. 11. In addition to the base financial contribution toward the Evergreen Interchange Spokane County purchased reserve capacity above the public participation requirement on Evergreen Interchange. Spokane County invested 2.1 million dollars, this capital investment will require the applicant to execute a Developer Agreement for transportation fees to be approved by the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners prior to the issuance of any building permits. This development agreement is pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060, RCW 82.02.020, and Article XI of the Washington State Constitution which provides the County with the authority to impose mitigation fees for the costs of certain road projects made necessary by development, provided the County has identified future road projects necessitated by planned development in certain areas of Spokane County and is enacted through conditions of approval of a land use action including a State Environmental Policy Act review, where a reasonable relationship between impacts to the transportation system from the proposed development and the financial contribution are roughly proportional. Trips generated by this proposal as detailed in the Mirabeau Point Environmental Impact Statement warrant financial participation in the Evergreen Interchange. The Washington State Department of Transportation has other transportation infrastructure improvements also required based on impacts as discussed in 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. Page 3 06/09/1999 06/27/1996 Z3 -0037 96DRZE- 199 -96 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. All required improvements shall conform to the current State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge 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. 16. Per the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Mirabeau Point under response number 13 to Letter Number 7,(Steve Stairs Memorandum dated November 18, 1997), Spokane County Engineering requires the following condition: If the build -out of this project does not occur prior to December 31, 2006, the traffic study shall be updated. 17. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements are found in Spokane Board of County Commissioners resolution 95 -0498 as amended and are applicable to this proposal. 18. That the regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program 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) 19. No construction work is to be performed within the existing or proposed right of way until a permit has been issued by the County Engineer. All work within the public road right of way is subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer. 20. All required construction within the existing or proposed public right of way is to be completed prior 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. 21. The applicant should be 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 regarding these utilities. The applicant should check with the applicable utilities and Spokane County Engineer to determine whether the applicant or utility is responsible for adjustment or relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work. Page 4 06/09/1999 06/27/1996 Z3 -0037 96DRZE- 199 -96 • 22. The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to Spokane County Right of Way per Spokane County Standards. END TO: BUILDING AND PLANNING RECEIVED MAY 1 ' 1999 AROMINE CgUN1Y ENGINEER A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT James L. Manson, C.B.O., Director Gary Oberg, Director MEMORANDUM Spokane County Division of Engineering; Pat Harper, c/o Sandy Kimball Development Engineering Services; Bill Hemmings Spokane County Division of Utilities; Jim Red Spokane County Stormwater Utility; Brenda Sims Spokane Regional Health District; Steve Holderby Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority Spokane County Division of Long Range Planning; John Mercer Spokane County Division of Parks, Rec & Fair; Steve Horobiowski Spokane Regional Transportation Council; Glen Miles Spokane County Fire.Protection District No., 1 East Valley School District No. 361 Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19 Irvin Water District No. 6 Spokane Transit Authority; Christine Fueston WA State Boundary Review Board; Susan Winchell WA State Dept. of Transportation; Greg Figg WA State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife; Kevin Robinette WA State Dept. of Natural Resources; Colville Union Pacific Railroad WA State Dept. of Ecology; Eastern Regional Office WA State Parks & Recreation Commission FROM: Tammy Jones, Associate Planner DATE: May 12, 1999 SUBJECT: Review and comments for the hearing of June 9, 1999 at 1:30 p.m. FILE # ZE -37 -96 Description: Zone reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Light Industrial (1 -2) on approximately 105.8 acres for recreational/ community facilities, a business park, limited commercial uses, and those uses allowed in the Light Industrial (1 -2) zone. STR: Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM Sponsor: Inland Empire Paper Co./ YMCA; c/o Ramm Associates Note that the application and maps were previously circulated to your agency. Please review and return any comments to me by May 26, 1999. kb Attachments: Notice of Public Hearing 1026 W. BROADWAY • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 -0050 PHONE: (509) 477 -3675 • FAX: (509) 477 -4703 • TDD: (509) 324 -3166 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER TO: All interested persons, and owners /taxpayers within 400 feet YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE LAND USE APPLICATION LISTED BELOW, AS FOLLOWS: Application: File No. ZE- 37 -96; Zone reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Light Industrial (1 -2) on approximately 105.8 acres for recreational/ community facilities, a business park, limited commercial uses, and those uses allowed in the Light Industrial (1 -2) zone. Hearing Date and Time: June 9, 1999 @ 1:30 p.m. Place: Commissioners Assembly Room, Lower Level, Spokane County Public Works Building, 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, Washington. Owner/ Applicant: Inland Empire Paper Co., 3320 N. Argonne Rd, Spokane, WA 99212/ YMCA, 507 N. Howard, Spokane, WA 99201 Agent: Ramm Associates, Inc., c/o Cathy Ramm, 25 S. Altamont, Spokane, WA 99202, (509)534 -8159 Address and Location: Generally located south of and adjacent to Euclid Avenue, north of Indiana Avenue, southwest of the Spokane River and approximately 1000 feet east of Pines Road (Hwy 27) in Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington. Comprehensive Plan: Rural Zoning Designation: Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) Environmental Determination: A Determination of Significance (DS) was issued by the County Division of Building and Planning on August 30, 1996. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on October 2, 1997, with a comment period ending on November 1, 1997. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on June 12, 1998. Related Permits: None Division of Building & Planning Staff: Tammy Jones, (509) 477 -3675. HEARING EXAMINER PROCEDURES Hearing Process and Appeals: The hearing will be conducted under the rules of procedure adopted in Spokane County Resolution No. 96 -0294. All interested persons may testify at the public hearing, and may submit written comments and documents before or at the hearing. The Hearing Examiner may limit the time given to speakers. A speaker representing each side of the issue is encouraged. Any appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision will be based on the record established before the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to County Resolution Nos. 96 -0171. Environmental appeals will follow the same procedural route as the underlying action. All hearings will be conducted in facilities which are accessible to persons with physical disabilities. Inspection of File, Copies of Documents: A Staff Report will generally be available for inspection seven days before the hearing. The Staff Report and application file may be inspected at the Spokane County Division of Building & Planning, 1st Floor Permit Center, Public Works Building, 1026 W. Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260, between 8 am and 4 pm, weekdays, M -F, except holidays. Copies of documents will be made available for the cost of reproduction. If you have any questions or special needs, please call the Division at (509) 477 -3675. Send written comments to the Spokane County Division of Building & Planning, 1026 W. Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260, Attn: Tammy Jones, ZE- 37 -96. Motions must be made in writing and submitted to the Spokane County Hearing Examiner, 3rd Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 W. Broadway, Spokane, WA 99260 -0245. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: November 18, 1997 Pat Harper John Pederson, Spokane County Planning Greg Figg, Washington State Department of Transportation Tim Schwab, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. Steve Stair �1�5 Mirabeau Point DEIS comments Spow CourtrY 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 link 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. 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- out showing the presence or absence of these shared lanes should be provided. 3. 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. 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 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 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. 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 listed in the recommendations section of 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 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 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. 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. MEMORANDUM DRAFT DATE: November 13, 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 Stairs SUBJECT: Mirabeau Point DEIS SPOKANE CoUNrr have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, DEIS, for the Mirabeau Point project and have noted the following comments. 1. 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. Does the consultant have the authority to exclude intersections of study when requested by an agency of review. 2. 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. 3. 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- out showing the presence or absence of these shared lanes should be provided. 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. 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 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. RAFT 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 and should be included in the LOS calculations. The appendix does show a reduction of 150 turns for right turn on red, RTOR. 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. 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 listed in the recommendations section of 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 is dated September 1997, however, it uses 1996 as a baseline for the analyses. Therefore, once accepted, I recommend that this study be held valid for a period not to exceed five years from the baseline date. Since no baseline month is used, I further recommend that this report be updated by December 31, 2001. 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 Kimball, Sandy From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Hemmings, Bill Monday, November 03, 1997 1:30 PM Pederson, John Harper, Pat; Franz, Dean; Kimball, Sandy; Engelhard, Scott Mirabeau Point IES 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. Page 1 Kimball, Sandy From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Hemmings, Bill Friday, August 08, 1997 1:45 PM Pederson, John Harper, Pat; Franz, Dean; Kimball, Sandy; Engelhard, Scott Mirabeau Point EIS (Draft) Comments High 8 -8 -97 I received the above referenced project draft EIS on July 9, 1997. The calculations that are made for runoff use sheet flow lengths that are not likely to exist in nature. When final design is undertaken these flow length will need to be revised to reflect actual field conditions. We accept the concept that 208 swales and drywells can be used for most of the sites' drainage needs. Our acceptance of this concept in no way means that we also accept the preliminary calculations that have been presented. Review of calculations and plans will be performed at building permit or during the final plat phase. Fill qe ,cs uc94 Page 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 8, 1997 TO: John Pederson CC: Pat Harper, Spokane County, Engineering & Roads Jim Haines, Spo..• - County, Engineering & Roads FROM: Steve Stairs 5 SUBJECT: Comments for Mirabeau Point Preliminary DEIS I. Thank you for the opportunity to review the preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement, DEIS, for the Mirabeau Point project. The Transportation Engineering section has completed its review of the DEIS. Where appropriate, our comments refer to a specific page, figure or paragraph. The bold text represents particular words or phrasing that should be corrected within a quoted sentence. Additionally, these comments have been divided into two sections. The first section lists comments regarding the main text of the DEIS and the second section refers to comments regarding Appendix B, Traffic Impact Analysis. Comments for the DEIS, main text 1. Page 1, last sentence of the Proposal Description - This sentence should be deleted since it is an opinion of the layout, not a factual statement to be included in a fact sheet. 2. Page iii, 15` paragraph - "The north -south parkway (Mirabeau Parkway) will be developed as a collector arterial, with...." Mirabeau Parkway will initially be classified as a collector and could be upgraded to a minor arterial in the future. 3. Page S -11, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - "All study intersection(s) are...." 4. Page S -11, 3rd paragraph, last sentence - Change sentence to: The minimum levels of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections within Spokane County has been defined as LOS `D' and LOS `E' respectively. 5. Page S -12, last paragraph, 2' sentence - This sentence is a generalized statement that is not consistent with the information presented in Table 10 of Appendix B. 6. Page S -13, 2' paragraph - The signal changes needed for phases 2 and 3 should be analyzed as one change. In other words, can the timing changes for phase 3 be implemented in phase 2, thus, requiring only one timing change? 7. Page S -13, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - "The proposed Mirabeau Parkway will be classified as a collector arterial." 8. Page S -14, 1st paragraph, last sentence - This sentence implies that all intersections on Sullivan Rd will operate at unacceptable levels of service, however, Sullivan and Mission will operate at LOS 'B'. Mirabeau Point DEIS June1997 9. Page 10, last paragraph - Mirabeau Pkwy will be constructed as a five lane section from Indiana Ave. to approximately 1300 feet north of Indiana and a 3 lane section from 1300 feet north of Indiana to Euclid Ave. It doesn't seem necessary to discuss the initial plans for a two lane roadway. 10. Page 85, 5th paragraph - The intersection of Sullivan /Indiana was scoped for inclusion in the EIS, but is not found in the scoped intersection list. A description of this intersection is not found on page 86. 11. Page 87, last paragraph - The third sentence references Tables 4, 5 and 6 in Appendix B,. however, these tables are not present in the Appendix. In fact, Tables 2 - 6 are missing from Appendix B. 12. Page 88, 2"d paragraph - This paragraph discusses the trip generation rates shown in Tables 7, 8 and 9. A discussion of how the trip generation rates were determined for the five land uses not found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual should be provided. 13. Page 90, 3`d paragraph - Is the focus of this paragraph to say that if nothing further was to build in the vicinity of this project, congestion and other traffic problems would be appreciably better? Even if there was no further development, we would still experience the levels of service problems and congestion found today at the Pines Road interchange. 14. Page 90, 4,h paragraph - Should the potential correction for the Sullivan /Indiana and Sullivan/WB Ramps intersections be discussed under the significant impact section for this project. In addition, the last sentence has no context. There is very little project traffic shown for phase I w/ Evergreen Interchange or Phases II or III. However, phase 1 w/o Evergreen Interchange shows 192 trips using the Sullivan /Indiana intersection which represents 3.3% of the total intersection traffic. 15. Page 91 and 92, Tables 10 and 11 - These tables show the intersection of Mirabeau Pkwy and Indiana as an unsignalized intersection, however, this intersection will be signalized at construction. 16. Page 94, last paragraph - The Lawson /Gunning Traffic Impact Analysis reported that the east/west movements of the Pines Rd. & Mission Ave. intersection were changed to split phasing to improve safety. This document now recommends using protected /permitted phasing. How will that impact the operational safety of this intersection? 17. Page 97, 2 "d paragraph, 2"d sentence - Table 10 does not support this statement. All of the intersections on Pines are shown to be at LOS 'D' with less than 40 seconds of delay. 18. Page 97, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - "Stage 1 of the Evergreen Interchange project will include construction of the interchange itself, roadway from Sharp Avenue to Indiana Ave..." 19. Page 98, Table 16 - This table should be removed from the EIS. This table contains several errors, is based on preliminary costs estimates that are subject to change and does not represent the County's position on funding for the Evergreen Interchange. A general discussion as to the possible funding sources and participation could be considered acceptable. 2 Mirabeau Point DEIS June 1997 20. Page 101, 2"d paragraph, 2"d sentence - "The proposed Mirabeau Parkway will be classified as a collector arterial." Delete 4th paragraph. 21. Page 101, 6th paragraph, 3`d sentence - The County has received funding to construct Mirabeau Parkway as a five lane roadway from Indiana north for approximately 1300 feet, transitioning to a three lane roadway, and continuing north to Euclid Ave. 22. Page 102, 2nd paragraph - See previous comment. 23. Page 103, 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence - The intersection of Mansfield and Pines was not a scoped intersection for this study. Furthermore, LOS print -outs were not found in the DEIS or Appendix B for this intersection. 24. Page 104, 2"d paragraph, 3rd sentence - "The second project, scheduled for construction in 1998, will widen Pines Road at the westbound ramp terminal intersection to accommodate a second northbound left for the traffic..." II Comments from Appendix B, Mirabeau Point Project TIA 1. Pages 1 and 12 - Delete Sullivan Road & Indiana Avenue as an existing intersection scoped for this study. This intersection is already included in the future intersections listed. Further, the intersection of Pines Rd. and Mansfield Ave. is shown as an existing scoped intersection, but no capacity analysis sheets or results were provided in the report. 2. Page 7 - The recommendations on this page should also include the signal revisions at Pines Rd & Mission Ave. and the additional EBL lane for the Evergreen Interchange at the eastbound ramp terminal. The additional Evergreen I/C ramp lane may be able to be incorporated into the Evergreen Interchange design currently underway by WSDOT. 3. Page 11, 6th paragraph - Mirabeau Pkwy will be constructed as a five lane section from Indiana Ave. to approximately 1300 feet north of Indiana and a 3 lane section from 1300 feet north of Indiana to Euclid Ave. 4. Page 13, 3rd paragraph - This paragraph discusses the Sullivan /Mission intersection turn movement counts used in the study. While I agree, counts after holidays may not reflect typical volumes, I would question the validity of volumes that needed to be factored by 10% for a one year adjustment (1995 to 1996). Further, it doesn't seem logical that a ten percent adjustment was made for 1995 to 1996 and only 3% thereafter. New counts should have been recorded for this intersection. 5. The hook ramps at the Pines and Sullivan interchanges with 1 -90 are not shown on any of the figures. These hooks ramps should carry a considerable amount of traffic, particularly with phases 2 & 3 of the Sullivan Park Mall. 6. Tables 2 through Table 6 are missing from this document. The information shown in the List of Tables is necessary in this report. Mirabeau Point DEIS June 1997 7. Figure 7 - This figure is identical to the background traffic figure provided in the Lawson /Gunning Traffic Impact Analysis. The volumes shown in Figure 7, I assume, should be equivalent to the Figure 7 provided plus the movements from Lawson /Gunning. In addition, this figure shows negative volumes at the east and westbound ramp terminals for the new Evergreen Interchange. How were these values developed? It doesn't seem intuitive, to me, that a new roadway could experience a reduction in volumes through pass - by or diverted trips 8. Page 29 - What similar facilities were studied or had data available for the land uses not found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (ice arena, performing arts, planetarium, etc.). 9. Page 29, Table 7 - The trip generation rate for the YMCA, using the Recreational Community Center land use #495, should be 1.38 trips /ksf with a distribution of 28% entering and 72% exiting. Otherwise, some explanation for the deviation should be included in the report. 10. Figure 10 - At the Evergreen /EB ramps, there is shown to be 183 SBR trips. This movement is not permitted and the 183 trips should be shown for the SBT trips. 11. Figure 10 - The trip totals, entering and exiting, do not match the totals in Table 8, page 30. 12. Figure 11 - The NBT volume shown at Pines /EB ramp should be 9 rather than the 19 shown. 13. Figures 9, 10 & 11 show the case where the Evergreen I/C is constructed with the connection to Evergreen Rd at Sharp. How much project traffic is expected to use Sullivan and Pines if only the diamond interchange is built, without the connection to Evergreen Rd. 14. Page 41, Table 10 (cont.) - The Mirabeau Pkwy /Indiana Ave. intersection is shown analyzed as an unsignalized intersection when, in fact, it will be constructed as a signalized intersection. None the less, acceptable levels of service will continue for this intersection. 15. Page 41, Table 11 - The LOS print -outs for Pines /Euclid shows 10.3 seconds of delay and LOS 'C' rather than the LOS 'D' shown in the table. 16. Page 47, Table 12 - The LOS print -out for Pines /Euclid, 2004 Traffic With Project shows 34.5 seconds of delay and LOS 'E' rather than the 12.2 seconds of delay and LOS 'C' reported. 17. Page 47, last paragraph - The Lawson /Gunning TIA reported that the east and west movements at Pines /Mission were split phased in an effort to improve safety. What is expected to happen to the accident rate if the phasing for the east and west movements allow permitted left turns. 18. Page 54, 1st bullet, 2' sentence - "Westbound..., one through lan(e) and one...." 19. Page 54, last bullet, 2 "d sentence - "Southbound...will require 2 through lanes with one left turn lane." 20. Page 56, Table 14 - The weaving analysis results presented in this table are for the 1999 w/ project scenario and shows the LOS is marginal. What is expected for the future years with 4 • Mirabeau Point DEIS June 1997 all of the background projects and this Mirabeau Point's build -out traffic added to the system? 21. Page 55, 1St paragraph, last sentence - "This project, however, will add very...." 22. Page 55, 2 "d paragraph, 1" sentence - Mirabeau Pkwy will be constructed as a five lane section from Indiana Ave. to approximately 1300 feet north of Indiana and a 3 lane section from 1300 feet north of Indiana to Euclid Ave. 23. Page 56, last paragraph, 3rd sentence - "Stage 1 will... roadway from Sharp Avenue...." 24. Page 56, last paragraph, 10th sentence - Delete all references to increases in WSDOT portion of Evergreen Interchange funding. This is not the County's position, particularly given the fact that this project is needed to facilitate private development within the Sullivan and Pines corridors. The Evergreen Interchange shall be funded before this or any other projects are allowed to proceed for approval. 25. Page 57, 1' paragraph, 2 "d sentence - This sentence should be deleted from the report. It does not represent the County's position and is not substantiated by the data in the report. Sullivan Rd was reported in previous pages of the TIA and in the EIS to be at unacceptable levels of service at build -out of this project and that the project should not be required to mitigate Sullivan Rd. Further, WSDOT is, as reported in the TIA and EIS, improving Pines Rd in 1997 and 1998; improvements that will benefit this project. 26. Page 58, Table 16 - This table should be removed from the TIA. This table contains several errors, is based on preliminary costs estimates that are subject to change and does not represent the County's position on funding for the Evergreen Interchange. A general discussion as to the possible funding sources, the need for funding and participation among private developers could be considered acceptable. 27. Page 60 - The conclusion regarding the third mainline lane for westbound 1 -90, as discussed on page 56, should be added to the list of conclusions and recommendations shown on this page. 28. Page 60, last bullet - The construction of Mirabeau Pkwy will be done by the County. Funding will come from a variety of sources including TIB, Mirabeau Point, Inland Paper, Lawson /Gunning, STA and Spokane County. 29. The per trip fee payable at the time of building permit application is not an acceptable funding method to Spokane County. This method would not provide the needed funds for improvements prior to the additional trips being added and consequently failing the network. 30. Page 61 - The signal phasing enhancements reported for phase 2 & 3 should be included in the bullet list of recommendations. In addition, the 2 "d EBL turn lane at the EB ramp of the Evergreen I/C should be added. 31. The intersection of Pines /Indiana is currently operating with protected lefts for the north and southbound movements, however, the LOS print -outs in the technical appendix show these movements under permitted phasing. 5 . Mirabeau Point DEIS June 1997 32. Several of the LOS print -outs for the intersection of Mission /Evergreen were not included in the technical appendix. 33. No documentation or methodology was given in the report to explain how the right turn on red, RTOR, deductions were developed for the future year scenarios. The percentage of RTOR increases inconsistently as the additional background and project traffic is added to the network. It does not appear the RTOR movements were recorded in the field. This explanation should be provided. 34. The intersection of Sullivan /Mission is currently operating with protected lefts for the north and southbound movements, however, the 2006 without project (and with project), with Evergreen I/O, shows a permitted NBL phasing. Actual phasing should be used unless this is a recommended signal change, in which case, it should be added to the list of recommendations. We ask that these comments and suggested revisions be addressed and /or incorporated into this document prior to release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We are submitting our copy of the preliminary DEIS which has all of the comments noted above highlighted within it. We ask that this highlighted copy of the preliminary DEIS be returned to us after the consultants have finished their revisions. We are also most willing to meet with the consultants and discuss our review. If you have any comments or questions regarding our review, please do not hesitate to bring them to my attention. 