ZE-180-78
.
HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE PUflLIC HEARiNG HEARING EXAMINER CQMMIT7EE PUBLIC HEARING
.
APF~LICAT1(~N rlO, ~ P APPLICATTON ~sO: / 4~~
' (Cheek one) (Checlc vne)
I would like to be on record in I wauid like to be an record in
~ FA11CR FAVOR 11L~7 ~ aPP{~SITION ~ C~PPQS~TION
NEUTRAL NEUTRAL
D you wish to TE57IFY at this Hearing? Dc vou wish to TESTIFY at this Hearing?
~ YE5 YES
~ NO NO
YOUR NAME . YOUR NAME : XMI
(please print (please print
Address : Address.
~ ~ ~
!
1
ZONE/PUD RECLASSIFIGATION CHECKLIST 'C o.Itact: F i 1 e#~
~~L►
~
PA RT T
ENGINEER'S SECTrC+TV Ml1P
ASSESSC)R'S SECTION MAP. (Le al Descri kion
g p , 400 foot baundary aut,>ide
awnership)
ZONE CHAIVG E APPLICATION,(F a r m A)
ZONING WCRKSHEET
~ ENVIRONM ENTAL CH ECKLIST
PLOT PLANS ~
♦
~ S1 GN P1A1 V
LANDSCAFI: PLANS (5)
,
GR.APHICS PACKET
SLIDES (minimum size filrn 125) (date)
~
/ APPLiCATION FrLIIVG FEE(s) RECEIPT NUMQER ~
~ 6,77
~
TITLE REPOuT C}F PROPERTY OVIINERS (date)
PART Tt
CUUNTY AGENCIES NOTIFIEp
NOTICE OF HEARING FORM (AGENDA) TYPED, (date)
ORIGIIVAL GIVEIV APPLICANT (date)
STAFF REVIEW OF ENVIRONIVIENTAL CHECKLIST
STAFF AIVALYSIS
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTIIVG (A Sign - 4x4) (date)
.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING SIGNED
h/IAIL PC-ENDA TO CflNCERNED AGENCIES (date)
(da te)
ANALYSIS MATLED 'I"+rJ APPLICANT
(date)
PAR1_ 11r
HEARING EXAMIn1ER CC)NfMYTTEE'S ACTION: APFROVED
DENTED
CONTIN3ULl7
MINUTES M1IILED TO APPLICAIVT (date)
SEPA's NoLice of ActiQn
BC7NDIlVG (Landscape) ACCEPTED
(date)
RL'TURNED
(ddte)
~
~
~'1S~r 11,r1u..J~.,.al~a FOj'L
snIS AIMY .A4 TS
~ ~Xr ,f C1 ~
~ ~J c
~ 1 ~
. Initia~. De~vsi. of ~ pdrl made cn / ~ . A .ent si~ed oY vram~1ssioner ~ sn
, ~'P.r~
~
AAl f~]1r1 T
s~ sTa~ a~s ~~~VV111 ~UrRRENT
..A ~ ~ ~I0!~ H0URS RA TE * DEDI~CTIHL E DEPOS ITS B4IA1~CE " QM
iE INIT. !Vll►'~ / ~CkSIT E `+~S
~
~r . .
JV 7770 R-ANW
~
. t~ i! • AIr
1"3
~sC~ c g ~
. i
~
z . q -
~ ~
~u,r ~
13 ~
-r,
~ Y
~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ r t..,, 2-0
~ I l `1 ' 1. ~ t ~ ' z , i
Y~ /~r'
~ S
d - .
~ ~ -
-3
i 5 a v -.1.,•-1 yW
~
jaraCAd. 2-
~ ~ • r,,. 3 ' ~ PSCErS ~
,
r r 3~ .
-
. ~
_57 ~ Z ~
~ 9. ~
L
y 9
,
~
~ 31
A
3 ,
4l
t ~ . , .
r ,
-3
l r , / ~ _ d 7 ~7
~ ' • ♦ '
1aYe 111; Ic i~1ed lex- c. iony, J i,r1 ie r ~Ih* ni avr f~. .
~
. . .
'P ea!E' cE'viC'W ~ Wi u! vU Wedlice-elo-i ~r~C?(nl(?;{
'J
io SCe 1 ),e `N0 nl ~fOs{lE'f 'd ~~o ~1)•, + ~ l N
~
Y~l a n J Jf"e ~f i-e'AJ 'R ~ : y . . ~ _
ha n
~
~
TRANSPORTATI4N
Back8round ~
A detailed transportation anatysis of the proposed Sullivan Park Center was prepared in
1980 as a component of the original environmental impact statement (EIS). That
transportation study included estimates of trip generation and distribution, traffic
assignments, capacity analysis and a proposed mitigation plan to reduce adverse
impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The ultimate development of the site and
nature of land uses being considered in this supplementary EIS are tabulated in Table I
in the summary, and can be compared to those of the original project, Table II. The
current proposal includes development in three phases, while the original project was to
be constructed in two phases.
1'he original EIS traffic analysis determined that several impcovements would be
required to support the additional travel demands created by the combined ef fects of
through and project trafiic. Foremost among these was the need for reconstruction of
ihe Interstate 90 interchange serving Sullivan Road to provide additional capacity. In
this respect, the EIS recommended that an "urban interchange" be constructed at this
location, and that it be combined with a gcade separation of the Burlington Northern
railroad tcacks which roughly parallel 1-90. A schematic drawing of the urban
interchange pcoposal frorn the original EIS is shown in Appendix A. That EIS also
cecognized ihe need to widen Sullivan Road north of I-90, extend Indiana Avenue
through the site, and signalize the Sullivan/Indiana intersection.
In March 1981, the Spokane County Hearing Examinec Committee issued its findings and
conditions related to the approval oi the original EIS. The EIS examined the impacts of
reioning from Agricultural to Restricted Industrial land use under the zoning classifica-
tions applicable at that tirne. With respect to tcansportation, the Committee did not
make a specific recommendation regarding the urban interchange concept for applica-
tion at the I-90/Sullivan interchange. The text of the Committee decisions is included
In Appendix A. .1
During the review of the original EIS, both the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) and the Spokane County Engineering Department expressed
8
~ •
concerns regarding the urban interchange. The urban interchange is an unconventional
design which has been applied only in Florida, Kentucky and Georgia. It serves turning
movements at the ramp terminals through a single signalized Intersection directly
above or below the freeway mainline. This design is particularly well-suited to areas
with limited right-of-way availability and/or crossing arterials with at-grade intersec-
tions in close proximity to ramp terminals.
The concerns of the county engineering staff at that time were related to the
uncertainty aboui the feasibility and funding of the urban interchange design. Specifi-
cally, in October 1980, WSDOT indicated their long-range plans to upgrade the existing
diamond interchange ai the I-90/SuJlivan location, since right-of-way for such a
reconstruction was readily available. in addition, approval of modifications to the
intecstate system requices the approvat of the Federal Highway Administration (FH WA),
and it was not certain such a design would be accepiable.
By mid-1983 WSDOT had begun preliminary planning of the upgraded 1-90/Sullivan
interchange, ln their analysis oi the capacity of the urban interchange alternative, it
was estimated that the intersection system along Sullivan Road proposed in the original
EIS could not accommodate the combined demands of growth in through traffic and the
added project traffic. This analysis revealed that the capacity of the urban interchange
did not represent a significant improvement over that of an upgraded diamond
interchange. The WSDOT concerns were detaifed in a memorandum dated May 1983
also included in Appendix A.
During 1983 and 1984, VNSDOT proceeded in the development of an upgraded diamond
design for the I-90/Sullivan interchange. Agency planners conctuded that neither the
urban or diamond interchanges could adequately serve the ultimate size and mix of
development proposed for Sullivan Park Center. In meetings among the proponent,
WSDOT and the county, a phasing plan was developed to limit impacts at the
I-90/Sullivan interchange and on Sullivan Road._ This supplementary EIS assesses traffic
impacts of the cevised phasing plan as currently proposed, updates the projections of
the original EIS, and provides a description of roadway modifications to mitigate I
potential adverse traffic impacts.
Phasing Plan
The two major factors considered in developing the pcoposed phasing schedule (see i
Table ! in the Summary) were 1) economically feasible development staging of a
regional shopping center and hotel and 2) traf fic capacity and timing of major access
improvements.
9
~
~ The proposed Phase I development provides tor an initiat retail center with three major
department stores, and for the full development of a 300-coom hotel. With the
completion of the current improvements to the Sullivan Road interchange, along with
signatization of an interseciion at Sullivan Road and an extended Indiana Avenue,
adequate traffic capacity would exist to support this first phase.
The alternative Phase 1 would include a retail center with two major department stores,
one-half of the proposed hotel, and about 110,000 square feet of business park. This
mix of uses would have similar worst-case traffic impacts and could be accommodated
with the same access improvements.
Beyond either of these first phases, additional access capacity would be needed. The
most effective single improvement would be the construction of an additional 1-90
interchange approximately one mile west of Sullivan Road. This interchange, plus
additional extensions of Indiana Avenue, provide capacity to support the proposed Phase
lI development (see Table 1). A regional shopping center with four or five major
department stores, peripheral retail development, the 300-room hotel and approxi-
mately 300,000 square feet each of business park and industrial park development can
be accommodated with the additional interchange, maintaining acceptable traffic
conditions.
The final phase of development would require furthec access improvements. With the
new interchange in place, the connections to the south (to Evergreen Road) and possibly
to the north would provide enough relief to allow Sullivan Road to perform adequately
with full site development.