6 • TO: S P O k A N E DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JAMES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM Pat Harper, Spokane County Division of Engineering Jim Red, Spokane County Utilities Department Steve Holderby, Spokane County Health District Wyn Birkenthal, Spokane County Parks & Recreation Department Bill Hemmings, Stormwater Utility Greg Figg, Department of Transportation RECEIVED Glen Miles, Spokane Regional Transportation Council Christine Fueston, Spokane Transit Authority Susan Winchell, Boundary Review Board JUN 1 0 1996 East Valley School District Fire District No. 1 County Engineering Consolidated Irrigation District Irvin Water District # 6 Union Pacific Railroad Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources; Colville Washington State Dept. of Ecology; Dennis Beich Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife; Carmen Andonaegui FROM: John Pederson, Senior Planne DATE: June 6, 1996 RE: Zone Reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Community Business (B -2) and Regional Business (B -3) and consideration of Concept Master Plan APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW MEETING JUNE 27, 1996 AT 1:15 DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING 15` FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM NOTE: Due to the size and scale of the Mirabeau Point Concept Master Plan, the Spokane County Division of Building and Planning as lead agency, will likely issue a Determination of Significance (DS) and require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). To assist the lead agency in determining the scope of the subsequent EIS, please review the Concept Master Plan and provide specific comments as to the scope of probable significant adverse impacts, reasonable alternative and mitigation measures. Please review the above application and use the attached APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW MEETING FORM for your comments. The Division of Building and Planning encourages your presence at this meeting. The sponsor and representative have been invited to also attend. If you can not attend, please forward your review comments on the attached form to Steve Davenport for the meeting. The attached APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FORMS will be given to the sponsor at the meeting and included in the Division of Building and Planning file (so bring three copies to the meeting). Thanks for your cooperation. If you have any questions about the application, please contact Steve Davenport of the Division of Building and Planning at 456 -2205. c: Cathy Ramm, Ramm Associates, 25 S. Altamont, Spokane, WA 99202 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 BUILDING PHONE: (509) 456 -3675 • FAX: (509) 456 -4703 PLANNING PHONE: (509) 456 -2205 • FAX: (509) 456 -2243 Tnn. (,f191 174 -11 MM Design Review for June 27, 1996 at 1:15 p.m. Mirabeau Point Zone Reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10), to Community Business (B -2) and Regional Business (B -3) and consideration of Master Plan Concept. Generally located north of Interstate 90 and approximately 300 feet east of Pines Road in portions of Sections 3, 10, and 11, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban, Rural and Industrial and inside the Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zone Reclassification from Rural Residential -10 (RR -10) to Community Business (B -2) on approximately 27 acres and Regional Business (B -3) on approximately 94.67 acres for a mixed use development (Mirabeau Point) which includes recreational /community facilities, offices, retail sales, residential and those uses allowed in the proposed zones. (Note: Concept Master Plan includes existing Residential -10 (RR -10), Light Industrial (I -2) and Urban Residential -3.5 (UR -3.5). PARCEL NUMBERS: 45035.9091, 45101.9049, 45104.9066, 45104.9051, 45113.9025 AND 45113.9028 SITE SIZE: Approximately 236.8 acres APPLICANT: OWNER: Cathy Ramm, Ramm Associates 25 S. Altamont Street Spokane, WA 99202 (509) 534 -8086 Inland Empire Paper Company 3320 N. Argonne Road Spokane WA 99212 (509) 924 -1911 ASSIGNED PLANNER: Steve Davenport PAGE 1 , 15:25:43 10 JUN 1996 Road# Road Names MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log Info 01163 EUCLID AV (START) EUCLID AV EUCLID AV (END) 01166 EUCLID AV (START) EUCLID AV EUCLID AVE EUCLID AV EUCLID AV (END) 01178 EUCLID AV (START) EUCLID AV EUCLID AV (END) 01210 EUCLID AV (START) EUCLID AV EUCLID AV (END) 01165 EUCLID AV (START) EUCLID AV (END) 01164 EUCLID AV (START) 01167 EUCLID RD (START) EUCLID RD EUCLID RD (END) 01203 EUCLID RD (START) EUCLID RD EUCLID RD (END) 01204 EUCLID RD (START) EUCLID RD 00.000 00.060 00.110 00.190 00.250 00.310 00.380 00.440 00.500 00.560 00.620 00.680 00.740 00.810 00.000 00.230 00.600 00.890 00.970 00.000 00.740 01.000 01.250 01.490 01.740 01.990 02.240 02.500 02.740 03.000 03.250 03.300 00.000 00.150 01.060 00.000 00.350 00.000 00.670 00.000 01.040 02.050 03.060 04.070 05.150 00.000 00.520 00.750 00.800 00.000 01.240 01.300 02.720 02.750 02.770 03.250 DORA ST (END) & SPOK U COLEMAN RD LILY RD GIRARD RD BOWMAN RD (START) PARK RD EDGERTON RD CENTER RD ELY RD ELLA RD ELTON RD (START) DICK RD (START) LEWIS RD (START) U U U U U U U U U U U U VISTA RD & MILLWOOD U FLORA RD U TSCHIRLEY RD (START) U EDEN ST (START) U MCKEE ST (START) U BARKER RD U BARKER RD R MEYERS RD (END) R CAMPBELL RD (START) R ASHTON RD (START) R KENNEY RD (START) R CORR I GAN RD (START) R HARVARD RD U ARDEN RD (START) U LYNDEN RD (START) U GARRY RD (START) U MOLTER RD (START) U STEVENSON RD (START) U RIVER RD (START) SULLIVAN RD 1ST ST FLORA RD WEST END OF ROAD SULLIVAN RD SR 27 (PINES RD) U WALK IN THE WILD ZOO U CARSTENS RD & LINCOL R STROUP RD R COULEE HITE RD R LADD RD (END) R WOOD RD R RITCHEY RD R WEST END TO GORDON R R GORDON RD (END) R Y @ EUCLID & RAMBO R R RAMBO RD R RAMBO ROAD R BR 1502 OVER DEEP CR R GARFIELD RD (START) R LYONS RD (START) R BR 1508 OVER BNRR TR R END GRAVEL /START PAV R HAYFORD RD (END) R U U U U 19 19 19 19 19 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 08 08 08 08 08 08 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 LIGHT PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED PAVED LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT PAVED LIGHT PAVED LIGHT BITUM. 16 18 18 18 18 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 BITUM. 22 BITUM. 22 BITUM. 22 BITUM. 22 BITUM. 20 BITUM. 20 BITUM. 20 BITUM. 20 BITUM. 20 BITUM. 20 BITUM. 18 BITUM. 18 BITUM. 18 BITUM. 18 BITUM. 18 BITUM. 18 BITUM. 18 40 BITUM. 32 40 BITUM. 22 19 LIGHT BITUM. 19 LIGHT BITUM. 08 GRAVEL 08 GRAVEL 08 GRAVEL 08 GRAVEL 09 GRAVEL 09 GRAVEL 09 GRAVEL 09 GRAVEL 09 GRAVEL 09 GRAVEL 09 GRAVEL 09 GRAVEL 09 GRAVEL 09 GRAVEL 09 LIGHT BITUM. 09 LIGHT BITUM. 09 GRAVEL 22 22 20 18 16 20 18 18 14 16 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 12 • PAGE 1 ' ' 1526:03 10 JUN 1996 Road# Road Names MPost. Reference Descriptio Road Log In JU fo 04448 SHANNON AV (START) SHANNON AV SHANNON AV (END) 04447 SHANNON AV (START) SHANNON AV (END) 04449 SHANNON AV (START) SHANNON AV (END) 04624 SHANNON AV (START) SHANNON AV (END) 4 Records Processed 00.000 LOCUST RD U 19 PAVED 40 00.120 FARR RD (END) U 19 PAVED 40 00.180 SUNDERLAND RD (END) U 19 PAVED 40 00.250 WOODRUFF RD U 19 PAVED 40 00.000 ELLA RD U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20 00.090 ELTON RD U 19 LIGHT BITUM. 20 00.000 HOUK AV (START) R 09 GRAVEL 18 00.320 INDIANA AV R 09 GRAVEL 14 00.000 SARGENT RD U 19 PAVED 40 00.050 DALE ST (START) U 19 PAVED 40 PAGE 1 . Road# Road Names MPost. Reference Descriptio A ' 02013 INDIANA AV (START) INDIANA AV INDIANA AV (END) 02014 INDIANA AV (START) INDIANA AV 02016 02017 INDIANA AV (END) INDIANA AV (START) INDIANA AV INDIANA AV (END) INDIANA AV (START) INDIANA AV INDIANA 02015 INDIANA INDIANA 02018 INDIANA INDIANA 02029 INDIANA INDIANA INDIANA 02011 INDIANA AV (END) AV (START) AV (END) AV (START) AV (END) AV (START) AVE (END) AV (END) AV (I -90 FRO 08002 INDIANA AVE (PROPOSE 9 Records Processed 00.000 00.040 00.090 00.130 00.150 00.170 00.240 00.280 00.330 00.400 00.480 00.000 00.060 00.120 00.190 00.000 00.500 00.890 00.000 00.240 00.480 00.740 00.000 00.230 00.000 00.230 00.000 00.040 00.040 00.000 00.600 00.000 PARK RD EDGERTON RD (START) CENTER RD (START) CENTER RD (END) ELY RD (START) ELY RD (END) ELLA RD (START) ELLA RD (END) ELTON RD (START) DICK RD (START) VISTA RD SIPPLE RD BESSIE RD LAURA RD SARGENT RD SR 27 (PINES) SHANNON AV (END) EAST END OF ROAD TSCHIRLEY RD (END) LONG RD GREENACRES RD (END) BARKER RD WEST END OF ROAD MONTGOMERY DR WEST END OF ROAD FLORA RD HUTCHINSON RD ARGONNE RD & MULLAN ARGONNE RD (ONE WAY HARVARD RD EAST END OF ROAD SR -27 1529:01 10 JUN 1996 Road Log Info U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 PAVED U 19 PAVED U 19 PAVED U 19 PAVED R 09 PAVED R 09 PAVED R 09 GRAVEL U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 LIGHT BITUM. U 19 GRAVEL U 19 PAVED U 19 GRAVEL U 19 GRAVEL U 19 PAVED U 19 PAVED U 19 PAVED R 09 LIGHT BITUM. R 09 LIGHT BITUM. R 00 WHAT? 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 40 40 40 40 42 36 14 16 16 18 18 16 40 20 20 44 44 44 18 18 N Si7J- SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION ?61 BUILDING AND PLANNING ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION PART I A . GENERAL INFORMATION: NAME OF APPLICANT /REPRESENTATIVE: Ramm Associates, Inc . , Cathy Ramm MAILING ADDRESS: 25 South Altamont CITY: Spokane STATE: WA PHONE: 534 -8086 ZIP: 99202 (work) (home) IF APPLICANT IS NOT OWNER, INCLUDE WRITTEN OWNER AUTHORIZATION FOR APPLICANT TO SERVE AS REPRESENTATIVE. LEGAL OWNER'SNAME:Inland Empire Paper Co. PHONE: 924 -1911 MAILING ADDRESS: 3320 North Argonne Road CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99212 PROJECT/PROPOSAL SITE AREA (acres or sq. ft) Approximately 236.8 acres, ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED (acres or sq. ft.) 0 45035.9091, 45101.9049, 45104.9066, ASSESSOR PARCEL #S OF PROJECT /PROPOSAL 45104-9051 , 4511 3. 9 0 2 5, 45113.9028 ASSESSOR PARCEL #'S OF ADJACENT AREA OWNED OR CONTROLLED STREET ADDRESS OF PROPOSAL None EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION(S) (DATE ESTABLISHED) 1991 RR -1 0 , UR- 3 . 5 , I - 2 Vacant except Walk in the Wild Zoo animals EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY to hp moved to _SiLv_erwood . B -2 (27 Ac.), B -3 (94.67 acres) . PROPOSED ZONING maintain existing UR -3 . 5 and I -2 zones. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY Urban, Rural, Industrial SCHOOL DISTRICT East Valley School District FIRE DISTRICT Fire District No. 1 Consolidated irrigation Dist. for most of site, the WATERPURVEYOR north area is within Irvin Water District's Service Boundary. PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: Single family dwellings ( ) Duplexes ( ) Multifamily dwellings ( ) Manufactured homes ( ) Business (x) Indutrial ) Mix e US Other ( ) - Describe: Phased multi use development o recreational/community facilities, business park, limited CommeLUidl and residential uses. LIST PREVIOUS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIONS INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY: None B . LEGAL /ZONE RECLASSIFICATION INFORMATION: LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Spokane Valley north of I -90 & east of Pines Road, SECTION 3, 10, 11 TOWNSHIP 25 RANGE 44 NAME OF PUBLIC ROAD(S) PROVIDING ACCESS: Euclid Avenue from Pines Road Shannon /McDonald railroad crossing from Indiana Avenue. WIDTH OF PROPERTY FRONTING ON PUBLIC ROAD: 750+ / - on Euclid (both sides ) 40 +/- on Shannon (SW corner of site) ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION. Page 2 of 4 DOES THE PROPOSAL HAVE ACCESS TO AN ARTERIAL OR PLANNED ARTERIAL C) YES () NO NAME(S) OF ARTERIAL ROADS Indiana Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY FOR EACH ZONE RECLASSIFICATION PROPOSED. See attached. EXISTING ZONE(S) - RR-10 TO PROPOSED ZONE(S) B-2 & B-3 FOR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY. (ATTACH LEGAL DESCRIPTION STAMPED BY LAND SURVEYOR OR PROVIDE BELOW. See attached IF YOU DO NOT HOLD TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, WHAT IS YOUR INTEREST IN IT? Owner WHAT ARE THE CHANGED CONDITIONS OF THE AREA WHICH YOU FEEL MAKE THIS PROPOSAL W D? Walk in the Wild Zoo is closed and will relocate to to Silverwood. The Spokane Valley Mall will begin building in 1996. Public sewer is available in Indiana Ave. Indiana Avenue will be fully i,�IpLv'Ic�3 (5 lane) between Pines Road and Sullivan Road. The Evergreen Interchange is scheduled with substantial funding sources committed already. WHAT IMPACT WILL THE PROPOSED ZONE RECLASSIFICATION HAVE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES? Impacts would be minimal since adjacent property includes the Spokane R'ver to e north. and east railroad -tracks and the mall Sit tOLth sOOuut, and vacant land to the west (DNR natural area). Trarfic will to the the primary impact on adjacent properties using the same roads proposed to serve this site. WHAT FACTORS SUPPORT THE ONE RECLASSIFICATION? A large part of the property was zoned Rural -10 historica y aue to the zoo w is ..a . . - . al area of this site. With abandonment of the zoo operations the Rural zone is no longer justified. The Valley needs a centrally located community center. This location combined with the mall development provides a central focus tor the Valley. WHAT MEASURES DO YOU PROPOSE TO MITIGATE YOUR PROPOSAL'S IMPACT ON SURI�QUNDING LAND USSE? The central area and area adjacent to e Centennial connections. These property areas provide a complimentary transition to adjacent natural COnnccept Master Plan tolennsure consistencyanagcompatlDilityranci thatire concept raps etions.fo€ varying lain uses are prroyid by i within the s to and 4 perime errs. A Tra is Impac a ysis will prepared to address a phased development and mitigation measures for traffic. ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION Page 3 of 4 PART II THIS SECTION OF THE APPLICATION WILL PROVIDE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF WITH WRITTEN VERIFICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS HAD PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION WITH THE AGENCIES IDENTIFIED. RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE FINAL SUBMITTAL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. FIRE MARSHALL /FIRE DISTRICT A. THIS PROPOSAL IS WITHIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. / B. ADEQUATE ARRANGEMENTS (HAVE) (HAVE NOT) BEEN MADE TO MEET OUR NEEDS IN PROVIDING FOR AN ADEQUATE WATER SYSTEM AND FACILITIES FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES. C. RECOMMENDED FIRE FLOW: ; O UNABLE TO C • 1 • TE NOW BECAUSE USE IS NOT DEFINITIVE; AND WILL BE DETERMINED AT BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TIME. Peso-r-J- 4--- D. REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE: rbO ►..Q �1'P j �-' . ?e, ka - 14 t-/ l"e lt�aC a e�(/te- -tc rs gD-- FIRE DISTRICT SIGNATIATITLE DATE WATER PURVEYOR A . SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS FORD C WATER AND FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS (HAVE) V NOT BEEN MADE. B. REQUIREMENTS /COMMENTS: ;V.2)/a.411c/ WATER DISTRICT / � I A.�. ' SIGNA't REM —ILE DATE COUNTY ENGINEER A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS AND DRAINAGE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT. A. COMMENTS: (Off /--)) SI NA E S— z y— q6. DATE COUNTY UTILITIES A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE) (HAVE NOT) BEE SATISFIED. THE DESIGNATED WATER PURVEYOR FOR THIS SITE IS x)_,5D) / /74 Ef9 A. COMMENTS: doxiCJEr To / —/Z SIGNA E DATE HEALTH DISTRICT A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN P SUBMITTAL OF THIS PROPOSAL (HAVE)( (HAVE NOT) V , A . COMMENTS: /61° El/5 r s"/ SIGNA E DATE REQUIREMENTS FOR EEN SATISFIED. a SEWER PURVEYOR A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SEWER ARE UNDERSTOOD BY THE APPLICANT. A . COMMENTS: ��/.v�Z7` 72 ) ys 7? SIGNA E DATE ZONE RECLASSIFICATION APPLICATION ' SUR • • Page 4 of 4 I, THE UNDERSIGNED, A LICENSED LAND ;' • � � :. !I D THE INFORMATION REQUESTED FOR THE ZONING AP • b'• . % �— i . • e -.4"/ . i ��`;. SIGNED: ADDRESS: SNP TE: S - Za ONE: 3/5- 4-4-; ZA c 201 ZIP: PART IV (SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERS OR LEI"1'ER OF AUTHORIZATION) I, THE UNDERSIGNED, SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE RESPONSES ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I FURTHER SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR THE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED LAND USE ACTION, OR, IF NOT THE OWNER, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF. 6(.)&41,., NAME: d eivy > Plitt C.li) DATE: ,/,Z49/9 ADDRESS: 3320 A%z�( PHONE: GcJCZ ZIP: 9 2/ 2— SIGNA OF APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE 5/2-f/F,4 DATE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) ss: t- SIGNED AND SWORN OR AFFIRMED BEFORE ME ON S DAY OF �./ . , 1996, BY �J4 >L J! NOTARY SEAL (17)72,(D,110 77,(9-7—) Notary Public in Residing at: for the State of Washington •IP • My appointment expires: PART V (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DIVISION OF BUILDING AND PLANNING) DATE SUBM1TITD: FILE #: DATE ACCEPTED: B Y: TOTAL FEES: RECEIPT #: RECE YPT SUM MAR? TRANSACTION NUMBER: T9600884 DATE: 05/29/96 APPLICANT: INLAND EMPIRE PAPER ADDRESS: 3320 N ARGONNE RD SPOKANE WA 99212 -2099 PHONE= CONTACT NAME: INLAND EMPIRE PAPER PHONE= TRANSACTION: RE -ZONE (ENGS), LAND USE ACTION REVIEW DOCUMENT ID: 1) 4) 2) 3 5) 6) COMMENTS: PARCEL NO.45625.9091 (2) CHECK(S) - NOS. 109842 & 109843 FEE & PAYMENT SUMMARY ITEM DESCRIPTION ZONING PERMIT LAND USE ACTION REVW PAYMENT DATE 05/29/96 RECEIPT# 00004676 PROCESSED BY: WENDEL, GLORIA PRINTED BY: WENDEL, GLORIA QUANTITY FEE AMOUNT 1 200.00 1 20.00 TOTAL DUE = 220.00 TOTAL PAID= 220.00 BALANCE OWING= .00 CHECK# 109842 PAYMENT AMOUNT 220.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** THANK YOU ***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** otteir Date: 1 r ERMIT'CEN''ERI PASSPORT Name ,>)/(ii& _,y Address Comments: Division of Buildin Number: • • Phone & Plannin nAddressing nBuilding Permit r-i Code Information 1 1 Commercial Review Conference Energy Code Info Fire Safety Review Manufactured Home Mechanical Permits Other Permits nPlumbing Permits Private Road Info CUSTOMER ROUTING Division of Building & Plannin nAdmin. Exception Arterial Rd flan Info Binding Site Plan Info Cert. of Exemption Comprehensive Plan Cond. Use Permit Nonconforming Use Permit Review Shorelines Info :03 OINEEW 1)114$104: nApproach Permit nFlood Plain Permit nPublic/Private Roads Res. Bldg Permit Rev. nSite Drainage Info nSubdivision Review nUtility Permit ElZone Change Review Short Plat Info Ei NO FEE REQUIRED / • evi w . - / Time out Subdivision Info Temp. Use Permit nResidential Review Variance Appl. 17 Sewer Permits n Zone Check riInformation n Zone Info n n n n Reviewer Time out MASTERTASSPOR 21 1 1 n n nNO FEE REQUIRED Reviewer Time out Arm° nAPA Payment nCert. of Exemption nSubdivision Review r]uLILrscwer info Zone Change Review n NO FEE REQUIRED Reviewer Time out S P O K A NT E RECEIVED AUG 2 4 1999 C o u NSPOiMNE000NTY ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER MICHAEL C. DEMPSEY, CHIEF EXAMINER August 24, 1999 Cathy Ramm, President Ramm Associates, Inc. South 25 Altamont Spokane, WA 99202 RE: ZE- 37 -96, Mirabeau Point Dear Ms. Ramm: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 20, 1999, regarding the interpretation of Division of Building and Planning condition #4 of my August 16 -17, 1999 written decision in the above matter. We also discussed this issue with Wayne Frost of the Inland Empire Paper Company in your telephone call to me on August 23, 1999. You have correctly interpreted this condition, with one possible exception. Public hearing review of any uses proposed in the subject area of the site could occur before the binding site process, pursuant to a detailed site plan, instead of after the binding site plan process, if desired by the applicant. Please be advised that I have no control over the administrative binding site plan process. This letter does not constitute reconsideration of my previous decision. Sincerely, //a (- atArld Michael C. Dempsey Hearing Examiner c: Wayne Frost Tammy Jones Pat Harper THIRD FLOOR PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 -0245 PHONE: (509) 324 -3490 • FAX (509) 324 -3478 • TDD: (509) 324 -3166 1 • May 25, 1999 Ms. Tammy Jones Spokane County Planning West 1026 Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0240 Re: Mirabeau Point Rezone (ZE- 37 -96) Dear Ms. Jones; The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the previously submitted environmental information on this project and as a result recommends that certain conditions of approval be implemented for this project. The following "Conditions of Approval" are submitted to the Spokane County Planning Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order/Decision" should the request be approved: 1. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase I of this project the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the following improvements. Phase I of the project is defined on page 31 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B; not to exceed 521 peak hour trips. • Provide a right turn lane on eastbound Trent Avenue at the Pines Road intersection. • The reconfiguration of the westbound approach at the Indiana Avenue/Evergreen Road intersection to provide a second westbound left turn lane and one westbound through lane. • Widening of the south leg of the Indiana Avenue/Evergreen Road intersection to provide an adequate turning radius for westbound left turning trucks with a 50 foot wheelbase (WB 50). 2. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase II the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surety of the 1 , Ili Ms. Jones May 25, 1999 Page 2 1 following improvements. Phase II of the project is defined on page 33 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B; not to exceed 1,279 peak hour trips. • Revise the existing signal and channelization at the Pines Road/Mission Avenue intersection to allow eastbound and westbound protected plus permitted left turn movements. • Provide a second eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn lane at the Pines Road/eastbound ramp intersection. • Revise the location of the westbound off ramp terminal from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue and install a new traffic signal and illumination system at the Indiana/westbound off ramp intersection. • At the Pines Road/Indiana Avenue intersection: Provide an eastbound right turn lane Reconfigure the east approach to provide one left turn lane, one through and left lane, and one right turn lane Revise the signal phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches to split phasing • Provide a traffic signal and illumination system at the Pines Road/Euclid Avenue intersection. 3. No additional mitigation is required for Phase III of this development. Phase III of the project is defined on page 33 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B; not to exceed 225 peak hour trips. 4. General conditions to apply to this development: • While the threshold air quality analysis submitted by the applicant suggests these projects will meet the air quality standards for Carbon Monoxide (CO), a project level air quality analysis will need to be conducted by the applicant. This analysis will need to be accepted by WSDOT and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council prior to the needed improvements being constructed. This analysis shall document that the allowable limits of CO will not be exceeded and that an existing CO hot spot will not be further impacted by the proposed project. Should this occur the proposed project will need to be modified accordingly to ensure the allowable levels of CO will not be exceeded. • The traffic analysis conducted for this development shall be updated by the applicant for the portion of this development for which building permits have not • Ms. Jones May 25, 1999 Page 3 Nigger been obtained by the end of the year 2006. This traffic study shall also be updated by the applicant if the cumulative traffic generation of this development exceeds 881 entering and 1,144 exiting peak hour trips. This updated analysis shall be reviewed and accepted by both WSDOT and Spokane County. • All improvements to WSDOT facilities shall be approved by WSDOT prior to construction (ie: design, drainage, illumination, electrical, surfacing, etc.). • Spokane County is now developing a traffic mitigation plan in conjunction with WSDOT for the Pines and Sullivan Corridors. Should this plan be adopted by the Board of Spokane County Commissioners the applicant may choose to participate in the plan in lieu of construction of the improvements called out in items 1 and 2 above. • Signage visible to I -90 will need to conform to the Federal and State Scenic Vista's Acts. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to contact me at 324 -6199. Sincerely, Greg Figg Transportation Planner GF: cc: Cathy Ramm, Ramm and Associates Glenn Miles, Spokane Regional Transportation Council Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Jerry Lenzi, WSDOT Regional Administrator Harold White, WSDOT Program Management Ted Trepanier, WSDOT Traffic Project File: 027 - 087 -03 a r INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. February 18, 1998 W.O. No. 96149 Glen Miles Spokane Regional Transportation Council 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane, WA 99201 RE: Revised Scope of Air Quality Analysis for Mirabeau Point Dear Glen: /44 s�^ <‘6.4 4 4• 4r1•f V r te, As discussed in a phone conversation with your staff today (February 18, 1998), the letter dated February 9, 1998 revising the scope of the air quality analysis for Mirabeau Point is incorrect and the scope of work should be revised per the following information. The reason for this confusion in the scope of the air quality analysis was a misunderstanding in the criteria for which intersections are to analyzed. As a clarification of the criteria, all intersections which are level of service LOS "D" or lower in either existing conditions, buildout without the project or buildout with the project and with improvements must be analyzed. Some of the intersections which had been removed per the February 9, 1998 letter were intersections that have levels of service with project traffic and with improvements that result in LOS "C" or higher, but have levels of service of LOS "D" or lower under existing or at buildout without project traffic. With the changes mentioned above, currently there are five intersections meet that criteria. These intersections are the Pines /Mission intersection, the Pines/EB Ramps intersection, the Pines/WB Ramps intersection, the Pines/Indiana intersection and the Pines /Trent intersection. These intersections constitute the locations included in the air quality analysis. If this revised scope is in error, please let me know as soon as possible since we are in the final stages of responding to comments on the DEIS. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. Timothy A. Schwab, P.E. TAS /tas cc: Greg Figg, WSDOT John Peterson, Spokane County Planning Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineering Steve Stairs, Spokane County Engineering Carl Bloom, Environalysis Cathy Ramm, Ramm Associates 707 West 7th • Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 509 - 458 -6840 • FAX: 509 - 458 -6844 2020 Lakewood Drive • Suite 205 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 208 -765 -7784 • FAX: 208- 769 -7277 0- Washington State Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation January 5, 1998 Mr. Tim Schwab Inland Pacific Engineering 707 West 7th Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 Eastern Region 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 -2090 (509) 324 -6000 RCEWFD .JAN 0 6 1998 RE: Mirabeau Point Air Quality Analysis Dear Mr. Schwab: We are writing in response to your December 23, 1997, letter outlining the scope of the upcoming Air Quality Analysis for the Mirabeau Point project. The scope of the upcoming analysis as outlined in your letter is acceptable to us based upon our December 23"d meeting. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact me at (509) 324- 6199. Sincerely, GREG FIGG Transportation Planner MCA:mca cc: Glen Miles, SRTC John Peterson, Spokane County Planning Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Cathy Ramm, Rarnm Associates Project File 027 - 087 -03 December 23, 1997 W.O. No. 96149 0 4 INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PECEIVED fez, SPpKANfCG Ui;;-.,. .:; ;GrPJtER Glen Miles Spokane Regional Transportation Council 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane, WA 99201 RE: Scope of Air Quality Analysis for Mirabeau Point Dear Glen: The purpose of this letter is to summarize what was discussed at the Tuesday, December 23, 1997 meeting regarding the scope of the Air Quality Analysis for the Mirabeau Point project. As stated in the meeting, all intersections in the project area that are LOS D or worse and have capacity improvements proposed, need to be analyzed. No intersections on Sullivan Road will have capacity improvements for Mirabeau Point Project and very little traffic from Mirabeau Point will use Sullivan Road. Therefore, no intersections on Sullivan Road will be analyzed. On Pines Road, the intersections at Mission Avenue, EB ramps, WB ramps, Indiana Avenue and Trent Avenue will have capacity improvements and will be analyzed. On Evergreen Road, the intersections at EB ramps and Indiana Avenue will operate at LOS D with the proposed . configuration and will also be analyzed. A total of seven intersections will be analyzed. If this scope is not correct, please let me know as soon as possible. We will be bringing an air quality consultant "on board" soon. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. Timothy A. Schwab, P.E. TAS /tas cc: Greg Figg, WSDOT John Peterson, Spokane County Planning Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineering Steve Stairs, Spokane County Engineering Cathy Ramm, Ramm Associates 707 West 7th • Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 509- 458 -6840 • FAX: 509 -458 -6844 2020 Lakewood Drive • Suite 205 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 208- 765 -7784 • FAX: 208- 769 -7277 • KAISER ALUM /NUM 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. TRENTWOOD WORKS P.O. Box 15108 Spokane, Washington 99215 -5108 509- 924 -1500 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 Mall 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 I -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: 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 • 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 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, L OP Jo H. Walker ice 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 4 fr/f11:4, A- ov ,, �,1 ..vojP/ 6L '1, C ;yl IL? �, 1I 1'O 1 IA memorandum Date: November 3, 1997 To: John Pederson, Division of Building and Planning CC: John Mercer, AICP Laurie Grimes From: Steve Davenport, AICP RE: Review Comments for the Mirabeau Point DEIS The following review comments are respectfully submitted: 1. 4.2.b Arterial Road Plan, Significant Impacts, pagey109 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 link 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. Page 1 of 4 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 commuriity f ilities 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. Underground facilities could provide for migratory access of wildlife as well as pedestrian access. 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 land 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 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. 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 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 Measur , page 72 Please see comments in item # 5 above concerning the use o1FCC &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 4of4 lgt-f 5 z cc 2 /1/1■33.3 11451DINTN. 41:1!4 I'VT■ACI I4A4 IONA( COW4(4041. • rfpc.... soma mono', P0dCA011 MLA (APPRO. MI KACS) tO ott toota .4.N3w3 N.C‘ts COHCELDTML NLT 444.4.. 14 sOCI 1144140 our, 0•141 144111 413444.44 3.0.4 44/.... el 1.13w 3. IC II. 33 N. Roo, 44 044 • M. Spokon• County. Washington ‘44,4*. 14. Nee 3311 Uno Graphic Scale 1 PL&H 0 000 400 0 0 100 1000 you. Na.a. 6.3 (toucAnomm. COMM :MUCCI MO 333111 UNION COMM C341(31. CINTOIN.L. 110 work T0(N CC .11. f(IDS) AN. 444(4 (CONATIO tf VI) IN 310 1.444.33 0. On. 51,44( IZAMM ASSOCI4111 INC SOON IS atiaNONT •41..NCTON 31301 1.-36,3 134 .84 I. 4444 14.4.4.441 • 4444IC431 Ce444.0•1443 1110ACT IKILIN3e3Fr (YWCA) 4.104 NOM LWOW =HT lwr 10 WYE 1141..o FA CAMS*. '4'0:HASA AVE. r 'Uttar 34.1.13r0 11 (403144 MK( 1414:XT Of 3143 VOW( WWI WU. N - El SIP intersection at Indiana Avenue, an at -grade railroad crossing, a bridge across the Spokane River, and acquisition of right -of -way through the Kaiser Trentwood facility. Construction of Indiana Avenue was recently completed in July 1997. Due to the timing of the Indiana Avenue design and construction, along with grade and railroad crossing considerations, it was determined that a connection as shown on the Arterial Road Plan would not be feasible. An at -grade fully signalized railroad crossing was approved by the Washington Utilities and Trade Commission and Spokane County further to the west at the proposed intersection with Mirabeau Parkway as shown on the Mirabeau Point Master Plan. During construction of Indiana Avenue, filling and grading was completed to provide for the necessary grade connection with the proposed Mirabeau Parkway. b. Significant Impacts The proposed project includes an Arterial Road Plan amendment which would (1) remove Evergreen Road as a Principal Arterial north of Indiana and through the project site, and (2) designate Mirabeau Parkway and Euclid Avenue as minor arterials from Indiana Avenue north to Pines Road. Development of Mirabeau Parkway as proposed would provide a Tess direct north -south route via a new minor arterial linking Indiana Avenue and Pines Road. This would replace linking Indiana Avenue and Trent Road with extension of Evergreen Road as a principal arterial. The proposed minor arterial designation for Mirabeau Parkway and Euclid Avenue would link Indiana Avenue (a minor arterial) with Pines Road (a principal arterial). Access to Mirabeau Parkway would be provided to properties adjacent and within the project site and off -site traffic would be distributed between a principal arterial and a minor arterial. Further analysis regarding circulation and traffic impacts is provided in Section 4. 