The coordination of project phasing with access improvements should provide adequate
control of traffic impacts. lt is in the best interest of both the sponsor and the
developers of the specif ic uses proposed, as well as the county and the state, to phase
the improvements so that employees, tenants and customers are not adversely affected
by local traffic conditions. .
Existing Conditions
The existing roadway network in the site vicinity was described in deYail in the original
EIS. The roadway inventory data remains current, and updated traffic counts are
presented in Figure 3. Traff ic counts were supplied by Spokane County Engineering
Department and WSDOT and represent a composite of the available daily and peak hour
volumes during 1982 and 1983. Using the 1978-79 counts as a baseline, the growth in
background trafiic was computed to be between 3 and S percent annually.
10
0 Euc1ld Arenu•
c oc .
0 of c ,
~ o
0
t ~
d
O
O
M
~
O ~
sh++fw° <~<'" r y, 1.~'° ~ i r •
i
u~ A'
.
Y M+ ~ ~F~ h .
1-90
29 2
~ 0 . o°
a
cr)
04 t
N
O t-90 .
0
0
. Broadway Avsnue ~ ~ - I
O
»O
~
00
~
Sprague Avenue , . °
f 0 1/2 1 mL
.
SULLIVAN PARK CENTER
0000 ' 'Daily Traffic Volumes
~ a~► Existing Wllsey A Ham Fjgure 3
-
,
Accident patterns at the 1-90/Sullivan ramps ref lect the increasingly congested
conditions at this interchange. The two ramp terminals probably meet the traf fic signal
warrants for uninterrupted trafiic suggested in the Manuai of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD). VNith the current ViVSDOT construction project, both ramp terminats
will be signalized. These actions should improve the accident experience at these •L
intersections.
Future Conditions Without the Project
Projections of future background traffic volumes in the project vicinity were derived
from WSDOT, County Engineering Department and Spokane Regional Planning Confer-
ence (SRPC) sources. In 11VSDOT's I-90 Corridor Study, average daily traf f ic on I-90 for
the year 2002 has been projected according to historical growth trends. To insure a
conservative analysis, WSDOT year 2002 projections were utilized for the year 2000
traffic analysis in this EIS. The projected average daily traffic (ADT) on I-90 west of
Sullivan Road is estimated to increase from the existing 30,000 vehicles pec day (vpd) to
56,000 vpd, and f rom 23,000 vpd to 41,000 vpd east of Sullivan Road. These traf fic
pcojections are currently in a preliminary stage of development, and may change
siightly with final publication this sumrner. A parallel study by the SRPC has produced
uniformly fower traffic estimates on the fceeway.
It should be noted that the current projections are significantly lower than those used in
the original EIS. That document anticipated 80,700 vpd on 1-90 west of Suilivan, and
71,600 vpd east of the Sullivan interchange. These figures inciuded the traf fic impacts
of a second regional shopping center and extensive residential development to the
south.
The proposed second regional center was to be located east of Sulfivan Road and north ~
of Broadway Avenue. The Valley Mall would have included 650,000 square feet of gross
leasable area plus additional peripheral commerciat, office and restaucant space. The -
traffic study for the Valley Mall was prepared in 1978, projecting 31,240 daily trip ends,
with 1,180 inbound trips and 1,275 outbound trips in the 4:00 to 5:00 pm peak hour.
Approximatley 45 percent of these trips were forecast to pass through the 1-90/Sullivan
Road interchange. The traffic study for the Valley Mall was based on 1976 traffic
counts and a 1985 completion date, so that the projections of that study are outdated
and no longer applicable to the current situation.
The zoning approval for the Yalley Mall is scheduled to expire in October 1985 and na
~ application for an extension of this approvat is being processed. The earlier traffic
~
12
analyses for Sulli ~n Park Center did not specifically consider traffic related to Valley <
Mall, since it is likely that only one such center could be supported in the Spokane
Vattey. A regional center such as that under consideration requires a market poputation
of 100,000 to 150,000 persons. The population forecasts for the yeac 2000 indicate
approximately this population for the eastern Washington and northern Idaho market ~
area. Thus, it is tikely that only one regional center could be economically justiiied in
this area.
<1----
Tcaffic volume growth on Sullivan Road was derived from earlier projections by the
Spokane RegionaJ Planning Conference. These estimates reflect traffic growth in the
cange of 3 to S percent. The projections do not appeac to be affected by revisions in
the freeway volume projections, nor are the ramp volumes significantly affected.
Projections of average daily traffic for 1990, 1995 and 2000 wiihout the project are
shown in Figure 4.
Traffic operations at the intersections along Sullivan Road for these conditions are
summarized in Table II1.
TABLE IU
iNTERSECTiON LEVELS OF SERYICE*
1990 1995 2000
Sullivan/South Ramps A A A
Sullivan/North Ramps A A A
*I.evel of service is a qualitative measure which describes operating
conditions occurring on a given roadway or intersection. Levels of
service (LOS) range from LOS A to 1.OS F with LOS A denoting
fcee flow, low volumes and adequate tcaveling speeds. LOS F, on
the other hand, describes forced flow operation at substantialty
ceduced travei speeds and congested traf f ic volumes. LOS C is
generally used as the design capacity under rural conditions and
LOS D under urban conditions.
The capacity analyses were performed using the reconstructed I-90/Sullivan inter-
change geometrics which are currently under construction. The need for additional
freeway capacity in the 1-90 Corcidor Study is being studied by VUSDOT. That study
may determine the need ior six-laning of I-90 in the vicinity of the slte. The existing
ccoss-section and bridge structures along 1-90 are such that widening could be
accomplished by adding median tanes in the existing right-of-way.
13
,
~ ~ .
~ o o Enclld Aronu•
o c lc .
cc o~ 4 r~.
•
-
C
d y
>
e~p ~f r n t.
~a`'t r~.°o~`a Z»,~ ±t <,2 > . NA ' \
18600
Q
w 1wwwA
, Y '•b\ 0.. ~ r
I-90 44100 26000
4800
4
53800 47300
. .
64000 56000
. .
:
21900 I-90
26200 28800
Broadway Avenue 31400 34700
42000
Spragus Arenue ~
0 1!2 1 mk
SULLIYAN PARK CENTER
1990 M C* Projected Daily Traff ic Vo[umes
1995 . . . .
2000 • • a without the project
wiisey & Ham Figure 4
~
~
r
In the long range, the county is planning to widen Sullivan Road to six lanes south of
I-90. No schedule has been established for this project, nor has funding been identiiied.
lt is expected to be completed by the year 2000. The widening would extend frorn
Sprague Avenue north to the southernmost I-90 ramp, but would not continue through
the I-90 interchange. The levels of service computations did not consider this widening ~
of Sullivan Road, since it is not a programmed project. .
Project Traffic Irnpacts
The impacts of the proposed project are analyied in three phases for the years 1990,
1995 and 2000. The study for this supplemental EIS includes an analysis of daily and pm
peak hour conditions for these years, accounting for the combined effects of the growth
in background trafiic and the addition of project-related traffic. Trip generation
associated with development of the site, the distribution of trips ihroughout the region,
assignment of new trips to the surrounding roadway network, and the ability of the
roadway system to accommodate iuture traf f ic volumes have been examined.
There have been significant changes in traffic conditions and projections since the
earlier studies. 'fhese changes include the addition of a larger ultimate (year 2000)
develapment phase, reconstruction of the I-90/Sullivan interchange (currently under-
way), revisions to future background traffic forecasts, and revisions to population and
employment forecasts within the market area. ,
Trip Generation
Estimates of trip genecation were derived from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' (1TE) document 1'rip Generation (third edition). Daily and peak hour
forecasts for project-related traffic are summarized in Table IY. A total of approxi-
mately 27,000 daily vehicle trip ends are projected for Phase I, 47,000 in Phase II, and
59,000 in Phase Ill. 1'he directional trip estimates for the afternoon peak hour are also
presented for each phase.
An alternative first phase is also under consideration by the proponent, and is described
in Table I in the Summary. ~
The trip generation of this alternative Phase I would be27,250 daily trips, and 1,200
,
outbound trips in the pm peak. Thus, the critical volume of peak-hour traffic would be
nearly identical in either plan.
15
TABLE IV
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Phase l Pf►ax II Phase lll
PM Peak PM i'eak PM Peak
Daily Trlp Yrips (vph) Dallr Trlp 7rips (vph) Daily Trip Yrlps (vph)
Land Use euildina Area Endi (vpd) In Out Bulldin6 Area Ends (vp~ In Out Bulldina Area Ends (vpo) In Out
Commcrcla! 650,000 sq.tt. 26,1E0 1.034 1,073 1,03E,000 sq.ft. 38,310 1,153 1,972 1,349.000 :q.1t. 4%934 1.4E3 1a90!
Business Park 2940000 sq.it. 3,205 71 329 390,030 sq.it. 4,26E 90 703
Motel 300 rooms 3.150 l0i 111 300 room: 3.1 SO 101 111 300 woms 3,150 lOt 111
industrial Park 330,000 p.tt. I,802 , 106 203 800,000 p.it. ~.SOS 235 _2L%
7otal 27,330 1,142 1,114 46.667 1,739 2,820 3s,"7 l0940 3,219
Trip Distribution
Trips were assigned to the roadway network on the basis of zonal population forecasts
prepared by the Spokane Regional Planning Conference in Febcuary 1985. These
forecasts include both population and employment predictions for the years 1990, 1995
and 2000. Popufation forecasis were also obtained for Kootenai County, Idaho to
reflect the eastern portion of the market area. A simplified gravity model was used to
distribute trips among these zones, using travel time as a measure of impedance.