1 Transportation Systems/Vehicular Traffic. Air quality impacts are discussed in Section 2.1 Air Quality. fr5, Qro'�� The County has received TIB fund n for construction and is currently designing Y 9 Mirabeau Parkway as a five lane collector arterial from Indiana Avenue north for approximately 1,300 feet, transitioning to a three lane roadway, and continuing north 3,200 feet to Euclid Avenue. c. Mitigating Measures The proposed project will participate in funding construction of the Evergreen Interchange, which will include extension of the existing Evergreen Road as a principal arterial north from Sharp Avenue to Indiana Avenue. This would implement a portion of the Arterial Road Plan map, which indicates development of a principal arterial at Evergreen Road extending north /south at its present alignment. The provision of a new arterial (Mirabeau Parkway) within the project site will provide north -south access between Pines and Sullivan Roads, which may Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 109 September 1997 95 -024B ''111,4, Water Tank • sf Iatvan ttttttttttttt'ttt' Collector Arterial 111111111 State Highway �rpRACiUEI SOURCE: SPOKANE COUNTY ARTERIAL ROAD PLAN MAP M A s s o c► A► t s 'He South 25 Aitamont Spokane. Washington 99202 MIRABEAU POINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT s • b. Significant Impacts Comprehensive Plan The existing RR -10 and 1 -2 zoning within the majority of the site is consistent with the Rural and Industrial categories of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The existing 1 -2 zoning in the northern area is not consistent with its current Urban land use designation. The proposed project includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment from the existing Rural designation to Major Commercial and Urban designations (see Figure 3). The subsequent zone reclassifications to B -2 and B -3 also proposed would implement the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map designation. The existing Rural designation of the site is essentially a historic carryover which served to retain the site's rural character while the former Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo was in operation. Since the Zoo is now closed, this Rural designation is no longer necessary. In addition the site is almost entirely surrounded by urban land use designations (see Figure 11). The site's location within the IUGA boundary indicates that urban level Comprehensive Plan categories are appropriate for the area. Therefore the following analysis focuses on a comparison of the proposed Concept Master Plan with the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the Major Commercial category of the County's Comprehensive Plan • is to provide the opportunity for development of commercial uses, specifically community and regional shopping centers and commercial uses, directly related to major thoroughfares. A detailed definition of the Major Commercial category as found in the County's Comprehensive Plan follows: DETAILED DEFINITION OF MAJOR COMMERCIAL A. Density Characteristics: Residential use in Major Commercial areas is not intended to be high priority in this category and may be limited to pre- existing uses. Certain residential uses, particularly multifamily developments, may be compatible through the use of proper screening and performance standards. 6. Characteristic Features: The Major Commercial Category will be composed of three different types of commercial development: shopping centers, highway and arterial commercial strips, and freeway commercial. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 54 September 1997 95 -024B 1 t , I The shopping centers are further broken down into three subcategories (neighborhood, community and regional) which relate to size of site, trade area to be served and type of tenants within the shopping center. The tenants range from supermarkets, drug stores and Laundromats to full -time department stores, highly specialized shops and professional offices. The consumer goods offered in strip development frequently differ from those found in shopping centers. Typical businesses found along a strip often include new and used car sales, fast -food establishments, bars and fruit /produce stands. Freeway Commercial areas are usually made up of more specialized commercial uses. Freeway interchange areas are usually oriented to single stops along the freeway for food, gas and lodging. Major Commercial areas feature high- intensity uses. The heavy automobile traffic and the related congestion may create pollution problems, especially along the commercial strip developments. The shopping center is a commercial development which is generally designed, developed, operated and controlled by a single ownership, with off - street parking facilities placed on the site to serve all of the establishments in the center. The centers may range in size from 4 acres with 30,000 square feet of leasable floor space to over 50 acres with 1,000,000 square feet of leasable floor space. Highway and arterial strip commercial areas will usually be made up of businesses on individual parcels clustered along a heavily traveled street or highway, each providing off - street parking. Shopping is not done by walking from one store to another, but rather is of a single - purpose nature. Freeway commercial uses are generally found at freeway interchanged where ease of access to and from the freeway is possible. Normally, these locations will be moderately landscaped and provide adequate off - street parking for customers. Most commercial development will be on relatively flat land and buildings will be of a low profile. Paved parking, streets and man -made structures will dominate the site, with few natural features to be found. C. Public Services and Facilities: Major Commercial areas require a full line of services and utilities. These include service by, or commitment to, sanitary and storm sewers, public Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 55 September 1997 95 -024B r:;?1 ipa water systems and underground utilities such as telephone, gas and electricity. Also available will be paved and lighted streets, parking Tots, street maintenance, garbage collection and police and fire protection. D. Noncompatible Uses: In most cases intensive farming activities, mining and heavy industrial uses would be incompatible with Major Commercial uses. Likewise, most single - family residential areas and schools would not be compatible or appropriate within the Major Commercial Category unless proper screening and performance standards are established. The Spokane County Comprehensive Plan contains numerous goals and objectives intended to guide Spokane County in its decision - making regarding land development in Major Commercial areas. The Plan's goals and objectives, along with a discussion of the relationship of the proposal to the goals and objectives of the Major Commercial designation, are addressed below. GOAL 6.1 PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL LAND IN A MANNER WHICH IS COMPLEMENTARY AND COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT LAND USES AND THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. Objective 6.1a - Commercial developments should be buffered to protect adjacent areas. The proposed project will be constructed in three phases over a 10- to 15- year period, depending upon market conditions (see Figure 6). The first phase will contain the following commercial uses: a YMCA facility with an indoor aquatics center, teen center, and gymnasium; an ice arena which would include two separate ice rinks (sheets); and other various retail and commercial uses. A community complex is also planned which will house a performing arts center, educational classrooms, a planetarium, a senior center, and, perhaps the Centennial Trail headquarters. Approximately 35.3 , acres within Phase 1 will be retained as a natural open space area and will include expansion of the existing soft trails into an interpretive trail system (see Table 1). Phase 1 contains buffer areas and spatial separation of the proposed and adjacent uses (see Figure 5). Directly adjacent and west of the natural open space area is the Pinecroft Natural Area Preserve, located on land previously owned by Inland Empire Paper Company and transferred to the Nature Conservancy. This land is now owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. The project proponents have also committed to Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 56 September 1997 95 -0248 transferring ownership of approximately 10 to 11 acres to the County Parks Department for future development of a public park within the project site. The Centennial Trail is located on property owned by the State Parks and Recreation Commission and is located between the Spokane River and the site along the entire northeastern site boundary. The project site is located outside of the 200 -foot shoreline and 250 -foot riparian buffers required for the Spokane River. Where it appears that the project may infringe upon that buffer area, the area will be field verified and development activity will be setback in excess of 250 feet from the Spokane River. Phase 1 will include public access to the Centennial Trail trailhead. Open space corridors and pedestrian pathways are an integral part of the proposed Master Plan project, in that they will provide a transition between the various commercial and recreational uses within the project site. Sidewalks will be developed throughout the site adjacent to the landscaped swale areas which will separate the sidewalks from the internal roadway system. In some areas of the site, sidewalks will meander through open space landscaped areas, which will provide buffers between different on -site uses, adjacent uses, and roadways. Pedestrian circulation will be prominent throughout the site with convenient access to the Centennial Trail. The proposal requests Commercial Comprehensive Plan designations on two separate areas of the site. The southern proposed commercial area is generally compatible with adjacent land 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, a minor arterial. 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 Euclid Avenue. The land surrounding this area is currently undeveloped to the north and preserved as a natural area to the south. Commercial uses will be limited in the northerly commercial area to only certain uses in the B -2 zone which would be compatible with the Urban Comprehensive Plan category and the existing and planned uses for the area. The Commercial Comprehensive Plan category is required to implement the Master Plan's mixed uses including the proposed recreational and support commercial uses such as an RV park and entertainment /recreational facilities which are only allowed in the B -2 and B- 3 zones. Please refer to the discussion under Zoning below. Objective 6.1.b - Provide for aesthetics of development along County Arterials and State Highways or Freeways. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 57 September 1997 95 -024B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 As discussed above, open space landscaped areas will provide buffers between on -site uses and adjacent roadways. The Mirabeau Point Design Guidelines will address issues regarding building appearances, open space areas, signage, storage and refuse areas, landscaping, and other aesthetic and compatibility concerns. Each individual project proposed for the project site will undergo review by the Mirabeau Point Architectural Review Committee to ensure consistency with the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines will be enforced using established Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs). Objective 6.1.c - Require developers to provide sufficient land for off - street parking at commercial sites. All potential uses will be able to provide the required number of off - street parking spaces (see Table 1 and Figure 5). Objective 6.1.d - Encourage adequate circulation patterns and commercial areas and provide planned access to public transit. A network of roads is illustrated on the proposed Concept Master plan that would serve the major development areas of the site (see Figure 5). A new public north -south roadway (Mirabeau Parkway) will be developed as a - collector arterial and provide a connection between Euclid and Indiana Avenues. Other roads to be constructed on -site consist of local access public and private roads as indicated on the Master Plan. The proposed development for each area of the site will require a detailed site plan which will be consistent with the overall Master Plan and will require Spokane County approval prior to acquisition of a building permit. New public and private roads will be developed within the site in accordance with the Spokane County Division of Engineering Standards for Public and Private Roads. - - Pedestrian circulation will be facilitated by sidewalks throughout the site and several locations for public transit stops will be provided within the site. These locations will be coordinated with existing and planned public transit facilities and routes in the area. An amendment to the County Arterial Road Plan map is proposed to include designation of Mirabeau Parkway and Euclid Avenue as minor arterials from Indiana Avenue north and west to Pines Road. Objective 6.1.e. - Encourage tourist facilities in areas where there is ease of access to major tourist routes. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 58 September 1997 95 -024B l The site is located just north of Interstate -90 between the Pines Road and Sullivan Road interchanges (see Figure 2). Both these interchanges would serve as access points from 1 -90 to the site. Additional access will be provided to the site from 1 -90 following completion of the proposed Evergreen Road interchange directly south of the project site. North and south of the site Sullivan Road is identified on the County Arterial Road Map as a Principal Arterial. North of the site Pines Road is also a Principal Arterial. South of the site, Pines Road is identified as State Route 27. A new public north -south arterial (Mirabeau Parkway) is planned to provide connection between Euclid and Indiana Avenues. A new signal will be constructed at the Mirabeau Parkway /Indiana Avenue intersection and a fully signalized railroad crossing will be constructed just north of this intersection. Objective 6.1.f - Encourage multiple -use centers. The proposed plans for this project are best described as a multiple use master planned development. The uses include a combination of public and private recreational, educational, entertainment, residential, and compatible business uses in a "campus -like" setting (see Figure 5). The compatibility of similar uses will be achieved through such cooperative design techniques such as clustering of similar uses, shared parking facilities, and landscaped buffers. Objective 6.1.g - Encourage the clustering of commercial uses that are oriented toward the urban or regional market. The site is centrally located in the Spokane Valley and is immediately northwest of the new Spokane Valley Mall. Those proposed commercial uses that have an orientation to urban and regional markets are clustered in the southeast portion of the site. This location focuses their physical orientation within the site toward Indiana Avenue and the freeway interchanges (see Figure 5). Objective 6.1.h - Light industry should be allowed to locate in well- designed cluster areas with commercial activities when they are compatible. The existing 1 -2 zoning on the site would permit the location of certain "light industry," such as research and development and light assembly. Commercial uses are also allowed in the 1 -2 zone. The Master Plan envisions a light industrial office park in the southeast area of the site. Compatibility concerns will be addressed by the Mirabeau Point Design Guidelines which will address issues regarding building appearances, open space areas, signage, storage and refuse areas, landscaping, and other Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 59 September 1997 95 -024B 1 1 1 1 1 w e ■ aesthetic concerns. The Design Guidelines, enforced by Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs), will provide an extra measure beyond the County Zoning Code to address both aesthetic and compatibility issues for future site development. Objective 6.1.i - Encourage business districts in scale with the needs of the population throughout the County. The Mirabeau Point master plan anticipates development of potential uses in a phased improvement schedule resulting in a mixed use regional center. Existing population numbers currently indicate the need for a community center, ice arena, and YMCA facility. Full build -out of the site is anticipated to occur over a 10- to 15 -year period, depending upon market conditions (see Figure 6). While the need for community recreational facilities is well documented, the need for a substantial increase in unspecified commercial property is not readily apparent. Recent development of the Spokane Valley Mall as well as significant increases in commercial development along Sullivan Road have occurred. Also, there are significant areas of approved, but undeveloped commercial properties in Spokane County which begs the question "Why is more commercial needed ?" Many of the planned and anticipated future uses for Mirabeau Point require a Commercial land use designation and commercial zoning. The broader commercial areas are requested to allow flexibility in locating specific uses within the mixed use Master Plan. Some specific uses requiring a commercial designation include: entertainment and recreational facilities (bingo hall, dance hall, skating rink), recreational vehicle parks, rental shops, colleges and trade schools, specialized schools, resorts, libraries, museums, exercise facilities and spas, indoor archery and or firearms range, art gallery /studio, and bowling alleys. Many of these uses may locate at the Mirabeau Point site since it would be a central recreational and entertainment focal point for the Spokane Valley. These types of uses typically generate additional commercial support uses which may include retail and restaurant type uses. The commercial uses which will be allowed in the northerly commercial area along Euclid Avenue will be limited to specific uses allowed in the B-2 zone which are considered compatible with the adjacent existing and planned uses. Objective 6.1.j - Consider small -scale convenience stores and commercial ONenterprises adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The Urban land use designation north of Euclid is identified for future ' residential use in the Mirabeau Point Master Plan. Other adjacent residential Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 60 Septwnbef 1997 95 -024B f areas are located further west near Pines Road. The mixed use development planned for Mirabeau Point would put some limited commercial uses in the northern area along Euclid Avenue in close proximity to future residential uses. The southern area and the Spokane Valley Mall would provide commercial uses serving a more regional population base. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment also includes a change to the Urban designation for the central portion of the site (45.3 acres). Since the project site is located within the IUGA boundary (see Section 1.3 Relationship to Growth Management Act for further information), this request was included to provide consistency with the surrounding urban level land use designations. However, most of this area (35.3 acres) would be permanently retained as a natural open space area. An additional 10 to 11 acres have been identified for donation to the County Division of Parks, Recreation and Fair (see Figure 3). Neither of these areas are proposed for an urban level of development and the design guidelines and CC &Rs will stipulate their use and maintenance. Deed restrictions will be placed on the natural open space area to ensure its permanent status as open space. The intent of the Urban category of the County's Comprehensive Plan is to provide the opportunity for development of a "citylike" environment. This includes various land uses, intensive residential development, and public facilities and services, such as water, sanitary and storm sewer lines, police and fire protection, and other features. Portions of the detailed definition of the Urban category as found in the County's Comprehensive Plan follows as it relates to this proposal: DETAILED DEFINITION OF URBAN B. Characteristic Features: Since Urban areas will be the most intensely developed of all the categories, it is primarily a residential category of single - family, two - family, multifamily, and condominium buildings along with neighborhood commercial, light industrial, and public and recreational facilities. Agricultural activities will be very limited and considered a secondary use. The aesthetic setting will be predominately man -made structures with occasional natural or planned open spaces. Most areas in an Urban setting may not have a view of natural areas, and open spaces will most likely consist of park and /or school grounds. Low -to- moderate levels of noise and air pollution will most likely exist in Urban areas due to the intensity of activities and the high volume of traffic generated. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 61 September 1997 95 -024B 1 The more intensive land uses such as Tight industrial and neighborhood commercial will be located near the heavily traveled streets, while the least intensive single - family residential uses will be isolated from the noise and heavy traffic. Multifamily structures will usually be a transitional use located between single - family residential and the more intensive areas. D. Noncompatible Uses: Due to the variety and mix of land uses and activities found in the Urban Category, there are few land use activities that would be inappropriate. make Many uses may require screening or other performance standards m them compatible with one another. Mining, major commercial users, heavy ay y industrial uses, and intensive farming would not be compatible within Urban areas. GOAL 1.2 ENCOURAGE A VARIETY OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACES THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL PEOPLE IN OUR RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Objectives 1.2.a. - Support increased cluster development providing for open spaces within the development. The proposed project will cluster commercial and retail uses in the southeastern portion of the site. The ice arena is located in the southwest corner of the site. Those portions of the site located between the ice future e and the future business park in the southeast are reserved fo recreation /business uses (see Figure 3). Proposed community uses are again clustered northward towards the central portion of the site. Those uses include a YMCA facility with an indoor aquatics center, teen center, and gymnasium and a community complex housing a performing arts center, educational classrooms, a planetarium, a senior center, and perhaps the Centennial Trail headquarters. The potential for a hotel in this area of the site also exists. Approximately 45.3 acres in the central portion of the site are proposed for Urban Comprehensive Plan designation. Approximately 35.3 acres of this area will be permanently retained as natural open space (see Figure 3). The remaining 10 to 11 acres have been identified for donation to the County Parks Department for future development of a public park. Environmental and design considerations include the retention of unique physical features space and potentially valuable plant communities within the central open soft trail public park areas. The natural open space area would include a into the system and interpretive signs. The trail system would tie Spokane Centennial Trail and former Mirabeau County Park area along the S p River adjacent to the Mirabeau Point site. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 62 September 1997 95 -024B Objective 1.2.c. - Identify historic sites and preserve the most significant, by appropriate legislation, as parks and open space. The former Mirabeau County Park area is noted for both geologic and historic /archeological significance. Large granite bedrock outcrops rise above the valley floor and historically provided many sheltered areas along the west bank of the Spokane River. Investigations in 1991 along the Centennial Trail by the Center for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University indicate that the Mirabeau Park area contains evidence of historic /archeological significance. The portion of the project site immediately adjacent to the west of the Mirabeau Park area will be permanently retained as natural open space in order to preserve the identified areas of historic and cultural significance (see Section 3.0). The natural open space area will contain a soft trail system and interpretive signs and will tie into the future County Park, the Centennial Trail, and the former Mirabeau County Park area along the Spokane River. GOAL 1.3 ENCOURAGE CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION OF NATURAL FEATURES AND VISTAS WITHIN THE COUNTY. Objective 1.3.a - Guide development by environmental concerns and natural limitation rather than thwart development solely by desire to protect environment. Objective 1.3.b - Future developments should be encouraged in a manner to least disturb the natural elements in the environment. The natural limitations and features of the site have been considered in the design of the proposal (see Figure 5). Approximately 35.3 acres of the site will be permanently retained as a natural open space area (see Objective 1.2.c above). Objective 1.3.c - Residential platting should be developed with public sewers where it can be established that alternatives would be a threat to the water source. Phase 3 includes development of the northern portion of the site along both sides of Euclid Avenue, north of the proposed natural open space area. The 1 -2 zone located north of Euclid Avenue is designated Urban in the County's Comprehensive Plan and it is anticipated to crossover to a future residential zone after the County completes the GMA planning requirements (see Section 1.3). Future residential uses developed north of Euclid Avenue, as well as commercial uses south of Euclid Avenue will be served by the County sewer system. Development of Phase 3 would also require water system improvements and extension of water mains by Irvin Water District Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 63 September 1997 95 -024B Foi 1 • No. 6. Development of the Phase 3 area would likely occur within the next 10 to 15 years. Objective 1.3.d - Future activities affecting the shoreline areas in the County should be guided by the Shoreline Master Program. The Washington State owned Centennial Trail property is located between the project site and the Spokane River. The site is located outside the 200 - foot shoreline regulatory area associated with the Spokane River. In areas where the site appears close to the required 200 -foot shoreline area, the distance will be field verified and development activity will be setback from the Spokane River in order to comply with the Spokane County Shoreline Program. GOAL 1.4. MARSHES AND FLOODPLAINS, STEEP SLOPES, AND OTHER HAZARD AREAS OR LOW - PRODUCING LANDS SHOULD BE GUIDED AS APPROPRIATE INTO RANGELAND, FOREST, WILDLIFE HABITAT, OPEN SPACE, RECREATION, AND OTHER USES. Objective 1.4 a - Identify and manage flood plains and other hazard areas to prevent Toss of life and property. Objective 1.4.b - Identify fragile wildlife areas and vanishing species needing protection and develop methods for such protection. Unique environmental areas should be conserved and made available for educational purposes. The unique environmental and physical features of the site will be permanently retained within the approximately 35.3 -acre natural area open space area which will include a soft trail system and interpretive signs. Several public access points to the trail system are included as part of the proposed project (see Figure 5). Objective 1.4.c - Spokane County should continue acquisition of parks and recreation areas as well as areas of scenic or natural beauty to relieve recreational pressures on agricultural lands. Inland Empire Paper Company transferred approximately 88 acres to the Nature Conservancy that are located directly adjacent to the west of the proposed natural open space area within the project site. The adjacent area is now called the Pinecroft Natural Area Preserve and is owned by the State Department of Natural Resources. The project proponents have committed to transfer ownership of approximately 10 to 11 acres to the County Division of Parks, Recreation and Fair. This property is located directly adjacent to the central 35.3 -acre Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 64 September 1997 95 -024B ti . natural open space area. Spokane County currently maintains a rest stop area adjacent to the Centennial Trail at the former Mirabeau County Park along the Spokane River. GOAL 1.6 AN ORDERLY PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED AREAS. Objective 1.6 a - Utility services such as water, sewer, power, and natural gas should be orderly and properly coordinated with Land Use Planning. Site improvements would be constructed over a 10- to 15 -year period, depending on market conditions. Site improvements would occur in three phases as shown on the Phasing Plan Map (see Figure 6). The proposed development will conform to all the plans, policies, and regulations of County water, sewer, storm sewer, utility, special service districts, and transportation plans and policies. All utilities will be extended in an orderly and coordinated manner for each development phase. Transportation impacts can be mitigated by phased orderly development and the road improvements discussed in Section 4.0 Transportation. The proposed project includes an Arterial Road Plan amendment which would (1) remove Evergreen Road as a principal arterial north of Indiana and through the project site, and (2) designate Mirabeau Parkway and Euclid Avenue as minor arterials from Indiana Avenue north to Pines Road (see Figure 15). The physical features within and adjacent to the project site (significant rock out- croppings and the Spokane River), as well as adjacent land uses (Kaiser Trentwood and railroad crossings) severely limit the feasibility of north -south arterial routes between Pines and Sullivan Roads. The future development of Evergreen Road is not feasible at the location shown on the Arterial Road Plan map due to significant grade constraints, required railroad and bridge crossings over the Spokane River, and right of way acquisition through the Kaiser Trentwood facility (see Section 4.2 Arterial Road Plan for further information). Development of Mirabeau Parkway as proposed would provide a less direct north - south route via a new minor arterial linking Indiana Avenue and Pines Road. This would replace linking Indiana Avenue and Trent Road with extension of Evergreen Road as a principal arterial. Properties north of the project site (including Kaiser Trentwood) would continue to access 1 -90 via Pines or Sullivan Roads east and west of the project site. Access via a minor arterial (Mirabeau Parkway) would be provided to properties within and adjacent to the project site and off -site traffic would be distributed between a principal arterial (Pines Road) and a minor arterial (Indiana Avenue). Further analysis regarding circulation and traffic impacts is provided in Section 4.1 Transportation Systems/Vehicular Traffic. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 65 September 1997 95 -0248 • Zoning The proposed zoning reclassifications to Community Business (B -2) and Regional Business (B -3) would implement the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment and allow development of the uses proposed. The intent of the B -2 zone is to provide for the establishment of commercial centers with a wide range of retail and service uses which will meet the needs of a community and to implement the Major Commercial category of the Comprehensive Plan. The B -2 zone 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, usually within a distance of approximately one to one and one -half (1-1/2) miles of the zone. Community shopping facilities are intended to be provided, where possible, in one business island centrally located in the trade area or in business clusters. General characteristics of these areas include paved roads and sidewalks, public sewer and water, and a full line of public services including manned fire protection and public transit availability. Any B -2 zoned area should not be larger than twenty (20) acres in size with frontage on a minor arterial or higher classification roadway not exceeding fourteen hundred (1,400) feet. This project proposes a zone change to B -2 for the northeast portion of the site (17 acres), which is Tess than the suggested 20 acre maximum discussed above. The commercial uses envisioned for this area include an RV park on approximately 8 acres and limited retail and commercial uses on approximately 9 acres (see Figure 5). Because the proposed commercial uses would be located in proximity to a future residential area to the north, they may conform to the B -2 zoning intent of accommodating "community shopping facilities" serving a trade area encompassing several neighborhoods. However, the primary intent is for recreation, entertainment, educational and support commercial uses in the B -2 area. The full range of uses allowed in the B -2 zone will be limited to provide compatibility with adjacent existing and planned uses (see Mitigating Measures below). The types of uses allowed in the B -2 zone would place more demand on public services than the uses permitted outright and by conditional use permit in the current zoning classification of RR -10 (see Table 2). However, certain RR -10 permitted uses, such as schools and community halls /recreation facilities and uses allowed by conditional use permit such as hospitals, would still demand an urban level of public services (i.e. public sewer and water). The majority of the zoning reclassification requested by the proponent (94.5 acres) is to Regional Business (B -3). The purpose of the B -3 zone is to provide for a wide range of retail and service businesses and to implement the Major Commercial category of the Comprehensive Plan. Typical B -3 uses often draw customers from the county at large and outlying areas and the zone is intended to encourage Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 66 September 1997 95-024B .. regional- serving commercial areas and commercial development along principal arterials or highways. The proposed B -3 zoned area would not front on a principal arterial, but would be provided direct access from a new collector arterial (Mirabeau Parkway) that is proposed to be designated as a minor arterial through amendment of the Arterial Road Plan. General characteristics of the B -3 zone include paved roads, sidewalks, public sewer and water, and a full line of public services including manned fire protection and public transit accessibility. Except for along the western site boundary, the B -2 and B -3 zoning classifications proposed would be more consistent with the surrounding higher intensity 1 -2, 1 -3, and UR -22 zones than the existing lower intensity RR -10 zone. The 1 -2 zone located north of Euclid Avenue is designated Urban in the County's Comprehensive Plan. This zone is inconsistent with the current Urban designation and it is anticipated to crossover to a future residential zone after the County completes the GMA planning requirements (see Section 1.3). This area is identified for future residential use in Phase 3 of the project which is not likely to occur for 10 to 15 years, therefore no rezone is proposed at this time. c. Mitigating Measures The proposed project complies with most of the goals and policies of the Major Commercial and the Urban categories of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the B -2 and B -3 zones. The provision of a new arterial (Mirabeau Parkway) will provide north -south access between Pines and Sullivan Roads which may partially compensate for removal of any future Evergreen Road arterial north of Indiana Avenue and through the project site. To mitigate the potential of incompatible land use 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. The natural open space area preserves and enhances the unique natural areas within the site and also complements the future County park, adjacent Pinecroft Natural Area Preserve, and the Centennial Trail. Phasing the project over a period Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 67 September 1997 95 -024B of 10 to 15 years will allow for the appropriate coordination of utilities and other public services. 1.2 Relationship to County Shoreline Program a. Affected Environment The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) requires each county to implement their own provisions for the comprehensive management of uses affecting qualifying shorelines. In the case of the Spokane River, this includes public waters and the area 200 feet landward from the ordinary high water mark, or the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater (WAC 173 -22). In Spokane County the Shoreline Program was recognized by the State as effective on January 15, 1975. The program designates shoreline management areas in five categories (Natural, Pastoral, Conservancy, Rural, and Urban) which provide the framework for implementing shoreline policies and regulatory measures. The majority of the shoreline area adjacent to the Spokane River in the vicinity of the project site is designated as Pastoral, with a smaller portion designated as Conservancy. The area designated as Conservancy corresponds to the former Mirabeau County Park property located adjacent to the northeastern site boundary. The Pastoral Area designation is described as follows in the Spokane County Shoreline Program: The Pastoral area is intended to protect and maintain those shorelines which have historically been subject to limited human interference and have preserved their natural quality as wildlife habitat and places of scenic beauty. These areas are appropriate for passive agricultural and recreational uses. Areas most appropriate are 1) open spaces used for livestock grazing and harvesting of non - cultivated crops, 2) shorelines which have physical limitations which would preclude permanent structures, such as floodplains, meandering streamways, cliffs, and steep slope areas subject to landslides, and 3) wildlife habitats and areas of beauty whose ecological systems will only tolerate limited human interference. Because the areas are not suited for permanent structures, they are valued wildlife areas which provide for grazing and "wild hay" for dispersed -use outdoor recreation. Management of the area should be designed to prevent the Toss or reduction of the wetland area and to restrict development from hazardous areas. The Conservancy Area designation is described as follows in the Spokane County Shoreline Program: Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 68 September 1997 95 -024B The Conservancy Area is designated in Spokane County for the purpose of maintaining the existing character of shoreline resources while providing for non - intensive uses. Those uses that are preferred in the Conservancy Area are those which may utilize the natural resources on a sustained yield basis. These uses include passive agricultural activity, timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis, and diffuse outdoor recreation. The Conservancy Area is designated to protect agricultural land from encroachment by urban uses while providing for recreation wherever recreation will not interfere with agricultural practices. Non - permanent kinds of structures and uses which will not reduce the quantity or quality of the physical and biological resources of the area are to be given priority in the Conservancy Area. The Conservancy Area is intended to prohibit intensive use of areas having I physical hazards, severe biophysical limitations which would not be f appropriate for rural or urban uses, areas prone to flooding, and areas which I cannot provide adequate water supply or sewage disposal for intensive activities. b. Significant Impacts The proposed project will comply with all the policies and regulations of the Spokane County Shoreline Program. Policies and regulations for shoreline use are outlined in the County's Shoreline Program for the following activities: agriculture, aquaculture, forest management practices, commercial development, marinas, mining, signs and outdoor advertising, residential development, utilities, water - related industry, solid waste disposal, roads, railroads and bridges, archaeological areas and historical sites, recreation, landfill, dredging, bulkheads, piers and docks, and shoreline protection structures. These policies and regulations apply to all water areas, submerged land, associated marshes, bogs, swamps, floodways, river deltas and floodplains, and all lands within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the designated shorelines of statewide significance and shorelines of the state, including the Spokane River. The State owned Centennial Trail and the former Mirabeau County Park area is located between the project site and the Spokane River. Review of the Spokane County Shorelines maps indicates that the northeastern boundary of the project site is located outside of the 200 -foot shoreline regulatory area. If the project site is located outside of the 200 -foot shoreline regulatory area, and stormwater run- off or other types of potential off -site releases are not expected to impact this shoreline area, the proposed project will not be required to obtain a Substantial Development Permit. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 69 September 1997 95 -024B IMM c. Mitigating Measures In areas where the site boundary appears close to the 200 -foot shoreline regulatory area, the distance will be field verified prior to final design. If any portion of the project site is located within the shoreline area, the proposed development activity in that area will be moved away from the Spokane River shoreline regulatory area to avoid impacting the shorelines. 1.3 Relationship to the Growth Management Act a. Affected Environment Due to its population growth rate over the last ten years, Spokane County was required to implement the Growth Management Act (GMA) on July 1, 1993. The first GMA task to be completed by the County was the development of County- wide Planning Policies (CWPPs). The County-wide Planning Policies and Environmental Analysis for Spokane County was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on December 22, 1994. These policies provide broad statements which establish an overall framework for development of the County's and cities GMA comprehensive plans and subsequent development regulations. The GMA contains specific time frames by which local governments must complete certain elements of this state -wide land use law. For Spokane County, that meant that after the adoption of the CWPPs, critical areas (wetlands, frequently flooded areas, aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous, and fish and wildlife habitats) were delineated and ordinances developed and adopted. Natural resource lands (agricultural, forest, mining, and land of long -term commercial significance) designations went through a similar process. This GMA requirement applies to all counties within the state regardless of whether they are planning under GMA. The adoption of Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) boundaries was completed by Spokane County in February 1997. The development of IUGA boundaries required the re- evaluation of all existing policies and plans related to urban growth. For Spokane County, this included the re- evaluation of the existing 1990 Comprehensive Plan and existing Urban Impact Area (UIA) boundaries and policies. Along with the County -wide Planning Policies, IUGA boundaries are based on a twenty (20) year population allocation for all of Spokane County, employment forecasts, the provision of urban utilities and services, land use capacity, and land availability. RIM Interim development regulations associated with the IUGA were also adopted in February 1997, which implement urban and rural land use designations throughout the County. The interim regulations establish a framework for regional cooperation Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 70 September 1997 95 -0248 and for joint planning and interlocal agreements between the County, the cities, and special districts. At the conclusion of 1997, all jurisdictions within the County are scheduled to complete their GMA comprehensive plans, accompanied by the appropriate environmental documents. Late in 1997 the IUGAs will be revised, if necessary, to create final UGA boundaries. Final development regulations consistent with the comprehensive plans are required to be implemented within one year after the jurisdiction's GMA comprehensive plan is adopted. Final UGAs and GMA comprehensive plans are intended to be reviewed periodically and adjusted as appropriate. The project site is located within the adopted IUGA boundary. Properties included within the IUGA are generally classified as urban. Under the GMA, an urban designation denotes the ability to develop land at urban densities with urban services. Properties outside the IUGA are generally classified as rural, which limits their future development to rural densities, services, and uses. The transition period during the GMA planning and implementation process will likely result in an uncertain environment for development and land transactions until all the required boundaries, comprehensive plans, and regulations are in place. While this process is underway, existing regulations and ordinances must be used by the decision - makers when reviewing development proposals. b. Significant Impacts Because of the closure of the Walk -In- The -Wild Zoo, the site is now available for development of future uses. It is proposed as a mixed use master planned development combining public and private recreational, educational, entertainment, residential, and compatible business uses in a "campus- like" setting. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment from Rural to Urban and Major Commercial categories would allow development consistent with the urban level of use identified as appropriate for the area following adoption of the IUGA. This proposed project would serve the additional purpose of bringing urban service unity to the area. This aspect is especially important because the site is surrounded by existing urban development with potential for future urban uses. In addition, urban services are available on and adjacent to the site. A logical extension of infrastructure can be provided that would serve this site and adjacent urban areas. A major goal of the GMA is protection of the natural environment. The proposed master plan provides a mix of uses while protecting the unique environmental elements of the site through permanent retention of approximately 35.3 acres in the central portion of the site as a natural open space area. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 71 September 1997 95 -024B ► -� 1 1 1 c. Mitigating Measures A phasing schedule, which anticipates full build -out of the project site OVef to 15 -year period will accommodate the gradual introduction of new uses to t e s site. In addition, the schedule depends on market conditions which oes to the for a timely adaptation of the site environs to development, as well hould allow improved levels of service. ell as time for Consistent with the GMA, the site can be readily provided with public utilities. Public sewer, water, natural gas, electricity, and transportation services and and improvements will be provided to the site. As each area is service development, engineering plans for storm water management, roads, p water, for sewage disposal will be required prior to final a water, and outline existing and proposed sewer collection lines, val. The engineering plans will and road profiles. Sewer collection lines will ultimately water mains, drainage swales, North Valley interceptor, which transports sewage to the onao the County the re treatment facility. 9 al wastewater The Mirabeau Point Design Guidelines will address design issues re appearances, open space areas, signage, storage and refuse areas, land building and other aesthetic and compatibility concerns. Each individual project landscaping, for the project site will undergo review by the Mirabeau Point Architectural o�ect prRevsed Committee to ensure consistency with the Design Guideline The Review Guidelines will be enforced using established Covenants, s. The Desigd Restrictions (CC &Rs). Conditions, and Open space corridors, the future County park, and the erman preservation of a 35.3 -acre natural open space area provide mi t on which ig meets the spirit and intent of the GMA. t gation ch 1.4 Relationship to Existing /Future Land Uses a. Affected Environment Existing Land Uses The proposed Mirabeau Point site consists of undeveloped open remnants of the Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo. Zoo exhibit areas i spaces and some building, a large metal building (Wheelabrator building), � parking, the entrance occupy the central portion of the site. Some of these improvements 'king, and fencing metal building and parking area are located on the area proposed such in as the the B -3 zone. The Wheelabrator building is currently supporting or rezoning to activities on a temporary basis in accordance with a Temporary p p Us ng ice skating Use Permit issued Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 95 -024B 72 September 1997 . by the County Division of Building and Planning. Most of the former Zoo exhibit areas are within the area proposed to be retained as natural open space The project site is further described from north to south relative to its existing features and proposed land use designations. Euclid Avenue follows the section line dividing Section 3 (to the north) from Section 10 (to the south). The portion of the Mirabeau Point site lying north of Euclid Avenue (and wholly within Section 3) is currently zoned 1 -2 and is not a part of the current Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone request. Approximately 17 acres south of and adjacent to Euclid Avenue in the northernmost portion of Section 10 is currently zoned RR -10 and is proposed to be rezoned to B -2. This area of Section 10 follows the relatively flat grades adjacent to Euclid Avenue, forming the "panhandle" of the Mirabeau Point site and has scattered groupings of Ponderosa Pines and several exposed rock outcrops. Approximately 10 to 11 acres to the south of this area have been identified for donation to the County for a public park. Immediately south of the future County park site is an additional 35.3 acres that are also currently zoned RR -10. This area is best characterized by the obvious presence of major rock outcrops and Ponderosa Pine woodland areas. Although the 35.3 -acre area and the future County park are proposed to be re- designated to Urban from the current Rural Comprehensive Plan designation, these areas would remain zoned RR -10. The 35.3 -acre area is proposed to be permanently retained as a natural open space area. An approximately 94.5 acre area within Section 10 immediately south and adjacent is also currently zoned RR -10 and is proposed to be rezoned to 6 -3. This portion of the site is predominately flat grasslands and contains very few trees or rock outcrops. The remainder of the Mirabeau Point site (approximately 47 acres) lies to the immediate east in Section 11. It is currently zoned 1 -2 and is not a part of current Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone request. Adjacent Land Uses and Surrounding Development Adjacent property to the north and northeast consists of the State owned Centennial Trail property which fronts the shoreline of the Spokane River. Across the river is the Kaiser Trentwood aluminum rolling mill operation. The new Spokane Valley Mall is located southeast of the site, south of the railroad tracks and Indiana Avenue. This regional mall offers over 700,000 square feet of retail space. The Evergreen Road interchange is planned to provide a connection to Indiana Avenue directly west of the Mall site (please refer to Section 4.0 Transportation for more discussion regarding the planned area road improvements). Existing and planned industrial uses occupy land south of Indiana Avenue and north of Interstate -90 (1 -90), with the exception of a few residential units that still remain in this industrial zone. Land west of the site is currently vacant. Plans for the land southwest of the site include a rezone from the existing RR -10 zone to allow for future development of Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 73 September 1997 95 -024B • 1 multi - family residences and a retirement community, nursing home facility, mini - warehouse, RV park, and small animal clinic. The Pinecroft Natural Area Preserve is an 88 acre site located directly west of the Mirabeau Point site. North of the Pinecroft Natural Area Preserve and south of Euclid Avenue a few residences are located on large acreage parcels. Further to the west near Pines Road land use consists of a mix of high density residential, office, and commercial uses. Residential neighborhoods and the Pines Road Elementary School occupy land west of Pines Road near Euclid Avenue. Figure 13 shows a general characterization of existing and proposed nearby land uses. Historically this site has remained rural in character due to the Walk -in- the -Wild Zoo which required a rural land use designation. With the exception of the properties immediately west, the site is surrounded by more intensive urban land uses including commercial and industrial uses. b. Significant Impacts Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones would result in a level of development on site which would be more intensive than the current use of the site and the existing uses located directly to the west of the site. The proposed rezones would allow a variety of recreational and commercial land uses to occur on site that would not be allowed in the existing RR -10 zone. Future uses proposed for the existing 1 -2 zone in the eastern area of the Mirabeau Point site are consistent with those allowed in that zone and with the surrounding development. Residential uses proposed for the northern area zoned 1 -2 are consistent with the anticipated crossover to a future residential zone (see Section 1. 1) Development of the Spokane Valley Mall and the phased build out of Mirabeau Point will change the character of the immediate area. These two major developments will generate cumulative impacts due to their relatively close proximity to each other and will provide a central focal point for the Spokane Valley. Cumulative impacts on land use in the immediate area may include spin -off development on vacant properties nearby. Some of the existing residences on acreage parcels adjacent to Euclid Avenue will likely experience pressure for development as a result of the development of the Mirabeau Point project and the Spokane Valley Mall. Full build -out of the Mirabeau Point site is anticipated to occur over a 10- to 15- year period, depending on market conditions. Site improvements would occur in three phases as shown on the Phasing Plan Map (see Figure 6). Phase 1 includes development of the central core area of the site where the community complex, YMCA, ice arena, and other retail and recreational uses are located. It is anticipated that Phase 1 would take approximately five years to build out under current market conditions. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 95 -024B 74 September 1997 • Phase 2 includes development of the eastern portion of zoned 1-2. This area is planned to include a b the site which is currently u� recreation /business type uses that would be business office park and future public /private uses identified for Phase 1. There are compatible with the mix of the Phase 2 area, but it is anticipated that future rrently no commitments for approximately five years after completion of Phase development would occur Phase 3 includes development of the northern portion of Euclid Avenue, north of the of the site along both sides planned for a mix of commercial and residential natural open space area. Phase 3 is to accommodate the traveling dential uses eluding a potential RV park requirements, and parking and public. Table 1 identifies potential future uses, area 9 zoning needs for each development phase. The Mirabeau Point Concept Master Plan (see Figure effort to keep environmental impacts to a minimum. 5� has been designed in an considerations include the retention of unique physical Environmental design space natural area. This approximately features in a central open and interpretive signs. The soft ��mately 35.3 -acre area would include soft trails Centennial Trail, and the former Mi System would tie into the future Count system Count County park, River adjacent to the Mirabeau Point site. The 35rk area along the Spokane .3 -acre be compatible with and provide a transition natural open space area Area Preserve to the west of the site and the former the Pinecroft Natural east of the site. er Mirabeau Park area to the c. Mitigating Measures Open space corridors will be developed within the site between land uses and access to the Centennial Trail to provide a transition areas. In some areas of the site, landscaped open space I and on -site recreational purpose for storm water drainage control and passive reo areas will serve a dual rational purposes. The State owned Centennial Trail property is located the Spokane River. The site appears between the project site and area associated with the Spokane aRiver. be outside of the 200-foot shoreline buffer the 200 -foot shoreline setback, the distan In ce areas where the site appears close to activity will be setback more than 200 feet from�ll be the p�o Spo verified and development kene River. The project proponents have committed to transferring 10 to 11 acres to the County Division of Parks, Re o�ownership of approximately public park. Spokane County maintains a rest stop arean and Fair for a future Trail at the former Mirabeau County Park along the adjacent to the Centennial noted for both geologic and historical/archeological i Spokane River. This area is acre natural area will g sgnifica�, The central 35.3 - provide an open space transition between the Pinecroft ft Natural Area to the west and the former Mirabeau County Park area to the east. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 95 -024B 76 September 1997 r 1 The Mirabeau Point Design Guidelines will address design issues regarding building appearances, open space areas, signage, storage and refuse areas, landscaping, , and other aesthetic and compatibility concerns. Each individual project proposed for the project site will undergo review by the Mirabeau Point Architectural Review Committee to ensure consistency with the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines will be enforced using established Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) and will provide an extra measure beyond the County Zoning Code to address both aesthetic and compatibility issues for future site development. Requirements of the design standards will include the following: • Underground utilities • Continuity of fencing types and heights • Consistent lighting types and heights • Consistent signage with uniform design, size, height, color, and materials • Limitation on building colors • Screening of loading, storage, and refuse collection area • Partial screening of parking areas from adjacent streets • Truck loading /dock areas at back of buildings • Bus stops and shelters • Reserved spaces for carpool and STA vanpool parking • Bicycle racks • Landscaped parking areas and around building perimeters • Maintenance and repair of buildings and landscaped areas • Landscaping requirements - 20% minimum for each building site, landscaped strips between roadways and sidewalks /pathways, landscaped median islands at arterial entryway, additional landscaping on private yards adjacent to common areas. • Common areas typically to include 8 -foot wide paved curved pedestrian pathway and may include picnic tables, benches, playground structures, etc. Mirabeau Point Draft EIS 77 September 1997 95 -0248 Washington State Win 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: Eastern Region 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane, WA 99207 -2090 (509) 324 -6000 October 30, 1997 Re: Mirabeau 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). GF: cc: Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers File Sincerely, KEITH MARTIN, P.E. Development Services E}gineer By: ark Rohwer Regional Planning Manager • September 11, 1997 W.O. No. 96149 I 172. RECEIVED INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. SEP 15 1997 SpoKANE couNTV ENGINEER John Pederson Spokane County Engineering 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 RE: Mirabeau Point Traffic Study Address WSDOT County Comments Dear John: The purpose of this letter is to address the WSDOT comments on the traffic portion of the DEIS and the corresponding Appendix for the Mirabeau Point Project. The following is a listing of the WSDOT comments from a letter from Mark Rohwer to John Pederson and our response: Comments from the DEIS, main text S -11 The intersection of Pines and Mansfield is included in the scoping, but it is not addressed in the study. Also, the intersection of Pines and Trent was identified by WSDOT through the scoping process as an intersection that needed to be analyzed, but it is not included in the study. These intersections need to be fully analyzed and included in all relevant sections of the study. The intersection at Pines and Mansfield receives no site generated traffic from the proposed project for phases 1 and 2 and only a minor amount of northbound and southbound through traffic during phase 3. The Mansfield and Shannon Avenue road have low radius horizontal curves and it is not a direct route to or from the Mirabeau Point Project. Those traveling to or from Mirabeau Point project site will not use the Mansfield Avenue, but will use the Mirabeau Parkway to Indiana Avenue to Pines Road route to go south or will use the Mirabeau Parkway to Euclid Avenue to Pines Road to go north. Therefore, this intersection was not included in traffic analysis for this project. The intersection at Pines Road and Trent was included for traffic analysis in all conditions analyzed. S -12 As part of our upcoming Pines and Mission project, the signal timing of the Pines and Mission intersection will be altered. This timing revision will consist of removing the existing split phasing and re- striping the intersection to allow for a protected east and west bound movement. These alterations should be included for all future scenario analyses of this intersection. The level of service calculations for future conditions were revised for the WSDOT improvements which are being constructed this year and in 1998. S -13 The Evergreen interchange funding plan presented in the study is unacceptable for the following reasons: • The costs identified in the study are erroneous, and any cost estimates at this preliminary point will be subject to change so any reference to exact dollar amounts should be removed from the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) and the traffic 707 West 7th • Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 509 -458 -6840 • FAX: 509 - 458 -6844 2020 Lakewood Drive • Suite 205 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 208 -765 -7784 • FAX: 208- 769 -7277 Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 2 supplement. • The payment of fees at the time of building permits would allow for the collection of moneys over a wide span of time. But while this may serve to diffuse monetary impacts to the applicant, it does not guarantee project surety. RCW 82.02 limits the time frames which can be used in the collection and use of mitigation moneys for projects such as Evergreen interchange, and thereby impairs the ability of WSDOT and Spokane County to collect moneys over long periods of time. Moneys collected with this program will need to be returned with interest in five years if not spent, and the ambiguity of the time line for this project makes it impossible for WSDOT to accept the suggested funding mechanism. • The cost of inflation and the need to periodically revisit environmental impacts will drive the cost of this project higher over time. Additionally, properties located in the Evergreen interchange footprint may be developed before the interchange is built which would further increase the cost of the project. Concurrency of infrastructure would not be provided for, and the transportation system would be over - committed for many years while moneys are received for the interchange if this funding mechanism were used. For the above reasons, the funding methodologies presented in this study need to be removed. The funding methodologies were deleted. S -13 Reference to a particular dollar amount for the contribution towards Evergreen Interchange needs to be removed as final costs for the interchange have not yet been identified Preliminary project estimates are included in the report, but how much each agency or organization should participate is not included. Page 85 The Sullivan and Indiana intersection needs to be included in the description of intersections. This intersection has been included in the list. Page 98 This table should be removed from the TIA. This table is based on preliminary cost estimates that are subject to change and does not represent WSDOT's position on funding for the Evergreen Interchange. A general discussion as to the possible funding sources, the need for funding and participation among private developers could be considered acceptable. Second paragraph the word "minor" needs to be deleted. The table was removed from the EIS and the traffic impact analysis. A general discussion of funding sources was included. The word "minor" is referring to additional traffic improvements beyond the construction of the Evergreen Interchange. The improvements listed are minor when compared with interchange construction involving structures, several signals and ramps. Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 3 Appendix "B" Traffic Impact Analysis Page 1 The intersection of Trent and Pines needs to be included in the list of intersections scoped. WSDOT identified this intersection as a needed element of the scope in past correspondence. This intersection has been included in the list of intersections which were evaluated. Page 10 Pines Road in the study area is a combination of both a 5 lane and 4 lane section. For example, Pines is a 4 lane facility at the intersection of Pines and Euclid. The text has been revised to show that there are both 4 and 5 lane sections in the project area. Page 13 The accuracy of the growth rate for the Sullivan Road counts needs to be verified. The 1997 Sullivan Road counts as collected jointly by WSDOT and Spokane County should be used for comparison. The process by which the 10% growth for a one year adjustment was arrived at was by comparing the growth at a similar intersection in the area, the intersection of Sprague and Sullivan. At the time the study was originally performed in Dec. 96 - Jan. 97, counts were compared between 1996 counts and what we thought were 1994 counts. In review of the actual count data, we have determined that the counts which we thought were 1994 counts were actually 1993 counts. The total increase between the two counts is about 20 %. For a two year difference, this relates to an approximately 10% increase per year. For a three year difference, which is what we should have used, this relates to an approximate 6.5% growth each year. Therefore, the 10% figure which was used overstates the traffic growth and the level of service and the delay times in the study are probably lower than actual conditions. The revised traffic impact analysis used 6.5% growth to bring traffic volumes up to existing (1996) levels for these intersections on Sullivan. As explained on page 13 of the original submitted traffic impact analysis, improvements to the capacity of Sullivan Road in 1994 gave people a reason to use Sullivan Road over Pines Road. People have chosen to use Sullivan Road to avoid Pines Road congestion and provide a quicker route to their destination. Also another reason for the significant growth on Sullivan Road is that there has been significant residential development constructed south of this area in the last few years. For future growth, a 3% growth rate is historically a more normal growth rate and thus was used. Page 15 Analysis of the Pines /Mansfield and Pines/Trent intersections need to be included in this report. See Comment for Page S -11 of the DEIS. Page 23 The Wolff apartments, consisting of 272 units on Mission just east of Pines, should be included in this analysis. A traffic analysis for this development was prepared by Inland Pacific Engineering. These apartments are included in the background projects as listed in the Inland Construction TIA, page 17, Ridgeview Estates Apartments. In the appendix B, these trips are included in the Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 4 section "Background Trips from other Studies ", Background trips for Inland Construction TIA. Also on page 23 of the original submitted TIA for Mirabeau Point, the Ridgeview Apartments are listed in Table 4. Page 24 The number of apartment units is listed as 144. In our pre - application meeting with the applicant, we were informed that this number should be 208 units. The Lawson/Gunning site plan and land uses were revised and therefore the traffic impact analysis which Inland Pacific Engineering submitted for the Lawson/Gunning apartments lists 144 units. Page 30 Trip generation for the Hotel needs to look at full occupancy. If the Hotel has 150 rooms for occupancy, it is assumed they could all be occupied. This analysis needs to look at worst case impacts. If only 80% of the rooms will ever be occupied, then why would the developer build the extra rooms? Additional supporting information needs to be provided to document the land uses shown that are not included in the ITE Trip generation Manual. Additional trip generation information was included in the revised traffic impact analysis. For the hotel trip generation, the ITE Manual lists trip generation for occupied rooms. It is assumed that the peak use for hotels is on the weekend when people are more apt to be traveling and therefore need a hotel. Also in a large mixed use area with adjacent retail, commercial and business park land uses, ITE recommends a 20% reduction in trips since some of those staying at the hotel will use these adjacent facilities. Page 41 The intersection of Pines and Indiana is not provided with its own signal controller. It functions on an overlap phase of the westbound off ramp, and needs to by analyzed with the existing timing plan for existing scenarios and for future scenarios unless IPEC is proposing the replacement of the signal controller as mitigation. Level of service calculations were revised for this intersection. Page 54 The intersection of Pines and Indiana is described to have a left, through, and a right turn lane on the west leg of the intersection. An exclusive left urn lane is currently not part of our improvement plans for this intersection and should not be included in this analysis unless IPEC is proposing the funding of such a lane as mitigation. The intersection of Pines and Euclid currently does not have a left turn channelization provided. WSDOT and Spokane County are working with the adjacent property owners on securing the needed right -of -way for left turn channelization. Left turn channelization needs to be provided at this intersection in conjunction with the traffic signal to minimize intersection delays and air quality impacts. Intersection configurations should be provided for the other intersections that were analyzed but were not included in this list. Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 5 Level of service calculations and recommendations for improvements were revised. Intersections that required improvements were listed with the required improvement on pages 58 and 59 of the revised traffic impact analysis. Page 58 This table should be removed from the EIS. This table is based on preliminary cost estimates that are subject to change and does not represent WSDOT's position on funding for the Evergreen Interchange. A general discussion as to the possible funding sources, the need for funding and participation among private developers could be considered acceptable. This table was deleted. Page 60 The need for a third lane on mainline 1 -90, identified in this study, needs to be included in the list of conclusions shown. Page 60 The list conclusions was revised to include the need for a third lane on I -90. It is stated that the development will have a "minor impact on the transportation system." We disagree with this statement. Use of the phrase "minor impact" should be reserved for describing developments such as mini - storage, hotel, etc. that do not generate a significant number of trips. Developments such as this one which require the installation of new traffic signals on a principal arterial, the widening of freeway interchanges, etc. are significant and should not be minimized. The function of the traffic study is to identify the impacts of a project and propose improvements to mitigate the problem. The reference to only minor impacts is not supported by the analysis and needs to be removed from the DEIS. The text was revised. Page 61 The needed signal improvements at Pines and Mission and the 2' Eastbound left turn lane at the Eastbound Ramp of Pines need to be added to the list of recommendations. The list of recommendations has been revised. General Documentation on the deductions for right turns on red (RTOR) needs to be provided. The highway capacity analysis software accounts for a typical number of right turns on red, extra deductions should only be used if a separate right turn lane or other special circumstance would warrant. Please also be aware that Synchro already provides for multiple different treatments of right turners built into the software. Documentation on right turns on red (RTOR) is included in a new section in the appendix of the traffic impact analysis. General The intersection of Pines and Indiana provides for protected lefts for both south and northbound traffic on Pines. This signal phase again works on overlaps from the ramp signal. The analysis for this area assumes permitted phasing - this needs to be changed to protected phasing. Level of service calculations were revised for this intersection. Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 6 General At Pines and Sullivan where slip ramps are present right turns from the off ramp are not allowed. For example, the westbound off ramp right - turners at Pines must turn left onto Indiana and then turn right onto Pines. The lane configuration has been revised since this study was originally performed in January 1997. However, we revised the study to account for these slip ramps. General The slip ramps (hook ramps) at Pines and Sullivan need to be included into the analyzed areas. See previous response. General A significant amount of the analyses of the future intersections along the Evergreen corridor is based on incorrect lane configurations. The most current lane configurations are included on the attached plan. It should be noted that these lane configurations shown on the attachment have always been available and have not been altered since April of 1997. At the time this study was originally performed, these lane configurations were not available. We have revised the level of service calculations per the interchange plan included with these comments. General Signalization of the Pines and Euclid intersection along with the expected queues may preclude left turns into the Trent Elementary School on the west side of Trent. A joint meeting was held with the School District, the adjacent property owners, Spokane County, and WSDOT in regard to this situation. The school district will be making provisions to allow their site to be served by this signal. This would result in the intersection being a 4 way intersection and not a tee. Additionally, the property owners on both sides of Euclid are interested in obtaining access from Euclid once the signal is installed. This traffic analysis needs to consider the fact that the traffic signal at Euclid and Pines will need to serve the west side of Pines so as not to preclude these property owners' access. The traffic study was revised to include a four leg intersection at this location. I trust that this addresses your concerns regarding traffic issues for the Mirabeau Point Project. If you have any further questions or comments, please give me a call. Sincerely, /14 I ad Timothy A. Schwab, P.E. TAS /ts cc: Cathy Ramm, Ramm and Associates Mark Rohwer, WSDOT, Eastern Regional Planning Manager Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Steve Stairs, Spokane County Engineers ire INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. September 11, 1997 W.O. No . 96 149 John Pederson Spokane County Engineering 1026 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 RE: Mirabeau Point Traffic Study Address Spokane County Comments Dear John: The purpose of this letter is to address the Spokane County comments on the traffic portion of the DEIS and the corresponding Appendix for the Mirabeau Point Project. The following is a listing of the Spokane County comments from a memorandum dated August 9, 1997 to John Pederson and our response: Comments from the DEIS, main text 1. Page 1, last sentence of the Proposal Description - This sentence should be deleted since it is an opinion of the layout, not a factual statement to be included in a fact sheet. This sentence has been deleted. 2. Page iii, 1st paragraph - "The north -south parkway ( Mirabeau Parkway) will be developed as a collector arterial, with..." Mirabeau Parkway will initially be classified as a collector and could be upgraded to a minor arterial in the frture. Text was revised to reflect this information. . Page- S -11, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - "All study intersection {s} are..." Correction made. 4. Page S -11, 3rd paragraph, last sentence - Change sentence to: The rn.initnurrm levels of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections within Spokane County has been defined as LOS `D' and LOS `E' respectively. Text was revised. 5. Page 5 -12, last paragraph, 2nd sentence - This sentence is a generalized statement that is not consistent with the information presented in Table 10 of Appendix B. This sentence was revised to show that some of the intersections that were scoped for study are either at LOS F or at least at LOS D with a delay time that is close to LOS E which is unacceptable for signalized intersections. Table 10 shows that with the improvements WSDOT is constructing during 1997 and 1998, but without the Evergreen Interchange and without the proposed project, the intersections at Sullivan & Westbound Ramps, at Sullivan & Indiana and Pines & Eastbound Ramps are at LOS For LOS E for the year 1999. 707 West 7th • Suite 200 2020 Lakewood Drive • Suite 205 Spokane, WA 99204 Coeur d'Alene. ID 83814 509- 458 -6840 • FAX: 509- 458 -6844 208- 765 -7784 • FAX: 208 -769 -7277 Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 2 6. Page S -13, 2nd paragraph - The signal changes needed for phases 2 and 3 should be analyzed as one change. In other words, can the timing changes for phase 3 be implemented in phase 2, thus, requiring only one timing change? Yes, the signal timing revisions in the revised traffic impact analysis will be done in phase 2. A permitted plus protected left turn movement for the eastbound and westbound movements will allow the intersection to operate at acceptable levels for phase 3. 7. Page S -13, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence - "The proposed Mirabeau Parkway will be classified as a collector arterial." Text was revised. 8. Page S -14, 1st paragraph, last sentence - This sentence implies that all intersections on Sullivan Road will operate at unacceptable levels of service. However, Sullivan and Mission will operate at LOS The text was revised to indicate that by 1999, the intersections at Indiana and Westbound Ramps on Sullivan would be at unacceptable levels. 9. Page 10, last paragraph - Mirabeau Parkway will be constructed as a five lane section from Indiana Ave. to approximately 1, 300 feet north of Indiana and a 3 lane section from 1300 feet north of Indiana to Euclid Ave. It doesn't seem necessary to discuss the initial plans for a two lane roadway. Text has been revised. 10. Page 85, 5th paragraph - The intersection of Sullivan /Indiana was scoped for inclusion in the EIS, but is not found in the scoped intersection list. A description of this intersection is not found on page 86. We have added this intersection to the list of intersections on page 85 with a description of the intersection following. 11. Page 87, last paragraph - The third sentence references Tables 4, 5 and 6 in Appendix B. However, these tables are not present in the Appendix. In fact, Tables 2 - 6 are missing from Appendix B. These missing pages have been forwarded to you. The revised traffic impact analysis will have all tables and figures. 12. Page 88, 2nd paragraph - This paragraph discusses the trip generation rates shown in Tables 7, 8 and 9. A discussion of how the trip generation rates were determined for the five land uses not found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual should be provided. The revised traffic impact analysis includes information on how these rates were developed. 13. Page 90, 3rd paragraph - Is the focus of this paragraph to say that if nothing further was to build in the vicinity of this project, congestion and other traffic problems would be appreciably better? Even if there was no further development, we would still experience the levels of service problems and congestion found today at the Pines Road Interchange. Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 3 No, that is not the intent of this paragraph. What we are trying to communicate is that if other proposed projects in the vicinity are not built, then the levels of service presented in the report are worse than what will actually happen. In other words, the report presents a worst case scenario by assuming that all projects proposed will actually get built. The text was revised to eliminate any misunderstanding. 14. Page 90, 4th paragraph - should the potential correction for the Sullivan /Indiana and Sullivan/WB Ramps intersections be discussed under the significant impact section for this project. In addition, the last sentence has no context. There is very little project traffic shown for phase 1 w /Evergreen Interchange or Phases 2 or 3. However, Phase 1 w/o Evergreen Interchange shows 192 trips using the Sullivan /Indiana intersection which represents 3.3% of the total intersection traffic. This paragraph was deleted from the text. 15. Page 91 and 92, Tables 10 and 11 - These tables show the intersection of Mirabeau Pkwy and Indiana as an unsignalized intersection. However, this intersection will be signalized at construction. This intersection was shown as both a signalized and unsignalized intersection in the report to show the conditions for which an unsignalized intersection will be adequate. If this intersection is signalized prior to when it is needed, the level of service will still be adequate. 16. Page 94, last paragraph - The Lawson /Gunning Traffic Impact Analysis reported that the east /west movements of the Pines Rd. & Mission Ave. intersection were changed to split phasing to improve safety. This document now recommends using protected/permitted phasing. How will that impact the operational safety of this intersection? WSDOT is constructing improvements this construction season (1997) at this intersection. These improvements include a second southbound left turn lane and restriping of the east and west approaches to provide for protected eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. The split phase timing will be removed since there will be protected left turn lanes. Safety issues should be satisfied with the protected left turn lanes. 17. Page 97, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - Table 10 does not support this statement. All of the intersections on Pines are shown to be at LOS `D' with less than 40 seconds of delay. This sentence was revised to show that some of the intersections that were scoped for study are either at LOS F or at least at LOS D with a delay time that is close to LOS E which is unacceptable for signalized intersections. Table 10 shows that with the improvements WSDOT is constructing during 1997 and 1998, but without the Evergreen Interchange and without the proposed project, the intersections at Sullivan & Westbound Ramps, at Sullivan & Indiana and Pines & Eastbound Ramps are at LOS For LOS E for the year 1999. 18. Page 97, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence - "Stage 1 of the Evergreen Interchange project will include construction of the interchange itself roadway from Sharp Avenue to Indiana Ave. Early information we were given showed Sinto Avenue as the limits. Text has been revised to indicate Sharp Avenue as the current limits of Stage 1. 19. Page 98, Table 16 - This table should be removed from the EIS. This table contains several errors, is Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 4 based on preliminary cost estimates that are subject to change and does not represent the County's position on funding for the Evergreen Interchange. A general discussion as to the possible funding sources and participation could be considered acceptable. The cost estimates presented in this report are the estimates given to us by the County. We recognize that with any project of this magnitude, cost estimates will be subject to change. However, we have deleted this table from the EIS and included a general statement as to possible funding sources and ways to calculate participation. 20. Page 101, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence - The proposed Mirabeau Parkway will be classified as a collector arterial." Delete 4th paragraph. Text in 2nd paragraph was revised and the 4th paragraph was deleted. 21. Page 101, 6th paragraph, 3rd sentence - The County has received funding to construct Mirabeau Parkway as a five lane roadway from Indiana north for approximately 1300 feet, transitioning to a three lane roadway, and continuing north to Euclid Ave. Text has been revised to reflect this information. 22. Page 102, 2nd paragraph - See previous comment. Text has been revised. 23. Page 103, 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence - "The intersection of Mansfield and Pines was not a scoped intersection for this study. Furthermore, LOS print -outs were not found in the DEIS or Appendix B for this intersection. This sentence was deleted. The intersection at Pines /Mansfield is not directly affected by the Mirabeau Point Project. The Mansfield and Shannon Avenue roads have low radius horizontal curves and it is not a direct route to or from the Mirabeau Point Project. Those traveling to /from Mirabeau Point project site will not use the Mansfield /Pines Road intersection, but will use the Mirabeau Parkway to Indiana Avenue to Pines Road route to go south or will use the Mirabeau Parkway to Euclid Avenue to Pines Road to go north. Therefore, this intersection was not included in traffic analysis for this project. 24. Page 104, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence - "The second project, scheduled for construction in 1998, will widen Pines Road at the westbound ramp terminal intersection to accommodate a second northbound left for the traff c... " Text revised. II. Comments from Appendix B, Mirabeau Point Project TIA 1. Pages 1 and 12 - Delete Sullivan Road & Indiana Avenue as an existing intersection scoped for this study. This intersection is already included in the future intersections listed. Further, the intersection of Pines Road and Mansfield Ave. is shown as an existing scoped intersection, but no capacity analysis sheets or results were provided in the report. Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 5 The Sullivan Road/Indiana Avenue intersection was deleted from the list of existing intersections since at the time of the traffic analysis it was not existing and it was evaluated as a future intersection. The Pines Road & Mansfield Road intersection was listed as an intersection to study by the WSDOT and therefore is listed with the other scoped intersections. However, as explained in both the DEIS and Appendix B, traffic from the Mirabeau Point project will generally not use this intersection. Therefore, capacity analysis was not performed for this intersection. 2. Page 7 - The recommendations on this page should also include the signal revisions at Pines Road & Mission Avenue and the additional EBL lane for the Evergreen Interchange at the eastbound ramp terminal. The additional Evergreen I/C ramp lane may be able to be incorporated into the Evergreen Interchange design currently underway by WSDOT. Recommendations have been revised in the revised traffic impact analysis. Page 11, 6th paragraph - Mirabeau pkwy will be constructed as a five lane section from Indiana Ave. to approximately 1300 feet north of Indiana and a 3 lane section from 1300 feet north of Indiana to Euclid Ave. Text was revised to agree with this information. 4. Page 13, 3rd paragraph - This paragraph discusses the Sullivan/Mission intersection turn movement counts used in the study. While I agree, counts after holidays may not reflect typical volumes, I would question the validity of volumes that needed to be factored by 10% for a one year adjustment (1995 to 1996). Further, it doesn't seem logical that a ten percent adjustment was for 1995 to 1996 and only 3% thereafter. New counts should have been recorded for this intersection. The process by which the 10% growth for a one year adjustment was arrived at was by comparing the growth at a similar intersection in the area, the intersection of Sprague and Sullivan. At the time the study was originally performed in Dec. 96 - Jan. 97, counts were compared between 1996 counts and what we thought were 1994 counts. In review of the actual count data, we have determined that the counts which we thought were 1994 counts were actually 1993 counts. The total increase between the two counts is about 20 %. For a two year difference, this relates to an approximately 10% increase per year. For a three year difference, which is what we should have used, this relates to an approximate 6.5% growth each year. Therefore, the 10% figure which was used overstates the traffic growth and the level of service and the delay times in the study are probably lower than actual conditions. The revised traffic impact analysis used 6.5% growth to bring traffic volumes up to existing (1996) levels for these intersections on Sullivan. As explained on page 13 of the original submitted traffic impact anaylsis, improvements to the capacity of Sullivan Road 1994 gave people a reason to use Sullivan Road over Pines Road. People have chosen to use Sullivan Road to avoid Pines Road congestion and provide a quicker route to their destination. Also another reason for the significant growth on Sullivan Road is that there has been significant residential development constructed south of this area in the last few years. For future growth, a 3% growth rate is historically a more normal growth rate and thus was used. 5. The hook ramps at the Pines and Sullivan Interchanges with 1 -90 are not shown on any of the figures. These hook ramps should carry a considerable amount of traffic particularly with phases 2 & 3 of the Sullivan Park Mall. Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 6 The slip ramps at the westbound off ramp at the Pines Interchange, the westbound off ramp at the Sullivan Interchange and the westbound on ramp at the Sullivan Interchange have been added to the report. The slip ramp at the westbound on ramp at the Pines Interchange will not be included in this report since project traffic does not affect this ramp. 6. Tables 2 through Table 6 are missing from this document. The information shown in the List of Tables is necessary in this report. As mentioned previously, these missing pages have been forwarded to you. The revised traffic impact analysis will have all tables and figures. 