Compared to the original EIS, the Spokane County population forecasts for the year
2000 have remained relatively stable at approximately 412,000 persons, although there
have been slight changes among zones. However, the Kootenai County long-range
forecasts have been revised from 85,000 persons in the original EIS to 72,000 in this
curreni study, resulting in a significant drop in patrons and employees attracted from
the east.
Separate trip distribution estimates were prepared for dif ferent trip purposes. For
retail, commercial and hotel trips, the market acea is constrained on the west by
competing commercial opportunities in the Spokane CBD and close-in suburbs. Work
trips for on-site employees at the business and industrial parks are attracted from a
broader area. Overall, approximately 27 percent of the trips approach the site on 1-90
from the west, 17 percent on 1-90 from the east, and 30 percent on Sullivan Road from
ihe south. Sixteen percent approach on Sullivan Road from the north, and 10 percent on
Pines Road frorn the north and south.
16
Traf iic Assignment
Vehicular traffic was assigned to the roadway network using the trip distribution
estimates described above. The traffic assignments vary according to the mix of
development in each phase, the location of specif ic land uses on the site, and the
roadway system configuration in each phase. For instance, some traffic related to the
business park uses at the far western end of the project will use the I-90 interchange at
Pines Road, but traffic to the industrial park at the eastern end of the site wilf use the
I-90 interchange at Sultivan Road. During Phase I of the project, nearly all the site-
related tcaffic from 1-90 will use the Sullivan interchange. In the Phase II development,
there is a potential for additional freeway acces$ at a new interchange midway between
the existing Pines and Sullivan interchanges. By Phase 111, additional connections of the
surface streets are possibie. Several afternatives are presented on Figure S. On the
east end, Indiana Avenue could ultimately be extended to Flora Road, with an
intersection at Mission Avenue. At the proposed new I-90/Evergreen Road inierchange, ~
both northward and southward connections may be feasible. To the south, the
interchange could connect to the arterial network at Evergreen Road, if the dif f icult
topographic constraints can be overcome. To the north, this street could extend across
the railroad tracks to Pines Road or across the Spokane River to a terminus to be
established in future planning.
It should be emphasized that none of these long-range projects are indicated in the
county's transpoctation plans, and are therefore not programmed or iunded. Implemen-
tation of these improvements could occur through commitments of the proponent and
other developers, county and/or state actions, or combinations of both. The focus of
the interchange alternatives is to examine the systemwide need for additional north-
south arterial capacity, and to provide relief for the Pines and Sullivan corcidors. These
alternatives witl be refined, and othecs developed, during the planning pcocess.
The traffic assignments wece performed to account for the phased implementation of
roadway improvements in the vicinity of the site. A proposed scenario of improvements
is presented in Figure S. In the traific assignment proceduce, the extension of Indiana
Avenue eastward to Sullivan Road was assumed to be constructed in Phase I, together
with the slip ramp connections to the I-90/Sullivan interchange. For Phase II, traffic assignments were prepared with and without the proposed new I-90
interchange. In this phase, the interchange would be connected to the norih only as far
as the Indiana Avenue extension.
17
1i.
~
!
~ w
~
0.00.~
4~f~ N►
a
O
a
• o
~~~ns+Mn~~r~~~ ' .
a. "^•k ~ f
. 1~
siI i. - 00000
a
Phase .
~ p ♦
. . ~ t ~ ~ 1~
I~~t h •Q ' h " t . _ ♦
~ + ~ ~ y +r.co- K T `.r ~~•a
s ~
~ -t • •00~• ~
O ~wMC'
~ + .
1~ g -
r- -
t p►~ter c
. Ai~g~t'i'e • aSe
o t"1
~ I&ro*aws A
.
. Pase
r
AYen~e ,
Sp~,.►~~e
' -
rove1"ne
1~"►P
Soad Otlarnavi
~~ed & os
pro~ . ,
r.,.- Iv P A sey & tism
SuLL w~~
~
The traffic assignments for Phase III examined two poiential street connections which
could be completed by the year 2000 planning horizon. First, the assignments included
a connection irom the new interchange south to Evergreen Road. For this phase,
estimates oi diversions of through traffic from the Pines and Sullivan corridors were
not available, so a systemwide traffic assignment was not performed. Instead, a sketch
plan was pcepared to determine the project-related traf tic using Evergreen Road.
Second, lndiana Avenue might be extended eastward to Fiora Road. The Phase IIl
traffic assignmenis did not include this connection, but a sketch plan analysis was
prepared to address this issue, due to the uncertainties inherent in these long-range
forecasts. .
Projections of future daily traffic with the project are shown on Figure 6 for each phase
of development. A detailed analysis of pm peak-hour volumes along Sullivan Road also
was conducted. These estimates of turning movements ior each phase are provided in
Appendix B. The assignments of trips to the roadway system accounted for "captured"
traffic which is already using the netwock in the vicinity of the site for some other
purpose. These captured trips do not represent the introduction of new traf fic, but
rather the diversion of trips from other retait areas. In this analysis, a capture rate of
15 percent was assumed for retail traffic.