7. Figure 7 - This figure is identical to the background traffic figure provided in the Lawson /Gunning Traffic Impact Analysis. The volumes shown in Figure 7, I assume, should be equivalent to the Figure 7 provided plus the movements from Lawson /Gunning. In addition, this figure shows negative volumes at the east and westbound ramp terminals for the new Evergreen Interchange. How were these values developed? It doesn't seem intuitive to me, that a new roadway could experience a reduction in volumes through pass -by or diverted trips. Figure 7 has been corrected to include all background volumes, including the Lawson /Gunning project. The negative volumes are a result of the new trips going to the mall (including future phases) that previously or without the mall in place would go southbound on Evergreen at the eastbound ramp terminal. The condition with Evergreen Interchange, without all the new traffic must first be considered before the condition with Evergreen Interchange with all the new traffic. 8. Page 29 - What similar facilities were studied or had data available for the land uses not found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (ice arena, performing arts, planetarium, etc.)? Detailed assumptions and background information used for trip generation information has been included in the revised report. 9. Page 29, Table 7 - The trip generation rate for the YMCA, using the Recreational Community Center land use #495, should be 1.38 trips /ksf with a distribution of 28% entering and 72% exiting. Otherwise, some explanation for the deviation should be included in the report. As mentioned previously, detail information has been included in the revised report. 10. Figure 10 - At the Evergreen EB rarnps, there is shown to be 183 SBR trips. This movement is not permitted and the 183 trips should be shown for the SBT trips. Figure 10 has been revised. 11. Figure 10 - The trip total, entering and exiting, do not match the totals in Table 8, page 30. Figure 10 has been revised so entering and exiting volumes agree with Table 8. 12. Figure 11 - The NBT volume shown at Pines /EB ramp should be 9 rather than the 19 shown. Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 7 Figure 11 has been revised. 13. Figures 9, 10 & 11 show the case where the Evergreen I/C is constructed with the connection to Evergreen Rd. at Sharp. How much project traffic is expected to use Sullivan and Pines if only the diamond interchange is built, without the connection to Evergreen Rd.? In the first phase of construction, Evergreen Interchange will be constructed from a connection to Evergreen Road at Sharp Ave. to Indiana Ave. Therefore, this condition does not need to be considered. 14. Page 41, Table 10 (cont.) - The Mirabeau Pkwy /Indiana Ave. intersection is shown analyzed as an unsignalized intersection when, in fact, it will be constructed as a signalized intersection. None the less, acceptable levels of service will continue for this intersection. Either way, levels of service for phase 1 are adequate. 15. Page 41, Table 11 - The LOS print -outs for Pines /Euclid shows 10.3 seconds of delay and LOS C rather than the LOS D shown in the table. Table has been revised and corrected. 16. Page 47, Table 12 - The LOS print -out for Pines /Euclid, 2004 Traffic With Project shows 34.5 seconds of delay and LOS E rather than the 12.2 seconds of delay and LOS C reported. Table 12 has been revised and corrected. 17. Page 47, last paragraph - The Lawson /Gunning TIA reported that the east and west movements at Pines /Mission were split phased in an effort to improve safety. What is expected to happen to the accident rate if the phasing for the east and west movements allow permitted left turns? WSDOT is constructing improvements this construction season (1997) at this intersection. These improvements include a second southbound left turn lane and restriping of the east and west approaches to provide for protected eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. The split phase timing will be removed since the there will be protected left turn lanes. Safety issues should be satisfied with the protected left turn lanes. 18. Page 54, 1st bullet, 2nd sentence - "Westbound..., one through lan (e) and one..." Text has been revised. 19. Page 54, last bullet, 2nd sentence - "Southbound... will require 2 through lanes with one left turn lane." Text has been revised. 20. Page 56, Table 14 - The weaving analysis results presented in this table are for the 1999 w/ project scenario and shows the LOS is marginal. What is expected for the future years with all of the background projects and this Mirabeau Point's build out traffic added to the system? Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 8 A table was added to the revised traffic impact analysis to show what levels of service could be expected in 2006 with and without phase 3 project traffic. 21. Page 55, 1st paragraph, last sentence - "This project, however, will add very..." Text has been revised. 22. Page 55, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence - Mirabeau Pkwy will be constructed as a five lane section from Indiana Ave. to approximately 1300 feet north of Indiana and a 3 lane section from 1300 feet north of Indiana to Euclid Ave. Text was revised to reflect this information. 23. Page 56, last paragraph, 3rd sentence - "Stage 1 will... roadway from Sharp Avenue..." Text was revised. 24. Page 56, last paragraph, 10th sentence - Delete all references to increases in WSDOT portion of Evergreen interchange funding. This is not the County's position, particularly given the fact that this project is needed to facilitate private development within the Sullivan and Pines corridors. The Evergreen Interchange shall be funded before this or any other projects are allowed to proceed for approval. We have deleted all references to increases in the WSDOT portion of the funding of Evergreen Interchange. WSDOT will be listed as a participate of those who will fund the Interchange. 25. Page 57, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence - This sentence should be deleted from the report. It does not represent the County's position and is not substantiated by the data in the report. Sullivan Road was reported in previous pages of the TIA and in the EIS to be at unacceptable levels of service at build out of the project and that the project should not be required to mitigate Sullivan Road. Further, WSDOT is, as reported in the TIA and EIS, improving Pines Road in 1997 and 1998; improvements that will benefit this project. The report shows the there is significant improvement in the level of service on Pines Road with Evergreen Interchange, but very minor or insignificant improvement in the level of service on Sullivan Road. See Tables 1 and 2. Reference to Sullivan Road will be removed from this sentence. The improvements that WSDOT is making to Pines are accounted for in the report and level of service calculations. The reference to an amount that WSDOT will save in the following sentence will be deleted. 26. Page 58, Table 16 - This table should be removed from the TIA. This table contains several errors, is based on preliminary cost estimates that are subject to change and does not represent the County's position on funding for the Evergreen Interchange. A general discussion as to the possible funding sources, the need for funding and participation among private developers could be considered acceptable. This table has been revised to show the number of trips each organization is responsible for. A general discussion about funding of the Evergreen Interchange is included in the report. Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 9 27. Page 60 - The conclusion regarding the third mainline lane for westbound 1 -90, as discussed on page 56, should be added to the list of conclusions and recommendations shown on this page. The conclusion in the revised traffic impact analysis states that a third mainline lane in each direction is needed for I -90. 28. Page 60, last bullet - The construction of Mirabeau Pkwy will be done by the County. Funding will come from a variety of sources including TIB, Mirabeau Point, Inland Paper, Lawson /Gunning, STA and Spokane County. The text was revised to indicate participation in the construction of this road. 29. The per trip fee payable at the time of building pennit application is not an acceptable funding method to Spokane County. This method would not provide the needed funds for improvements prior to the additional trips being added and consequently failing the network. Reference to a per trip fee payable at the time of building permit application has been removed. 30. Page 61 - The signal phasing enhancements reported for phase 2 & 3 should be included in the bullet list of recommendations. In addition, the 2nd EBL turn lane at the EB ramp of the Evergreen I/C should be added. The list of recommendations were updated to match what is required by the revised calculations based on current information. 31. The intersection of Pines /Indiana is currently operating with protected lefts for the north and southbound movements, however, the LOS print -outs in the technical appendix show these movements under permitted phasing. The level of service for all phases was recalculated using the added lanes (1997) and existing signal phasing which is protected for northbound and southbound left turning movements. 32. Several of the LOS print -outs for the intersection of Mission /Evergreen were not included in the technical appendix. This intersection was not part of the scoped intersections. The new Evergreen Interchange will not tie into Mission Avenue at grade. As I understand it, there will be on /off ramps that connect to Mission Avenue. These will terminate at unsignalized intersections. These intersections were not analyzed. 33. No documentation or methodology was given in the report to explain how the right turn on red, RTOR, deductions were developed for the figure year scenarios. The percentage of RTOR increases inconsistently as the additional background and project traffic is added to the network. It does not appear the RTOR movements were recorded in the field. This explanation should be provided. The revised report has included a section on right turns on red in the appendix and how they have been applied to the intersections in this report. A field study of RTOR's was performed and from the counts and observations in the field, assumptions were made and level of service calculations performed. Mirabeau Point DEIS - Response to Comments September 11, 1997 Page 10 34. The intersection of Sullivan /Mission is currently operating with protected lefts for the north and southbound movements, however, the 2006 without project (and with project), with Evergreen 1 /C, shows a permitted NBL phasing. Actual phasing should be used unless this is a recommended signal change, in which case, it should be added to the list of recommendations. The report and calculations were revised. I trust that this addresses your concerns regarding traffic issues for the Mirabeau Point Project. If you have any further questions or comments or fail to receive all the pages you should in the traffic impact analysis, please give me a call. Sincerely, 7041 chAti Timothy A. Schwab, P.E. TAS /ts cc: Cathy Ramm, Ramm and Associates Mark Rohwer, WSDOT, Eastern Regional Planning Manager Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Steve Stairs, Spokane County Engineers file • f . BUILDING AND PLANNING JAMES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR Bill Lawson A & A Construction & Development, Inc. 202 East Trent Avenue, Suite 202 Spokane, WA. 99202 C O U N T Y A DMSION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIRECTOR August 13, 1997 RE: Coordination of Mirabeau Point and Lawson - Gunning projects. Dear Bill: Thank you for your letter of July 29, 1997. Your desire to ensure coordinated and consistent review of the above referenced projects is shared by the Division of Building and Planning as well as other agencies of jurisdiction. As you may or may not know, the Mirabeau Point project received a Determination of Significance (DS) from the Division of Building and Planning and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been submitted for internal review. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) should soon be available for public review and comment. Many of the traffic issues identified in your letter were identified in the scope of the Mirabeau Point Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and will be analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Mirabeau Point Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will also include analysis of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map for the Mirabeau project. Your efforts to amend the Comprehensive Plan have not resulted in a specific Comprehensive Plan amendment as directed by the Board of County Commissioners and review of your current project will utilize the current Comprehensive Plan designation unless amended. Projects pending before the Division of Building and Planning are public information and are available for review upon request. Your specific questions regarding coordinated review of traffic impacts should be addressed by Pat Harper of the Division of Engineering. I would also suggest that you or your agents contact Ramm and Associates to determine the appropriate contact person for the Mirabeau Point project. When you submit a complete application for your proposal, the Division of Building and Planning will consider the issues identified in your letter and the cumulative impacts of other projects to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. If you have questions regarding this correspondence or the status of your project, please contact me at 456 3675. c: Laurie Grimes Pat Harper John Konen y John . 'e•erson Senior Planner 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 PHONE: (509) 456 -3675 • FAX: (509) 4564703 TDD: (509) 324 -3166 Washington State Department of Transportation Sid Morris ‘In Secretary cf Transportation Mr. John Pederson Spokane County Planning West 1026 Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Mr. Pederson: Eastern Region 2714 N Mayfair Street Spokane. WA 99207-2090 (509) 324 -6000 August 8, 1997 t`.; G 1 1 4147 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER Re: Mirabeau Point Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has completed its review of the traffic impact analysis for the above referenced development, and has the following comments. Please be aware that while certain topics are addressed only once in the comments below for the sake of brevity, any comments should be corrected uniformly throughout the study. For example, the intersection of Pines and Mansfield is not addressed in many sections of the study in which it should have been, but instead of describing each instance in which an analysis of this intersection needs to be added we mentioned only one time that this intersection should be included in the study. This intersection will still need to be included in all relevant sections of the study. S -11 The intersection of Pines and Mansfield is included in the scoping, but it is not addressed in the study. Also, the intersection of Pines and Trent was identified by WSDOT through the scoping process as an intersection that needed to be analyzed, but it is not included in the study. These intersections need to be fully analyzed and included in all relevant sections of the study. S -12 As part of our upcoming Pines and Mission project the signal timing of the Pines and Mission intersection will be altered. This timing revision will consist of removing the existing split phasing and re- striping the intersection to allow for a protected east and west bound movement. These alterations should included for all future scenario analyses of this intersection. S -13 The Evergreen interchange funding plan presented in the study is unacceptable for the following reasons: • The costs identified in the study is erroneous, and any cost estimates at this preliminary point will be subject to change so any reference to exact dollar amounts should be removed from the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) and the traffic supplement. Mr. Pederson August 8, 1997 Page 2 • The payment of fees at the time of building permits would allow for the collection of monies over a wide span of time. But while this may serve to diffuse monetary impacts to the applicant, it does not guarantee project surety. RCW 82.02 limits the time frames which can be used in the collection and use of mitigation monies for projects such as Evergreen interchange, and thereby impairs the ability of WSDOT and Spokane County to collect monies over long periods of time. Monies collected with this program will need to be returned with interest in five years if not spent, and the ambiguity of the timeline for this project makes it impossible for WSDOT to accept the suggested funding mechanism. • The cost of inflation and the need to periodically revisit environmental impacts will drive the cost of this project higher over time. Additionally, properties located in the Evergreen interchange footprint may be developed before the interchange is built which would further increase the cost of the project. Concurrency of infrastructure would not be provided for, and the transportation system would be over - committed for many years while monies are received for the interchange if this funding mechanism were used. For the above reasons, the funding methodologies presented in this study need to be removed. S -13 Reference to a particular dollar amount for the contribution towards Evergreen Interchange needs to be removed as final costs for the interchange have not yet been identified. Page 85 The Sullivan and Indiana intersection needs to be included in the description of intersections. Page 98 This table should be removed from the TIA. This table is based on preliminary cost estimates that are subject to change and does not represent WSDOT's position on funding for the Evergreen interchange. A general discussion as to the possible funding sources, the need for funding and participation among private developers could be considered acceptable. Second paragraph the word "minor" needs to be deleted. Appendix "B" Traffic Impact Analysis Page 1 The intersection of Trent and Pines needs to be included in the list of intersections scoped. WSDOT identified this intersection as a needed element of the scope in past correspondence. Page 10 Pines Road in the study area is a combination of both a 5 lane and 4 lane section. For example, Pines is a 4 lane facility at the intersection of Pines and Euclid. Mr. Pederson August 8, 1997 Page 3 Page 13 The accuracy of the growth rate for the Sullivan Road counts needs to be verified. The 1997 Sullivan Road counts as collected jointly by WSDOT and Spokane County should be used for comparison. Page 15 Analysis of the Pines/Mansfield and Pines/Trent intersections need to be included in this report. Page 23 The Wolf Apartments, consisting of 272 units on Mission just east of Pines, should be included in this analysis. A traffic analysis for this development was prepared by Inland Pacific Engineering. Page 24 The number of apartment units is listed as 144. In our pre - application meeting with the applicant we were informed that this number should be 208 units. Page 30 Trip generation for the Hotel needs to look at full occupancy. If the Hotel has 150 rooms for occupancy it is assumed they could all be occupied. This analysis needs to look at worst case impacts. If only 80% of the rooms will ever be occupied, then why would the developer build the extra rooms? Additional supporting information needs to be provided to document the land uses shown that are not included in the ITE Trip generation Manual. Page 41 The intersection of Pines and Indiana is not provided with its own signal controller. It functions on an overlap phase of the westbound off ramp, and needs to be analyzed with the existing timing plan for existing scenarios and for future scenarios unless IPEC is proposing the replacement of the signal controller as mitigation. Page 54 The intersection of Pines and Indiana is described to have a left, through, and a right turn lane on the west leg of the intersection. An exclusive left turn lane is currently not part of our improvement plans for this intersection and should not be included in this analysis unless IPEC is proposing the funding of such a lane as mitigation. The intersection of Pines and Euclid currently does not have a left turn channelization provided. WSDOT and Spokane County are working with the adjacent property owners on securing the needed right of way for left turn channelization. Left turn channelization needs to be provided at this intersection in conjunction with the traffic signal to minimize intersection delays and air quality impacts. Intersection configurations should be provided for the other intersections that were analyzed but were not included in this list. Mr. Pederson August 8, 1997 Page 4 Page 58 This table should be removed from the TIA. This table is based on preliminary cost estimates that are subject to change and does not represent WSDOT's position on funding for the Evergreen Interchange. A general discussion as to the possible funding sources, the need for funding and participation among private developers could be considered acceptable. Page 60 The need for a third lane on mainline I -90, identified in this study, needs to be included in the list of conclusions shown. Page 60 It is stated that the development will have a "minor impact on the transportation system." We disagree with this statement. Use of the phrase "minor impact" should be reserved for describing developments such as mini- storage, hotel, etc. that do not generate a significant number of trips. Developments such as this one which require the installation of new traffic signals on a principal arterial, the widening of freeway interchanges, etc. are significant and should not be minimized. The function of the traffic study is to identify the impacts of a project and propose improvements to mitigate the problem. The reference to only minor impacts is not supported by the analysis and needs to be removed from the DEIS. Page 61 The needed signal improvements at Pines and Mission and the 2 "d Eastbound left turn lane at the Eastbound Ramp of Pines need to be added to the list of recommendations. General Documentation on the deductions for right turns on red (RTOR) needs to be provided. The highway capacity analysis software accounts for a typical number of right turns on red, extra deductions should only be used if a separate right turn lane or other special circumstance would warrant. Please also be aware that Synchro already provides for multiple different treatments of right turners built into the software. General The intersection of Pines and Indiana provides for protected lefts for both south and northbound traffic on Pines. This signal phase again works on overlaps from the ramp signal. The analysis for this area assumes permitted phasing —this needs to be changed to protected phasing. General At Pines and Sullivan where slip ramps are present right turns from the off ramp are not allowed. For example, the westbound off ramp right- turners at Pines must turn left onto Indiana and then turn right onto Pines. General The slip ramps (hook ramps) at Pines and Sullivan need to be included into the analyzed areas. General A significant amount of the analyses of the future intersections along the Evergreen corridor is based on incorrect lane configurations. The most current lane configurations are included on the attached plan. It should be noted that these lane Mr. Pederson August 8, 1997 Page 5 configurations shown on the attachment have always been available and have not been altered since April of 1997. General Signalization of the Pines and Euclid intersection along with the expected queues may preclude left turns into the Trent Elementary School on the west side of Trent. A joint meeting was held with the School District, the adjacent property owners, Spokane County, and WSDOT in regard to this situation. The school district will be making provisions to allow their site to be served by this signal. This would result in the intersection being a 4 way intersection and not a tee. Additionally, the property owners on both sides of Euclid are interested in obtaining access from Euclid once the signal is installed. This traffic analysis needs to consider the fact that the traffic signal at Euclid and Pines will need to serve the west side of Pines so as not to preclude these property owners' access. 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 Keith Martin or Greg Figg in our Planning Office at 324 -6197 or 324 -6199. GF/MA Attachment cc: Cathy Ramm, Ramm and Associates Steve Stairs, Spokane County Engineers Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Project File Sincerely, • ROHWER Regional Planning Manager u:\dgn\evergren\sIgn2795.dgn 05 AUG 97 x Tr 0 LA 0 To25N0 Re44EQ W.M. z R2-1 11 a. • N • W Q cv V N M 40 W M r + V Mf 4.0 Z LO D4 -SPEC' • r1 0 o en 0 ea J 0_ • N r- en Q* N NJ + N W r- v Li v LG-M5 El- R-- I8 -SPEC IS -SPEC ift/ NS-E 464+685.622 P.C. ENE:AREA HAD EINVHCH DES! CNED BY T.D. KNUDSEN ENTERED BY T.D. KNUDSEN CHECKED BY V.FRUCCI PROJ. ENGR. K.OLSON PE REGI ANAL ADM. J.C.LENZI PE 7/31/97 7/31/97 40. STATE 10 WASH Jo..umE4 OL -2 ?95 DATE DATE REVISION BY WMTRACT W. FED.A[D PROJ.NO. 0 20 40 60 80 100 SCALE IN METERS OE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER Washington State s/I Department of Transportation 0 0 NS -E 464 +991.094 P.T E4-301 L 464 +982.544 P.O.T. SR 90 EVERGGREEH INTERCHANGE SIGNING PLAN S3 NOV -05 -1995 15 :19 INLAND PACIFIC ENG MEMORANDUM Via Facsimile DATE: November 5, 1996 W.O. NO. 96149 TO: Ramrn Associates - Cathy Ramm FROM: Tim Schwab, P.E. SUBJECT: Mirabeau Point E.I.S. - Traffic Impact Analysis Cathy: P.01 I talked with Pat Harper today about getting information from the Valley Mall traffic study that Jirn Borgan/Taylor Engineering is doing. He is aware that we need the information from that study to do the traffic analysis for the Mirabeau Point project and have been delayed because they have not completed their work in a timely manner. He is also aware that the Mirabeau Point project is in danger of "falling apart" if the traffic study is not completed. To force the issue, Pat said he would write a letter to the owners of the Mali project to inform them that if they did not have the Valley Mall Study submitted within two weeks, only commitments agreed to in the EIS would be honored. Also that their projects would have to include the Mirabeau Point project traffic if their study was not submitted within the two week period. I have also been attempting to contact Mark Aronson of Taylor Engineering regarding obtaining a copy of the traffic study. I may be able to get the information from him. Either way, within two weeks, we should have either the Valley Mall traffic study information or be able to go ahead with our study and not have to include their trips. Please call if you have any questions. cc: Pat Harper Post -it° Fax Note 7671 le /1 f5- 114 jre To fir"' Awe& From Ilit gc,MAJA S. coJ1 ep4. 9,+t+ ca. (#44., Go. x-Pf c... Phone * phone 45$- 6 Fax 14 5 .z4 ' 744-5- Fax r TOTAL P.01 Spokane jValley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall®spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director From: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney CC: Dave Mercier, City Manager, Kevin Snyder, John man and Marina Sukup Date: March 8, 2004 Re: Mirabeau Point — Enforcement of Evergreen Interchange Condition of Approval ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED INFORMATION In response to your request for clarification on this issue dated February 26, 2004, you have correctly stated the position the City should take. The previous discussions between Spokane County and Inland Empire Paper Company (IEP) relating to financial participation by IEP in the Evergreen Interchange did not result in an agreement. Spokane County elected to proceed with the project, even though there was not agreement with IEP for payment. As you pointed out, Spokane Valley then incorporated. Spokane County has asserted, at least unofficially through their Engineering Department, that they think we ought to condition approval of any permits on IEP payment to Spokane County of the amounts represented in the agreement that was never signed. Given these facts, I do not believe we can legally condition any permits. I recommend our position should be consistent with what you outlined in your memorandum. We should advise Spokane County when IEP comes in for permits, and the County can then collect those amounts due it for reimbursement from IEP. As you also noted, Spokane Valley should ensure concurrency by requiring the developer to submit trip generation and distribution analyses for each building permit and enforce the zone change requirement of updating the overall traffic study by January, 2007. Cary P. Driskell Deputy City Attorney Spokane ■Ualley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Cary Driskell From: Neil Kersten CC: Date: February 26, 2004 Dave Mercier, Kevin Snyder, John Hohman, Marina Sukup Re: Mirabeau Point — Enforcement of Evergreen Interchange Condition of Approval Please clarify our responsibilities in enforcing ZE -37 -96 Mirabeau Point Condition of Approval Number 11. This condition requires Inland Empire Paper Company to reimburse Spokane County for expenses related to the Evergreen Interchange Traffic Mitigation Project prior to the issuance of building permits. Background On August 17, 1999, the hearing examiner approved Inland Empire Paper Company's request to rezone 105.8 acres of land known as Mirabeau Point from Rural Residential - 10 to Light Industrial (1 -2). Within the approval decision, the hearing examiner retained Spokane County Division of Engineering's Condition of Approval Number 11, which required the developer to execute a transportation mitigation fee agreement. At the time, Spokane County and the Washington Department of Transportation were initiating the Evergreen Interchange Traffic Mitigation Project. A copy of this condition is attached. The issue involves Spokane County's purchase of $2.1 Million worth of reserve capacity in the Evergreen Project above the public participation requirement. It was their intention to obtain reimbursement by not issuing building permits until a developer agreement had been executed with Inland Empire Paper Company. The City's incorporation has eliminated their ability to restrict building permits and has raised questions of what responsibilities we have in relation to this issue. Our previous discussions on this matter have indicated that resolution of this condition is between Spokane County and Inland Empire Paper Company. It is our understanding that the City does not have any role in this issue besides extending the courtesy to notify Spokane County of any impending land actions or building permits and ensuring that concurrency standards are met. We propose to ensure concurrency compliance by requiring the developer to submit trip generation and distribution analyses for each building permit and enforcing the zone change requirement of updating the overall traffic study by January 2007. Please confirm our understanding and provide any clarifications to our enforcement responsibilities on this issue. Attachments: ZE -37 -96 Conditions of Approval RE: • ! On August 1'7, 1999, the Hearing Examiner entered a final written 04cision in the 'above matter. The decision erroneously included Washington State Departrnt Transportation (WSDOT) conditions of approval recommended for a different project; The correct WSDOT conditions of approval are contained in a letter dated June 9, 1999 frona:Greg Figg of WSDOT to. Tammy Jones of Spokane County Planning ra: Mirabeau Point Rezonei (Revised) (ZE-37-96). file. The decision also contains an error in the numbering of County Erigineering conditions # 13-22, which are erroneously numbered #1-10 after the first 12 conditiOns. ORDER V.11,-41 Lfli 104-1...