Capacity Analysis
Using the forecasts of background traffic and project traffic, capacity computations
were prepaced to determine traffic operations on surrounding roadways. Included in the
detailed capacity analyses are the I-90 freeway and the system of signalized intersec-
tions on Sullivan Road. Conditions were examined for the pm peak hour for each
analysis year. The I-90 analysis was based on the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual, and
accounted for the effects of weaving maneuvers on the freeway mainline. Capacity
analysis for the intersections was accomplished using CAPCALC, an intersection
capacity analysis program based on the critical movement methodology in the Transpor-
tation Research Board Circular 212.
The analysis for Phase I of ihe development reflects the presence of signalization at
both 1-90 ramp terminals on Sullivan Road and at the proposed Indiana Avenue
intersection. The pceliminary design for the proposed interim connections of the stip
ramps has been developed in cooperation with WSDOT and county engineering, as
indicated on Figure 7. This configuration reduces weaving maneuvers on Sullivan Road.
1990 traffic operations, with the completion of Phase l, are summarized below:
19
?
0000~
4
~
w
0
t •
> •
< .
~ ` 223g ~ ,
< 2$34 ~
,
,
- NZ } ~ J. ~4322 ~
w
. Y.~, . .
a~ x..t a a j M . ~
4 439
t %7 47 , '5
67725 Q 1 Q
5120038467 32 ~9
'~4~4 z °°3 1
78a4 ~ ~ . 508~
_ ~QSd~~ p,ren'~ ~
Fs
_
00-100
~
s ~ 0""00 1 t2 . l~...
" o~.
Spia9~. ~
-
~ •
C: Qlur
v
, - "~(~a •
- 'Ef ~r
37111 vV1th the p
_ ARK ~ Ftg~
iv gN projectod ~.L ey
~V w~~s
~ . 1
Spok
rl
- ~er
. ~
.
~
~ • .
C I
~ . .
~
~
I-
a
~ -
~ 1 ~ - ' -
ti
.
~ SULLtV14N PARK CENTER
Sullivan Road
intersection Plan
Phase 1.
wil..y &H.n, Figure 7
TABLE Y
PHASE 1 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERYICE
1990 - with the project
Level of Service V/C Ratio*
Sullivan/south ramps B 0.62
Sullivan/north ramps B 0.60
Sullivan/lndiana D 0.89
*v/c catio indicates volume divided by capacity of the roadway.
On the I-90 freeway west of Sullivan Road, traffic operations will be maintained at
level of service C. In general, level oi service D is an acceptable condition during peak
hours in urban areas.
The Phase 11 capacity analysis was performed with and without the proposed new
interchange, using 1995 traffic forecasts. In addition, the extension of Indiana Avenue
east of Sullivan Road will require modif ication, as shown on Figure 8.
TABLE V!
PHASE II INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
1995 - with the project
wlithout 1K/ith
Proposed lnterchanpe Proposed Interchange
Level of Level of
Secvice V/C Ratio Service V/C Ratio
Sullivan/south ramps D 0.80 B 0.68
Sullivan/north ramps C 0.76 C 0.71
Sullivan/Indiana E 0.96 D 0.89
These results indicate that supplementary freeway access will be desirable to serve the
combined demands of background and project traffic during the second phase of project
development. An earlier analysis by 11VSDOT in 1984 confirmed this finding, determin-
ing that the first phase level of development was the maximum which could be served
through the upgraded I-90/Sullivan interchange.
22
' • -
. sp ~k
, ~ .
~
•
~
. ~1
~ °!a
, • '
~
C
"h
\
~
~ •
`
~
~00 T T
. ,
SULLIVAN PARK CENTER Sullivan Road
lntersectMon* Plan
Phases II and III
wtlsey A Ham Figur@ 8
.
The proposed new I-90 interchange would be located between the Pines and Sullivan
interchanges. The spacing will create weaving sections on I-90, caused by the
proximity of adjacent entrance and exit ramps. The 1-90 analysis focused on these
weaving areas as being the critical links from a capacity viewpoint. In the 1995 pm
peak, the freeway weaving sections witl operate at level of service C with two
directional lanes, and at level of service a if an additional auxiliary lane is provided.
Presented in Table YII, the Phase Ilt project impacts atso were evatuated with and
without the proposed new I-90 interchange. In the long range, there is projected to be a
serious deterioration in service levels without the proposed new interchange. The Phase
lII analysis also indicates that a connection ' from the new interchange south to
Evergreen Road would be desirable. From a system point of view, such an action would
relieve both the Pines and Sullivan arterial corridors and interchanges. Up to five
peccent of total project traffic would utilize the Evergreen corridor. This level of
project trafiic would translate to an additional daily traffic load of approximately 3,000
vpd, and 260 total vehicles in the pm peak hour. 11Vhile the project could double the
ADT on Evergreen Road to 5,000 or 6,000 vpd, the combined traffic demand could still
be accommodated at level of service B on a two-lane road. Signalization of the ~
Mission/Evergreen intersection would be required if significant through-tcaf fic volumes
are attracted to this corcidor.
TABLE Vli
PHASE III 1NTERSECTION LEYELS OF SERVICE
2000 - with the project
11Vith
Proposed Interchange
Without and Evergreen
Proposed InierchanRe Connection(s)
tevel of Level of
Service V/C Ratio Service Y/C Ratio
Sullivan/south ramps E 0.90 C 0.77
Sullivan/north ramps D 0.86 D 0.80
Suliivan/Indiana F 1.02 D 0.89
A similar situation exists with the connection of Indiana Avenue to Flora Road. Less
than five percent of project trafiic would utilize this access route, but that level of
24
project traffic could triple the total traffic volume on Ftora Road south of Mission
Avenue. However, traffic can be served at level of service C on this two-lane facility.
Operating conditions on 1-90 with the Phase IlI traffic will be at level of secvice D if
two directional lanes are provided in the weaving area, and level of service C if an
auxiliary lane is provided east of the new interchange.
Mitigating Measures and Design Considerations
The traffic impact analysis has been structured to examine roadway improvement needs
through a 15-year planning horizon of project development. The original EIS recognized
the need to reconstruct the I-90/Sullivan interchenge to serve the total traffic demands
projected for the area. Additionat traffic planning studies in 1983 and 1984 with
WSDOT and county engineering further advanced the concept of phased development
and staged implementation of roadway improvements. It was during this time that the
plan for the ramp modifications at the I-90/Sullivan interchange was developed. These
slip ramps were designed to be constructed without major changes to the interchange
construction which is currently underway. Also, required in Phase I is the extension of
lndiana Avenue eastward to Sullivan Road, and signaliaation of the Sullivan/Indiana
intersection.
The preliminary design of improvements along Sullivan Road is influenced by the
limited distance (approximately 600 feet) between the four-lane Spokane River bridge
crossing and the I-90 north ramp terminal. There is currentiy a Burlington Northern
(BN) cail crossing within this area, and WSDOT. requires that adjacent intersections be
located at least 300 feet from the nearest ramp terminal. In 1984, a plan was
developed to locate the Indiana Avenue intersection midway between the ramp terminat
and the bridge crossing, and to relocate the BN crossing north of the proposed
Sullivan/Indiana intersection.
By early 1985, it was revealed that BN is contemplating abandonment of the rail spur in
this area. Currently, few trains utilize this spur, which serves fewer than four
businesses near Barker Road. The spur has already been abandoned east of Barker
Road. Burlington Northern has indicated that it will file for abandonment during the
summer of 1985. ln addition, WSDOT is requesting that the Sullivan Road grade
crossing be eliminated with their current construction contcact. These actions will
maximize the capacity of the intersection system along Sullivan Road.
The proposed new I-90 interchange design has been developed conceptually and is being
considered among the improvement alternatives in 11VSDOT's I-90 Corridor Study. The
25
.
WSDOT study is examining systemwide I-90 improvements, and the emphasis in the
immediate vicinity is to relieve the congested conditions in the Pines Road corridor.
Any proposed widening or interchange improvements along I-90 are subject to review
and approval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). ln addition, an
independent environmental review is required prior to any improvements to the
interstate system, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
During Phase II of the projeci, the proposed interchange would be connected north only
to the indiana Avenue extension. The proximity of the new interchange to the major
on-site traffic generators will divert a significant amount of traffic from the Sullivan
interchange, and a lesser amount from the Pines interchange.
The connection of Evergreen Road to ihe proposed I-90 interchange is a system
alternative which coutd effectively serve the needs of through traffic and project
traffic. Other alternatives may be available to accomplish the same system objectives,
and these will need to be identified and evaluated in a design study.
Currently, Evergreen Road is designated as a major arterial in the county's funciional
classification plan. It is consistent with the general one-mile spacing of arteriais in the
Spokane Valley. Evergreen Road is a two-lane faciiity north of Sprague Avenue, passing
mainly through residential areas, and terminating at Mission Avenue. Preliminary
estimates indicate that the conneciion from I-90 to the Mission/Evergreen intersection
could be accomplished with grades ranging f rom 4 to 8 percent. (See appendix C.)
Additional study will be needed to investigate the design details of this proposed
facility, and its related environmental and community impacts.
A similar situation exists with the possible connections to the north fcom this
interchange. None of these future connections is precluded by development of the site.
The possible extension of Indiana Avenue eastward to Flora Road is also a long-range
improvement alternative. The county is considering a bridge across the Spokane River to connect Floca Road northwacd to the adjacent industrial park. Flora Road also could
be served by I-90 if ramps could be constructed at the existing undercrossing.
However, WSDOT is not examining this option in their current I-90 Corridor Study. The
potential of Flora Road to serve the needs of through traf fic and project traf fic would
be significant if both these improvements were implemented.