-LHHIliNG ;1 SPOgANE COUNTY REARING EXAMINE* Zone Reclassification from Rural ) Residentia1-10 (RR-10) Zone to ) Light Industrial (I-2) Zone Applicant: Inland Empire Paper Co. ) File No. ZE-37-96 I. S',WW:MARY I H0.461. P 01 P.20/6: ORDER CORRECTING CLEITC,.AL ERRORS The Heariag Examiner Findings 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 in such decision, and to add the conditions of approval contained in the letter dated June 9, 1999 from.: preg Figg of WSDOT to Tammy Jones of Spokane County Planning, re: Mirabeau Point Rezone (Revised) (ZS-37-96). Such conditions are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herin. Such decision is also hereby revised to renumber the ten (10) County Engineering condition'eappearing after condition #12 as conditions #13-22. ! The appeal period indicated in the decision is not modified by this'order. ;11 DATED this 18th day of August, 1999 post-It' Fax Note 7671 •o icvez Frs- Co/Dept Phone I Data io From efx.±LA, Go. 17.)kill Phone # Fax # ! I SPOKANE COUNTY HE JUNG EXAMINER 11 1 C . Dempsey, WS :A #8 11 I ZB-37-96 ;1 Mich t of o. 5 pagQ-.4 t I /6c ssoc v t , 151 T •11 r' 21. • i . • I! I; I 3.. : • i! ,1 •; I - I • •: • r71Washington State Department of Transportation • Sid Morison Secretary ot Transportation Ms. Tammy Jones Spokane County Planning West 1026 Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260-0240 EasiOin Region 2714 iMay1air Street Spoil ne, WA 94207-2090 (509) *4-6000 June 9, 1999 P - 02 Re: Mirabeau Point Rezone (Correction) (ZE-37-96) Dear Ms. Jones; It has been brought to our attention by the applicant that o lur May 25, 1999 letter , addressed to you on the above development contained an error In reviewing our letter we concur that a typographical error did occur on item 4 in th6 next to last bullet. This : bulleted item should have referred to items 1 through 4, not items 1 and 2 as was • originally stated. This item has been corrected and a modified: letter to replace the one originally submitted is attached for inclusion in your report and files on this project. Thank you again for your assistance in this matter and if you haye any questions regarding this change, please do not hesitate to contact me at 324-6199. Sincerely, Greg Figg ; Transportation.Planner GF: ; attachment: . i cc: Cathy Ramm, Ramm and Associates Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers .• Harold White, WSDOT Program Management Project File: 027-1)87-03 .; • I • • • ;i i; • •• • • it .1 Washington State Department of Transportation SId Morrison Secretary ol Transportation Ms. Tammy Jones Spokane County Planning West 1026 Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260-0240 Easiirp Region 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokn�. WA 99207-2090 (509) 24.6000 . f June 9, 1999 ;1 !! Re: Mirabeau POint Rezone (Revised) (ZE-37-96) !i P. 03 • " ! Dear Ms. Jones; • The Washington State Department of Transportation (wSpor) has reviewed the previolisly submitted environmental information on this project and as a result recommends that certain conditions of approval be implemented for this project. The following "Conditions Of Approval" are submitted to the tPokane County Planning : • •Department for inclusion in the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions irid Order/Decision" should •i the request be approved: :1 , 1. Prior to release of building permits or construction ocC,uring in Phase I of this;: project the applicant shall enter into a PYSDOT developer'S14reement to either design;. and construct or participate to the extent needed to guar4iee financial surety of the: following improvements (Phase 1 of the project is defineci on page 31 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B; not to exceed ;521 peak hour trips.): • Provide a right turn lane on eastbound Trent AVehue at the Pines Roqd: ,1 intersection. • •The reconfiguration of the westbound approach at the Indiana Avenue/Evergreen Road intersection to provide a second westbound left tijrn lane and one westbound '1 !I through lane. 1 • Widening of the south leg of the Indiana Avenue/Eve green Road intersection to provide an adequate turning radius for westbound left turning trucks with a 50 foot,. wheelbase (WB 50). ! . 2. Prior to release of building permits or construction Octurring in Phase 11 the' applicant shall enter mb a WSDOT developer's agreement to either design and construct or participate to the extent needed to guarantee financial surely of the' followin g improveMents (Phase II of the project is defineid on page 33 of the Final Environmental Imp•ret Statement, Appendix B; not to exceed 1,800 cumulative peak hour trips.): .!• 111: I I fi •;' 1 rl !hi i • di • 11 I P. 04 Ms. Jonei June 9, 1999 Page 2 • Revise the existing signal and channelization at the Piqes Road/Mission Avenue intersection to allow eastbound and westbound protected plus permitted left turn movements. • Provide a second eastbound left tum lane and a northb and right turn lane at the Pines Road/eastbound ramp intersection. • , Revise the location of the westbound off ramp terminal from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue and install a new traffic signal and illtimination system at the !! I Indiana/westbound off ramp intersection. • ;1 !' At the Pines Road/Indiana Avenue intersection: ,1 - Provide an eastbound right turn lane 11 , • - Reconfigure the east approach to provide one left film lane, one through and left lane, and one right tum lane Revise the signal phasing for the eastbound and we;;tbound approaches to split phasing ▪ Provide a traffic signal and illumination system at the '1,irries Road/Euclid Avenue intersection. I 3. Prior to release of building permits or construction occurring in Phase III the applicant shall enter into a WSDOT developer's agreeent to either design and construct or particii,ate to the extent needed to guaran financial surety of the following improvements (Phase III of the project is definalon page 33 of the Final 1 Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B,. not to exceed 2,025 cumulative peak hour trips.): ; • I i Provide an improvement for the Pines Road/Mansfiel4 Avenue Intersection that ; will ensure that the level of service based on delay time' at this intersection will not be further degraded by this project. •, !ri ir 1 4. General conditions tO apply to this development: • !I: While the threshold air quality analysis submitted by the applicant suggests these projects will meet the air quality standards for Carbon ;Monoxide (CO), a project level air quality analysis will need to be conducted by tle applicant. This analysis will need to be accepted by WSDOT and the Spolc4el Regional Transportation ; Council prior to the needed improvements being consfirlucted. This analysis shall document that the allowable limits of CO will not be e+eded and that an existing CO hot spot will not be further impacted by the proposed project. Should this !i • 1:. Ms. Jones June 9, 1999 Page 3 • ; ) ! . occur the proposed project will need to be modified accordingly to ensure the !I P,, 0 5 I allowable levels Of CO will not be exceeded. I • 1 i 1 • The traffic analysis conducted for this development shall be updated by the applicant for the portion of this development for which building permits have not i been obtained by the end of thc year 2006. This traffic6udy shall also be updated by the applicant if the cumulative traffic generation o development exceeds 881 entering and 1,144 exiting peak hour trips. Thi tpdated analysis shall be reviewed and accepted by both WSDOT and Spokane Co ntv. ! t 1 ' 1 • 1 1 All improvements to WSDOT facilities shall be approved by WSDOT prior to, construction (ie: design, drainage, illumination, electriCial, surfacing, etc.). I ; i , i : • • :: i 5. Spokane County is now developing a traffic mitigation! plan in conjunction with WSDOT for the Pines and Sullivan Corridors. Should t,Iiis plan be adopted by the Board of Spokane County Commissioners the applicant rna choose to participate in' :1 the plan in lieu of the improvements called out in items 1 thr u2.h 4 above. ; ; • . • . 6. Signage visible to 1-90 will need to conform to the Federlal and State Scenic Vista's; t , Acts. !I ; If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to contact me at 324-6199. If !I . GF: Sincerely, !I • Greg Fiu t • Transportation Planner • ; cc: Cathy Ramm, Rarnm and Associates Pat Harper, Spokane County Engineers Harold White, WSDOT Program Management Ted Trepanier, WSDOT Traffic Project File: 027-087-03 T • ;1 A • •• •. •1 • •• 11! • r SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER RE: Zone Reclassification from Rural ) FINDINGS OF FACT, Residential -10 (RR -10) Zone to ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, Light Industrial (I -2) Zone ) AND DECISION Applicant: Inland Empire Paper Cc. ) 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 Industrial (I -2) zone, on approximately 105.8 acres of land, for development of recreational /community facilities, a business park, various commercial uses and those uses allowed in the Light Industrial (I -2) zone. Decision: Approved, subject to conditions. II. 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 1 T Address: i�vi 4ssigit xi. Location: Generally located south of and adjacent to Euclid Avenue, north of Indiana Avenue, southwest of the Spokane River and one -fourth (1/4) mile 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 described as follows: The North 300.00 feet of the East 280.00 feet of the West % of the Northwest '/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 right-of-way line of the Inland Empire Co. Railroad, as shown on Record of Survey, Book 45, Page 78; Except Ivlirabeau Parkway as recorded under File No. CRP 2762, Spokane County, Washington; AND that part of the East '/2 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington described as follows: The South '/2 of the Southwest 1 of the Northeast ' /a; Except the West 200.00 feet; Government Lot 3 lying southerly and westerly of the southwesterly right -of -way line of the Inland Empire Co. Railroad as shown on Record of Survey, Book 45, Page 78; Except the North '/2 of the North '/2 of said Government Lot 3; and that part of the Southeast 1/4 lying north of the northerly right -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 Zoning: Rural Residential -10 (RR -10). The site is also located in the Aquifer Sensitive • Overlay zone and the Public Transit Benefit Area designated by the Zoning Code. Comprehensive Plan: Rural category. The property is also located within the Aquifer Sensitive Area, Priority Sewer Service Area and Urban Impact Area designated by the Plan. IUGA: The site is located inside the interim urban growth area boundaries designated by the County pursuant to the State Growth Management Act. Critical Areas: County Critical Areas maps designate Urban Natural Open Space priority wildlife habitat extending through the majority of the south portion of the site and all of the north portion of the site. This priority habitat extends through most of the north half of Section 10, between the Spokane River and Pines Road. Such maps designate the Spokane River as a Type I stream, which has a 250 -foot wide riparian priority habitat buffer under the County Critical Areas Ordinance. Shorelines: The Spokane River is designated as a shoreline of statewide significance by the County Shoreline Master Program. Portions of the site appear to be located within the 200 -foot wide shoreline area that extends from the ordinary high water mark of the river. The shorelines paralleling the site boundaries are designated either Conservancy Area or Pastoral Area by the Master Program. Environmental Review: A Determination of Significance (DS) was issued for the proposal on August 30, 1996. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued on October 2, 1997, with a comment period ending November 18, 1997. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on June 12, 1998. Site Description: The subject site is approximately 105.8 acres in size, and consists of two _ disconnected areas of land. The north 1/3 of the site is approximately 17.3 acres in size, lies directly north of the former Walk in the Wild Zoo, and is accessed by Euclid Avenue. The north portion is generally flat to rolling, undeveloped, covered with native grasses, and located a short distance west of the Spokane River. The south 2/3 of the site is approximately 88.5 acres in size, bordered on the south by the Union Pacific Railway right -of -way, and is accessed by Mirabeau Parkway, which is currently under construction. The south portion is generally flat, covered with native vegetation, and located a short southwest of the Spokane River. A YMCA recreational facility is currently.under construction on the south portion. The site has not been farmed for several years. Area Road Network: Pines Road (SR -27), a 4 -lane state highway improved with curb and sidewalk, is located approximately a third of a mile west of the north portion of the site and a half mile west of the south portion of the site. Euclid Avenue, a paved road without curb or sidewalk, borders the north portion of the site. The County has formed a road improvement district to improve Euclid Avenue to a 3 -lane arterial road section from Pines Road east to Mirabeau Parkway. Mirabeau Parkway has been paved to a 3 -lane arterial road section halfway between Euclid Avenue and Indiana Avenue. Such roadway is expected to be extended to Indiana Avenue during 1999, and south of the current site would include a fully signalized railroad HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 2 crossing and a transition from 3 lanes to 5 lanes. Indiana Avenue, which is designated as a Minor Arterial by the Arterial 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 point. A new freeway interchange at Evergreen Road and Interstate 90 is planned for construction within a few years. The Arterial Road Plan illustrates Evergreen Road extended north of Interstate 90 as a future Principal Arterial, following the east boundary of the south portion of the site, crossing the Spokane River and continuing north to Trent Avenue. The County has abandoned such alignment north of Indiana Avenue, in favor of arterial 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 (1-2) and undeveloped. A single - family home on land zoned RR -10 is located just 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 over from the old Walk in the Wild Zoo which previously existed on such acreage. Such acreage is otherwise undeveloped, and comprised of ponderosa pine woodland, with large rock outcroppings rising 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 Pines Road in the area, between Euclid Avenue and Mansfield Avenue, is zoned either UR -22 or 1 -2, and includes a business park, offices, multi - family housing and vacant land. This includes 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Pines Road, which were recently rezoned 1 -2 and are being developed for a business park. The land lying along the west side of Pines Road in 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 Business (B -1) zone. The land lying east of the southerly part of the south portion of the site is zoned I -2, and is undeveloped. The land lying east of the Spokane River in the vicinity is zoned 1 -2 and Heavy Industrial (I -3), and includes an aluminum rolling/processing plant and vacant land. The land lying south and southeast of the south portion of the site, south of the railroad right of way, is zoned I -2, Community Business (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 primarily with light industrial uses and vacant land. Recent land use approvals in the area are listed on page 2 of the Staff Report. The land lying between the Mirabeau Point project and the river 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 Project Description: The applicant proposed a zone reclassification of 105.8 acres of land to the I -2 zone for 105.8 acres of land. The applicant originally submitted an application in May, 1996 to rezone approximately 122 acres to the B -2 and B -3 zones, along with proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. The original application would have rezoned the north part of the current site to the B -2 zone, and the south part to the B -3 zone. In March, 1999, the applicant submitted a revised rezone application to develop the current site of 105.8 acres under the I -2 zone, without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. See letter dated 3 -10 -99 from Ramm Associates, Inc. to John Pederson. The revised site plan of record submitted on April 29, 1999 represents a conceptual master plan for the entire 229 -acre Mirabeau Point development. The master plan includes the current site, the land lying directly north of the north portion of the site, the 44 acres of land lying between the two portions of the site, and the land lying to the east between the river and the south portion of the site. Inland Empire Paper Co. owns the portions of the Mirabeau Point development outside the current site. The site plan illustrates parts of the south portion of the site lying west of Mirabeau Parkway developed for a YMCA facility (12 acres), a community complex and an ice arena. The environmental documents indicate that the community complex may include a science center, educational classrooms, a planetarium and a senior center. The YMCA facility will likely include an indoor aquatics center, teen center and gymnasium. The northerly 10 -11 acres of the 44 acres lying between the two portions of the current site are proposed to be reserved for a County park with playgrounds. The remaining portion of this acreage would be reserved as natural open space with interpretive trails, interpretative facilities, and a Centennial Trail head parking lot. The remainder of the site and the Mirabeau Point development would be developed for "business park" type uses. These will purportedly be limited to offices, light industrial uses and limited commercial_ uses_ According to the environmental documents, the Mirabeau Point conceptual plan would be developed over a 10 -year period. Phase I of the plan would include the YMCA, ice arena, and retail and recreational uses in the south portion of the plan. Phase II would develop the easterly portion of the concept plan, including a business office park and miscellaneous recreational and commercial uses. Phase III includes development of the north portion of the concept plan for business park uses and the County park. However, at the public hearing, the applicants indicated that the Euclid Avenue portion of the project might be developed first. Access to the Centennial Trail is illustrated at various locations from the Mirabeau Point development. The current proposal is conditioned for the extension of public sewer and water. County Engineering conditions of approval require the applicant to construct a traffic signal at realigned Mansfield Avenue and Mirabeau Parkway, install sidewalk along Mirabeau Parkway/Euclid Avenue through the site as building permits are issued, participate in the funding of the Evergreen/I -90 Interchange through a voluntary agreement with the County, improve Mansfield Avenue from Mirabeau Parkway to the west boundary of the site to a 3 -lane special roadway section, improve the other public roads in the project to a commercial local access roadway section, and dedicate the necessary road rights of way. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 4 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) conditions require the applicant to fund or install off -site improvements at various road intersections with state highways in the area, and at the I- 90/Pines 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, in 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 original 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 Engineering 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 .3 Spokane County Parks & Recreation 404 North Havana Spokane, WA 99202 Wayne Frost Inland Empire Paper 3320 North Argonne Spokane, WA 99212 Wayne Andreson Inland Empire Paper 3320 North Argonne Spokane, WA 99212 Chris Ashenbrenner 140 South Arthur, Suite 600 Spokane, WA 99202 WA State Department of Transportation 2714 North Mayfair Spokane, WA 99207 Todd Whipple Inland Pacific Engineering 707 West 7th Avenue, Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 Bob Boyle Hanson Industries 15102 East Indiana Avenue Spokane, WA 99216 Sue Madsen (no address given) Richard Wallis YMCA 507 North Howard Spokane, WA 99201 Items Noticed: County Comprehensive Plan, County Zoning Code, County Shoreline Master Program, County Guidelines for Stormwater Management, and County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction. County Critical Areas maps, County Arterial Road Plan maps and County Official Shoreline maps. County Resolution Nos. 98 -0201 (amending Guidelines for Stormwater-Management), 97 -0652 (amending Critical Areas Ordinance), 97 -0321 (adopting interim IUGA regulations), 97 -0135 (adopting moratorium outside County IUGAs), 97 -0134 (establishing IUGA boundaries), 96 -1005 (suspending park mitigation fees), 96 -0302 (adopting Critical Areas Ordinance), 96 -0294 (Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure), 96 -0293 (ESHB 1724 procedures), 96 -0171 (Hearing Examiner Ordinance), 95 -0498 (adopting Standards for Road and Sewer Construction, and Guidelines for Stormwater Management), and 85 -0900 (adopting Zoning Code, and Program to Implement Zoning Code). III. LAND USE ANALYSIS/ FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Approval criteria In considering a rezone application, Washington case law generally provides that 1) there is no presumption in favor of the rezone, 2) the applicant for the rezone must prove that conditions have substantially changed in the area since the last zoning of the property, and 3) the rezone proposal must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety or welfare. Parkridge v. Seattle, 98 Wn.2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978); and Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 899 P.2d 1290 (1995). HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 6 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 Hearing Examiner Ordinance authorizes 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 criteria 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 commissioners,. Zoning Code 14 100.106 indicates that when the provisions of the Zoning rode 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 voluntarily 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 Comprehensive Plan. bears a substantial relationship to and will not be detrimental to the public health. safety and general welfare. and complies with the Spokane County Zoning. Code and other applicable development regulations. The site is designated in the Rural category of the Comprehensive Plan. The Rural category is intended to provide the opportunity for development of agricultural, timber or open HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 7 environments in a "countrylike" setting. The primary land use within this category is intended to' be very-large lot residential with agricultural uses or open spaces. See Comprehensive Plan, Section 4, "Purpose ". The residential density recommended by the Rural category is one unit per ten (10) or more acres. The Rural category states as follows, in pertinent part: The Rural category includes all the land not already included in the Urban, Suburban or Semi -Rural categories, or the Major Commercial, Industrial or Agricultural categories. Occasionally. small -scale commercial and industrial uses will be found to serve local needs of the surrounding populations, including those associated with agricultural activities. These will usually be located in and near small incorporated or unincorporated communities. The typical land use mix could include residential, Agricultural, timber, grazing, public lands. roads and/or vacant land and large unique and environmentally sensitive areas. Adjacent compatible categories might include Suburban and Semi -Rural or Agricultural... The aesthetic setting of the Rural Category will be open space. Large, cultivated fields, pastures and timber and natural areas will consume most of the land. Houses will generally be scattered and at some distance from each other. It will be common to see 1 or 2 houses on a quarter section (160 acres), while in some areas, as many as 64 houses may be set on a section (640 acres) ... Very • fewj'ublic services will be provided to the Rural Category in - comparison to the other three residential categories... Most Urban. Major Commerciai and Industrial activities would be incompatible in the Rural category. Urban, Suburban and some Semi - Rural- intensity residential subdivisions not related to agriculture would also be out of place. [Emphasis added]. Comprehensive Plan, Section 4. Decision Guideline 4.3.1 recommends that proposed development in the Rural category be designed to benefit from, accommodate and complement environmental conditions and features. Land use proposals should consider development impact upon wildlife habitat, and the retention and maintenance of fragile wildlife and/or unique environmental areas identified by the County. Decision Guidelines 4.3.3 and 4.4.2. Decision Guideline 4.6.2 recommends that land being productively and economically farmed not be converted to a nonagricultural use. Decision Guideline 4.6.3 discourages development of land currently in agricultural use within the Rural category, and emphasizes that development should be compatible with adjacent agricultural activities. Decision Guideline 4.6.4 finds that a multiple use concept, including such activities as grazing, outdoor recreation, HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 8 wildlife management and similar uses, would be compatible with timber management and existing agricultural activities in 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 in the vicinity of airports, railroads and freeways. Decision Guideline 4.7.b encourages a variety of lot sizes in outlying areas, with small acreage tracts distinguished from agricultural areas, to retain a relatively low density and to provide limited agricultural activities. Decision Guideline 4.7.2 indicates that single - family development is appropriate 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 districts, 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 in 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 agricultural 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 I -2 zone is to meet the needs for industrial land identified in the Industrial category of the Comprehensive_ Plan. Industrial uses in this zone typically include processing, fabrication, Light assembly, freight handling and similar operations, all of a non - offensive nature. It is the intent of the Light Industrial (1 -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 in 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 in Zoning Code 14.628.315 through 14.628.380 are met. See Zoning Code 14.629.080. Such development standards included, without limitation, the requirement that any building site have frontage on a public road of Principal Arterial 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 in the I -2 zone recognize a need for more intensive and a greater variety of commercial uses to provide support for light industrial uses in the I -2 zone, and the potential compatibility between light industrial uses and intensive commercial uses. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 9 The proposed rezone to I -2 generally does not implement the Rural category, particularly • considering the intensive commercial uses proposed by the applicant. Some proposed uses may be compatible with the Rural category, including the YMCA project and community complex. These uses provide some internal transition from the business park uses proposed in the south portion of the site to the proposed open space natural area and County park located to the north and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conservancy land located to the west. A similar transition is not apparent in the north portion of the current project, where business park uses are proposed directly north of the DNR conservancy land and the proposed County park. The FEIS for the project suggested development of a recreational vehicle park in this area, along with limitations on the intensity of the proposed commercial uses to those considered compatible with the recreational and entertainment uses proposed to the south in the Mirabeau development. See FEIS, p. 2; and response #s 4 -8 in Response to Letter No. 5. However, the applicant's representatives currently describe development of the north portion of the site as a continuation of the business park theme extended from the newly developed Pinecroft Business Park, located at the southeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Pines Road (SR- 27). Such development would purportedly include a business park geared to offices, light industrial, and "limited commercial support". See Exhibit E; and letter dated 3 -10 -99 from Ramm Associates, Inc. to John Pederson. The habitat management plan prepared for the project does propose a 50 -foot wide buffer along the southerly border of the north portion of the site dominated by wildlife habitat functions. See Habitat Evaluation and Management Plan, p. 25. Some transition is provided between the business park uses proposed along the Spokane River in the south portion of the site and the adjacent shoreline area. The County Critical Areas Ordinance requires a 250 -foot riparian buffer required between such uses and the ordinary high water mark under the County Critical Areas Ordinance. The regulations of the County's Shoreline Master Program for the Conservancy and Pastoral Areas would also severely restrict or prohibit commercial/industrial . development of any portions of the site located .within the 200 - foot wide shoreline jurisdiction. Applicant Inland Empire Paper Co. (IPCO) suggested that the btsiness -park uses' alorig the river in the south part of the Mirabeau Park deveioprrient would be of a corporate business park or "high tech" nature, with no retail uses except perhaps a restaurant or other retail use supportive of the business park. Any large "big box" retail uses would reportedly be limited to locations near or along the south border of the south business park. See testimony of Cathy Ramm. The record indicates an apparent misunderstanding by the applicants that the I -2 zone allows virtually all B -3 zone uses without having to meet arterial road frontage requirements. See Exhibit E; and letter dated 3 -10 -99 from Ramm Associates, Inc. to John Pederson. This appears true, at a maximum, for those B -3 zone uses separately already listed as permitted uses in Section 14.629.020 of the Industrial Zones Matrix, such as restaurants, hotels and motels, automobile and recreation sales, and a few others. The FEIS, which was based on a proposed rezone of the site to the B -2 zone and B -3 zone, recognized that uses developed under the B -3 zone B -2 zone are respectively subject to Principal Arterial and Minor Arterial frontage requirements. See FEIS, response #4 in Response to Letter No. 5. None of the public roads running through or adjacent to the site are designated as Principal Arterials by the County Arterial Road Plan, or classified functionally as Principal HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 10 Arterial 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 Engineering has proposed upgrading such designation to a Minor Arterial, but a Principal Arterial designation is unlikely. See testimony of Pat Harper; Zoning Code 14.300.100, definition of "arterials, 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 in the project would be limited, at best, to those specifically listed as permitted outright or as a conditional use in 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 Industrial category on the east. This triggers 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 categories. Under the "transition policy ", where a specific proposal crosses the boundary between 2 or more land use categories, 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 categories involved. Buffering may be used to mitigate such impacts and intrusion. See Comprehensive Plan, p. 11, and definition of "transitional area" and "transitional buffering" in the glossary. The Industrial category is intended to provide the opportunity for industrial development and reserve land for industrial purposes. The Industrial category will be composed of a variety of industrial, mining and transportation uses. Few commercial and residential uses will be found. Small -scale activities related to industrial uses such as cafes, ser.'ice stations and parts and service stores will also be characteristic 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 Industrial 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 Industrial 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 - industrial proposals, unless it is shown that the land involved is near other non - industrial land use categories, there is sufficient remaining land in the Industrial category to meet existing or near future industrial needs, and the proposal is compatible with existing or potential industrial uses through the use of buffering or suitable development covenants. See Decision Guideline 7.2.5. Large or medium scale industrial sites, relative to other sites in the Industrial category, should be directly accessible to highways, freeways, arterial roadways or airways, and should not overload or HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 11 congest such routes. The number of driveway or ingress and egress access locations onto highways or arterials are to be minimized, by providing frontage roads with limited access shared by other development, providing side street access to the highway or arterial, or sharing limited access facilities through private frontage roads. Decision Guideline 7.1.3. Buffering is recommended between proposed and existing development, particularly when heavy industrial development is located adjacent to light industrial or commercial uses. See Decision Guidelines 7.1.4 and 7.2.2. The Industrial category indicates that only light industry should be located adjacent to an existing or proposed residential area. Decision Guideline 7.1.1. Proposed industrial developments which are not adjacent to residential development or residential categories, and which are anticipated either to improve the aesthetics or the value of surrounding industrial property, should not be required to provide any buffering between themselves and existing or potential industrial activity. Decision Guideline 7.2.2. The recent amendments to the 1 -2 zone, discussed previously, have changed the way in which the Zoning Code is perceived to implement the Industrial category by adding more commercial uses. The Major Commercial category is intended for the development of commercial uses, particularly "community and regional shopping centers ", and uses related to major traffic corridors. The Major Commercial category discourages most residential uses. Decision Guideline 6.1.1 of the Major Commercial category states that stores and commercial services established to serve residents within a few blocks radius may be considered compatible, and therefore appropriate, when located adjacent to residential land -use categories. See Decision Guidelines 6.1.11 and 6.1.13. Heavy industrial_uses are generally considered incompatible in Major Commercial areas. Multiple -use clustering proposals complimentary to existing or proposed commercial development are encouraged in such category when they share physical facilities and amenities, and enhance the cost - effectiveness of utilities or transportation. Cornprehensive Plan, Decision Guidelines 6.1.7 and 6.1.9. Light Industry is considered acceptable in the Major Commercial category, if it is compatible and designed to complement existing and future commercial activities, such compatibility is assured through appropriate development covenants, and it is located within or adjacent to a residential community or regional commercial shopping center. Decision Guideline 6.1.2. Compatibility between commercial uses and adjacent land use categories is to be accomplished through the orientation of structures and facilities to maintain or approve aesthetics and energy efficiency in the proposal, and through buffering and landscaping. Decision Guideline 6.1.1. Like the Industrial category, the Major Commercial category strongly recommends consistency with adopted public and utility infrastructure policies and regulations, such as sewer, water and drainage, in approving development in such category. The Major Commercial category is implemented by the B -1, B -2 and B -3 zones set forth in the County Zoning Code. The B -3 zone is the most intensive commercial zone, and is intended to provide for the location of a wide range of retail and service activities, and to HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 12 implement commercial development along Principal Arterials 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 primarily a residential category of single - family, two - family, multi - family, and condominium 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 industrial 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 Building 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 nd 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 concern. 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 river, east of Mirabeau Parkway. Some of these uses as illustrated are located within the 250 -foot wide riparian 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 riparian 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 Examiner lacks the authority to impose the public hearing requirement. The purpose of the binding site plan process is to allow the division of industrial and commercial land, not to control zoning. The Examiner also finds that the rezone proposed in the north portion of the site could allow the development of uses which are too intensive to be located adjacent to the DNR conservancy land and the proposed County park land zoned RR -10, or promote strip commercial development along Euclid Avenue. Considering the type of I -2 zone uses suggested by the applicants in this area, the Examiner finds that limiting the development in this area to those uses allowed in the I -2 zone, which are also allowed in the I -1 zone, would generally accomplish the applicants' stated plans for this area, and provide needed transition between the 1 -2 zone located along the north side of Mirabeau Parkway and the DNR land and the proposed County park. The I -1 zone can implement the Urban category. The Examiner has not imposed I -1 zone development standards on such uses, considering the proximity of such uses to the I -2 zone on the other side of Euclid Avenue. The record indicates that there is ample residential development in the area west of the site already, primarily along Pines Road and Mansfield Avenue to the west. See testimony of Chris Ashenbrenner. Significant residential development is also located north of Trent Avenue in the general area. A representative for the YMCA testified that it relies on exposure to business to support use of its recreational facilities. See testimony of Richard Wallis. Residential development of the site is also hampered by the proximity of the site to the Kaiser Aluminum rolling/processing plant located across the river. In authorizing I -2 zoning for the project, the Examiner also considers the trade -off provided by the applicant's offer to dedicate 10-11 acres to the County Parks and Recreation Department, and the setting aside of 33 -44 acres as natural open space. -- The Examiner leas-- added-cot►ditions of approval requiring that the applicar ;i kdicate the proposed park land to the County and reserve the proposed natural area, in consideration of the habitat plan prepared for the project, the impacts disclosed in the project EIS, and as mitigation for the impact that I -2 zoning will have on the Urban Natural Open Space designated on the site. Detailed review to consider compliance with applicable County zoning standards will be administrative, except as discussed above. The proposal makes adequate provision for the impact of the project on the area road system, and other public infrastructure. The Hearing Examiner has no authority or reason to require the applicants to make further contributions to the road system, or to require reimbursement to others for the contributions that they have made to the road system serving the project. The Examiner has reviewed the environmental documents and concludes that the EIS adequately discloses the probable, significant adverse environmental impacts of the project, the mitigation for such impacts, the alternatives to development of the site. As conditioned, the project will not have more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment. The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and the County's Local Environmental Ordinance have been met. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 14 c. Conditions in the area in which the property is located have chang_ed substantially since the property was last zoned. In applying the changed circumstances test, courts have looked at a variety of factors, including changed public opinion, changes in land use patterns in the area of the rezone proposal, and changes on the property itself. The Zoning Code references changes in "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. Bjarnson, 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 support a rezone of the site. See Exhibit E, and testimony of Cathy Rarnm. 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 in the Spokane Valley area, and recent zone changes along Pines Road and south of the site. IV. DECISION Based on4.ne Findings of Fact and Conclusions above, the above application:for a zone reclassification is hereby approved, subject to the co editions of the various public agencies specified below. Conditions of public agencies which have significantly been altered or supplemented by the Examiner are italicized. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval by the Hearing Examiner. This approval does not waive the applicant's obligation to comply with all other requirements of other agencies with jurisdiction 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 '/2 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane, Washington described as follows: The North 300.00 feet of the East 280.00 feet of the West 1/2 of the Northwest' /,; the North 300.00 feet of the East 1/2 of the Northwest ' /4; the North 300.00 feet of Government Lot 2 lying HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 15 westerly of the westerly right -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 '/2 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 EWM, Spokane County, Washington described as follows: The South '/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 right -of -way line of the Inland Empire Co. Railroad as shown on Record of Survey, Book 45, Page 78; Except the North '/2 of the North '/2 of said Government Lot 3; and that part of the Southeast 1/4 lying north of the northerly right -of -way line of the Union Pacific Railroad; Except Mirabeau Parkway as recorded under File No. CRP 2762, Spokane County, Washington. 3. The proposal shall comply with the Light Industrial (I -2) zone, as amended. 4. The proposal shall be developed substantially in accordance with the conceptual plan dated April 29, 1999 and submitted on April 29, 1999, except as modified to comply with conditions of approval and applicable development regulations. Development of the northerly 17.3 acres of the site under the 1 -2 zone is limited to those uses which are either permitted outright or by conditional use in both the 1 -2 zone and the Industrial Park (1 -1) zone. A public hearing review by the Hearing Body is required prior to any site development of those uses proposed along the northerly boundary of the south 88.5 acres of the site located east of Mirabeau Parkway, to determine the suitability of the use with respect to its impacts on the adjacent shoreline and riparian buffer areas, the Centennial Trail, and compliance with applicable development regulations. The detailed site plan presented at a subsequent hearing must address all conditions of approval imposed by the Hearing Body. Any significant changes must be approved through the change of conditions process conducted pursuant to a public hearing. 5. Approval is required from the Director of the Division of Building. and P1 nni g/desgnee of a specific lighting and signing plan for the described property prior to the release of any building permit. 6. Direct light from any exterior area lighting fixture shall not extend over the property boundary. 7. A specific landscape plan, planting schedule and provisions for the maintenance acceptable to the Director of the Division of Building and Planning/designee shall be submitted with a performance-bond or other suitable guarantee for the project prior to release of any building permits. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained so that sight distance at access points is not obscured or impaired. 8. The Division of Building and Planning shall prepare and record with the Spokane County Auditor a Title Notice noting that the property in question is subject to a variety of special conditions imposed as a result of approval of a land use action. This Title Notice shall serve as public notice of the conditions of approval affecting the property in question. The Title Notice should be recorded within the same time frame as allowed for an appeal and shall only be released, in full or in part, by the Division of Building and Planning. The Title Notice shall generally provide as follows: HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 16 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 riparian 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 jurisdiction 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 shoreline permits may be necessary for development within the shorelines. 13. The Division of Building and Planning shall prcparc and record with the Spokaae.County Auditor a Title Notice, which shall generally provide as ftllew: "Prior 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 ENGINEEIIING Prior 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 in width extending from Mirabeau Parkway west to the western property boundary of this proposal on the new Mansfield alignment for right 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 Avenue for right of way. 3. The applicant shall dedicate the applicable radius on Mansfield Avenue and Mirabeau Parkway. 4. Access permits for approaches to the County Road System shall be obtained from the County Engineer. 5. Access permits and improvements to all State facilities must be approved by the Washington State Department of Transportation (W.S.D.O.T.). 6. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a signal at Mansfield and Mirabeau Parkway when signal warrants are met. Incremental traffic analysis reviewing signal warrants at this intersection is required at time of building permits. 7. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer road, drainage and access plans. 8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the Spokane County Engineer and the Spokane Regional Health District a detailed combined on -site sewage system plan and surface water disposal plan for the entire project or portion thereof if the development is phased. 9. A parking plan and traffic circulation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Spokane County Engineer. The design, location and arrangement of parking stalls shall be in accordance with standard engineering practices. Paving or surfacing as approved by the County Engineer will be required for any portion of the project which is to be occupied or traveled by vehicles • ---,IC). Spokane County has approved the creation/formation a Road Improvement-District-No. S13 .(County Resolution No. 99- 0311), to improve Mirabeau/Fuclid_taa three lane.arteriai beginning at Pines Road and continuing easterly to a point constructed by County Road Project No. 2730. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a standard Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction sidewalk at the time of each building permit. jjI In addition to the base financial contribution toward the Evergreen Interchange Spokane County purchased reserve capacity above the public participation requirement on Evergreen Interchange. Spokane County invested 2.1 million dollars, this capital investment will require the applicant etc execute a Developer Agreement for transportation fees to be approved by the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners prior to the issuance of any building permits. This development agreement is pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060, RCW 82.02.020, and Article XI of the Washington State Constitution which provides the County with the authority to impose mitigation fees for the costs of certain road projects made necessary by development, provided the County has identified future road projects necessitated by planned development in certain areas of Spokane County and is enacted through conditions of approval of a land use action including a State Environmental Policy Act review, where a reasonable relationship between impacts to the transportation system from the proposed development and the financial contribution are roughly proportional. Trips generated by this proposal as detailed in the Mirabeau Point Environmental Impact Statement warrant financial participation in the Evergreen HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 18 Interchange. The Washington State Department of Transportation has other transportation infrastructure improvements also required based on impacts as discussed in 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 Bridge 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. 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. Roadway standards, typical roadway sections and drainage plan requirements arc-Ibund Spokane.Courty.Resolution No. 95 -0498 as amended and..are.applicahk to- t 1";s.proa^ °al. 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 existing or proposed right of way until a permit has been issued by the County Engineer. All work within the public road right of way is subject to inspection and approval by the County Engineer. 8. All required construction within the existing or proposed public right of way is to be completed prior 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 regarding these utilities. The applicant should check with the applicable utilities and Spokane County Engineer to determine whether the applicant or utility is responsible for adjustment or relocation costs and to make arrangements for any necessary work. 10. The applicant shall grant applicable border easements adjacent to Spokane County Right of Way per Spokane County Standards. SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT 1. Sewage disposal method shall be as authorized by the Director of Utilities for Spokane County. 2. Water service shall be coordinated through the Director of Utilities for Spokane County. 3. Water service shall be by an existing public water supply when approved by the Regional Engineer (Spokane), State Department of Health. 4. A public sewer system will be made available for the project and individual service will be provided to each lot prior to sale. Use of individual on -site sewage disposal systems shall not be authorized. 5. Use of private wells and water systems is prohibited. SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITIES 1. A wet (live) sewer connection to the area -wide public sewer sysLeiu shall be constructed: A sewer connection - permit is required. Applicants for commercial permits shall submit historical and/or estimated water usage prior to the issu: rce of the connection ^e ;t in o:dcr to establish sewer fees. 2. The applicant shall submit expressly to the Spokane County Utilities Division "under separate cover" only those plan sheets showing sewer plans and specifications for public sewer connections and facilities for review and approval. Commercial developments shall submit historical and/or estimated water usage as part of the sewer plan submittal. 3. Sewer-plans acceptable to the Division of Utilities shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the sewer construction permit. 4. Security shall be deposited with the Division of Utilities for the construction of the public sewer connection and facilities and for the prescribed warranty period. Security shall be in a form acceptable to the Division of Utilities and in accordance with the Spokane County Sanitary Sewer Ordinance. 5. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 20 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 drainage as a result of the widening for the left turn lane, the applicant shall grant WSDOT a permanent drainage 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 intersection. This traffic signal shall be installed when signal warrants are met and when traffic volumes necessitate its installation. Prior to the release of building permits for this development, the applicant shall 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 Read, 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 right turns in and out only. No left turns will be allowed. 6. The proposed private access to Pines Road requires that the applicant obtain a WSDOT Road Approach Permit for the intended site use. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 21 DATED this 17t day of August, 1999. SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Michael C. Dempsey, WSBA NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Spokane County Resolution Nos. 96 -0171 and 96 -0632, the decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a zone reclassification and accompanying SEPA determination is final and conclusive unless within ten (10) calendar days from the Examiner's written decision, a party of record aggrieved by such decision files an appeal with the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington. However, RCW 36.70B.110 (9) indicates that administrative appeals of county land use decisions and SEPA appeals shall be filed with the board of county commissioners within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the decision. This decision was mailed by certified mail to the Applicant on August 17, 1999. DEPENDING ON WHICH APPEAL PERIOD REFERENCED ABOVE LEGALLY APPLIES, THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE iS EITHER AUGUST 27,1999 OR AUGUST - 31,1999. The complete record in this matter: including this decision, is on file during the appeal period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260 -0245, (509) 324 -3490. The file may be inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday - Friday of each week, except holidays, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by Spokane County. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 22 SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER RE: Zone Reclassification from Rural ) Residential -10 (RR -10) Zone to ) Light Industrial (I -2) Zone ) Applicant: Inland Empire Paper Co. ) File No. ZE -37 -96 ) ORDER CORRECTING CLERICAL ERRORS I. SUMMARY OF CLERICAL ERRORS On August 17, 1999, the Hearing Examiner entered a final written decision in the above matter. The decision erroneously included Washington State Department Transportation (WSDOT) conditions of approval recommended for a different project. The correct WSDOT conditions of approval are contained in 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 in the numbering of County Engineering conditions # 13 -22, which are erroneously numbered #1-10 after the first 12 conditions. II. ORDER The Hearing Examiner Findings 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 in such decision, and to add the conditions of approval contained in 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 incorporated by reference herein. Such decision is also hereby revised to renumber the ten (10) County Engineering conditions appearing after condition #12 as conditions #13-22. The appeal period indicated in the decision is not modified by this order. DATED this 18th day of August, 1999 SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER et." Micha 1 C. Dempsey, WSBA #8 HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision ZE -37 -96 Page 1 NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON 1 WITHIN TOWNSHIP 25 N TOWNSHIP 26 NORTH A EUCLID ROAD JOINS PANEL 0303 MISSION 777 F1'l1TY OF <IANE COUNTY ASSESSORS 5.9/. 04c. /1 - 25 - 4 ¢ 2 L OT 3 282519c. 0 5E1 PAR[ELAP 11E44-904o U 7� LOT 2' 33.7,5. "c . LOT/ 3.9.75.9c. B Slc' p/l,gNE 0.4470 64 011L301-• 3.G•AC• f- K 444 j„K 1�y Igt R LOT7V325 Lc r 1.1° s �▪ Q▪ 5 WO — ▪ N a� � ! � � _J ;� 1 — 1 t a �. -- 15S 1 Off! 0 ---- --- --- !- COLF ! l -'- s p010 /4 ! ------ ! �a - ! ! 4 ,1 - 1 1 , -� .-1 • rye �6 �� f_ •r ,�y * r „f .r Uri r , -r •r m 1 t4i Ci) ALIGNMENT "ALIGNS" 4=■ � = 47'34.'08" OS' O R = 600.00' T = 264.44' � L '= 498.14' Q -c"-A` Na. I Date 1 By Ckd. €Appr. Revision 1roK.'!i. wn 18Y' Date: GK R9 / :/9: Designed By E1/24.Lti. OV17/)7 Checked By SCALE HORIZONTAL, 1 = 700._ VERTICAL: NONE Spokane County Public Works Engineering and Roads Division 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA. 99260-0170 456 -3600 APPROVED :. PLANS at CONTRACT FNGINEFR XPIRES 05/26/0 Date' COUNTY ROAD PROJECT No. 2730 M1RABEAU POINT DRIVE PR ELiM NARY ALIGNMENT— NORTH FROM INDIANA ROAD TO EV: ,D AVENJJE G2730t.C4 DWG SHEET 3 of 3 woman aril, mak • /et {,i1Man fame 1.w sow +r lo.. (111n,..••••1.y.•1p r•on cDm.ut1 coma Ona•n r,l lf., •b fq ACM Qfnat MI med. 1.11 111W IOM pear. � Am • I•1 lima. f.w•••••. r•• 4•.. ow. 41..yr RIVER •■■ .— .+}ii»+++ii ' •4144 4-4+++4+. +0+t,iy � i �e ..- a�+i�'r.a .+.++- .+• +.H..- •+++� +��•+.• 1— ...1• • . • .+.++.r 1+- .+1 +•. ■•• MIRABEAU POINT SPOKANE, WASHINGTON CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN >y �r•� /. �....l�A...Ir .r.r A.+ •■S �• Iti.=Pow ■mt `+.11.1 .4 11•• /•.•••tr.r•4. ...a +r r• RECEIVED MAY 1 3 1999 SPOKANE COUNryENGINEER fOp..lyly Waatwo v 710' Ih' 0.90., V —t ' b Yuma 4 9110 EUOUO AVENUE PUTUNS MSKMNTIAL &a act aaaaaalsaa ••••• r••••••G• arms NY NMI( • WO PROPERTY NATURAL ARIA APPROL M ACIW 6H TYAOAL SoCM Or 00.110 Mr J-alMry AFRIOu. R ENNATIW .. SIAM .... PEPSI 00IPANY Mirabeau Point Concept Master Plan Located In portions of Sections 3, 10, 11, Township 25 N., Range 44 East W. M. Spokane County, Washington Consultant - Ramm Associates, Inc. Approx. Site Area - 236 Acres LEGEND ®,- C011U LAITY COUPLES (EDUCATIONAL CENTER .011 OOMMUNITY OOLLEOES AND VALLEY SCNOOL DISTRICTS, SENIOR CENTER PEX01111199 ANTS CENTER, CENTENNIAL TRAIL HEADQUARTERS) Q YWCA (AQUATICS DENTIN. Teem CENTlJ1, PLAY AREAL [ALL FNLDSI QPAIPSTN[ATEN - 10E ARENA QOPEN SPACE NATURAL AREA (DNATID SV IEp) - SUSR1[SS PARK (0PFIDEE) NOM fUTUM RECREATION AND SIMONESS FUTURE OOMMEACLAL Ej maws 99 PARK Q mum R[aoENnAL n OOI,TIISAL TRAIL QPBI 'PADS Jy UIRABEAU C t ' j ; POINT •\ \., . r nacue T' SPOKANE g H'OOR,A d M20 env ulLm k 1/41.11, .41 VICINITY MAP Scale: 1' ■200' 0 200' 400• 600' 600' 1000• MAY NNN Af■110L 4 FON TLN�I ANAL TRAIL am w.uao AA 0p041•14 DIANA AVOWS RIW(T OP WAY VW LAIC) (se 11199) (1E 1101) INDIANA AVE. O1T11r. LAO -JILT FVRNIN lA aw..NS SPOKANE VAU.I,/ 1EAE1 Mirabeau Point m •4o c» av! r l s n 0 f 4.• cell l .wL Ora sue ALUMINUM ROLLING I7IL 1 Located i n portions of Sections 3, 1 Township 25 N., Range 44 E st W. EUCI D AVENUE 0 SPOKAN RIVER SPOKANE VALLEY MAL 800' 8OO' ON: OU FEY NON AVI .............. ...................... ............ .....::..: . rrrwNWli i lli - • Y!f � •e.xxxxe'eze:::: e:: .: .. '�:e:� • ::•:ee:e:e?�e�iezi:: . 0 ee:?ie:e: x:z:e:eee''i a:.,fCs..ss,Jee. x:eSY'?ee:: • F. 0 FUTURE RESI©ENTIA Located in portions of Sections 3, 10, 11, Township 25 N., Range 44 East W. M. Spokane Counter, Washington Consu1tan Assoc EUCLID AVENUE 00000000000000 Approx. Site FUTURE RV PARK ts) TYPICAL BORDER OF DONATED IEP PROPERTY LEGEND r7 COMMUNITY COMPLEX (EDUCATIONAL CENTER FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICTS, SENIOR CENTER, PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, CENTENNIAL TRAIL HEADQUARTERS) YMCA (AQUATICS CENTER , TEEN CENTER, PLAY AREAS, BALL FIELDS) MIRABEAU POINT SPOKANE RAVER z 0 z 7 AMPHITHEATER SPOKANE CITY LIMITS T C BUR z NR PROPERTY NATURAL AREA APPROX 88 ACRES APPROX ACRES DONATED BY INLAND EMPIRE PAPER COMPANY ICE ARENA OPEN SPACE NATURAL AREA (DONATED BY iEP) r---7 BUSINESS PARK (OFFICES) / / HOTEL /1"--7 FUTURE RECREATION AND BUSINESS F-7 FUTURE COMMERCIAL �7 FUTURE RV PARK F-7 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL CENTENNIAL TRAIL OPEN SPACE SPOKANE VALLEY MALL VICINITY MAP Scale: 1' =200' 0 200' 400' 600' 800' 1000' MAY 1998 EN"ENNIAL TRAIL T ILHEAD ACCESS PLAY ..... ............................... AREA qd 1_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o:000000 ICE ARENA ::.9 00000000 SHANNON UN ON PACIFIC RAILROAD ''' RIGHT OF WAY FUTURE SIGNALIZED ............................................................ ............................... ............................................. ............................... ........ R.R CROSS IN :..1:.