26
~ • v I •I I
ncvi
Summary of Tcansportation lmprovements
The conceptual approach to improvement of the transportation network is presented on v
Figure S. These improvements, together with appropriate signalization and other
traffic control devices, will mitigate the adverse impacts of the project and provide
enhanced circulation and safety for through traf fic. At this stage in the planning
process, costs of construction and right-of-way acquisition have not been prepared. The
project proponent will construct the on-site roadway impcovements to county design
standards and dedicate the associated right-of-way. In addition, the proponent will bear
responsibility for numerous off-site improvements. However, the sponsor will seek the
participation oi the county in those improvements which offer signiiicant benefits to
non-project traffic. In addition, the burden of responsibility for off-site costs can
affect the economic feasibility and success of the future project phases. Thus,
implementation of the of f-site improvements will require the cooperation of the
county.
The specific roadway improvements proposed for Phase I include construction of lndiana
Avenue as a two-lane facility in the western portion of the site, and as a four-lane
divided facility east to Suliivan Road. The right-of-way width will vacy between 70 and
100 feet, depending on slope and drainage cequirements. The intersection at Sullivan
Road will be signalized, and the 1-90/Sullivan interchange modif ied as shown on Figure
7.
In advance of the implementation of Phase Ii, the proponent will prepare a design ceport
for the proposed new I-90 interchange at Evergreen Road. This design report will fulfill
the county's requirement for updating of the traffic forecasts after the completion of
Phase ln addition, the design report will comply with WSD0'T and FHWA guidelines to
evaluate the various design options for the interchange.
The capacity analyses indicate that the connection of the proposed 'new interchange
south to Evergreen Road will not be required until Phase III of the project. However,
the design report will examine options for earlier implementation of this connection.
Obviously, the timing of this improvement is closely linked to that of the county's
proposed widening of Sullivan Road south of I-90, and that project also must be
considered in ihe design report.
The roadway improvements for Phase II include construction of the proposed new
I-90/Evergreen interchange with a two-lane bridge crossing, together with the asso-
ciated auxiliary weaving lanes eastward to the Sullivan interchange ramps. Evergreen
Road will be constructed as a four-lane divlded section north from the new interchange
27
. •
. to Indiana Avenue. In Phase lI, Indiana Avenue will be widened from two lanes to five
lanes in the western portion of the site. The Sullivan/Indiana intersection and the
I-90/Sullivan interchange will be modified as shown on Figure 8 and Indiana Avenue will
be extended eastward from Sullivan Road as a iive-lane section.
The technical analysis indicates that the south connection to Evergreen Road from the
proposed new 1-90 interchange is not needed to relieve Sullivan Road until Phase III.
However, the disposition of this long-term recommendation will ultimately be addressed
in the interchange design report. The preliminary analysis indicates that the connection
is feasible, and three alternative alignments are presented on Figure S. This connection
would be a two-lane roadway on a grade between.4 and 8 percent. The need for traffic
control devices at the intersection with Mission Avenue will be determined in the design
report.
The connections of Evecgreen Road northward f rom Indiana Avenue were not specif i-
cally considered in the technical analysis. None of these connections is required to
support the Sullivan Park Center project. The alternatives shown on Figure 5 are
intended to demonstrate that future northward extensions of Evergreen Road are not
precluded by implementation of the development proposal.
In all phases, implementation of roadway improvements intended for dedication will
pass through several levefs of ceview by the -appropriate county, state and fedecal
agencies. These location and design reviews will provide additional opportunities for
interaction with the proponent regarding details of the specific improvements.
28
~
( ~•,y~, :
.
.
S:~- A c.Q~,,•.~.~,,, ~
.
~
_
.
~
~
~ s
.
~ • ~
~
•
I
,
~nn 1
.
~
a
ed ~
LC 2 4 1984
jur~~PJE CQUNTY'
;'E ~tiNNING DrP~':R
WILSEY & HAM
r
~
izooo, / ! ' L v ~ 1..a~:.G~.L ~~r•
1
A
G'
~
1;(AW~
~
,
,
.
~ B_
~
r
s'
~
~ ,
, ~ . , - _ . / ~ ~ ~ j ~C l.S
~
~
f~ r i i
~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~
. ~~l _
J
f "
.1~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~
_ - , ~ f ~ ~ ~ t.,~ ~
. ~
~ a
y' . ~
i ~ ~ ~ -
J~ f ~~~,~,y,~_s~
- ~
~
, - ,,t-~~~%~~.~` _
~
; , _ - L ,
- - - , -
SPOKAME ENYIROMMENTAL ORDINJINCE File No. ZE-180-78
(41AC 191-11-965) Section 11.10.230(2) Adoption Notice
,
ADOPTION OF EXISTIN6 ENYIROMNEMTAL DOCUMENT
Adoption for (check approprlate box) DNS EIS [Xl Other In con7unction with a SEIS
Descriptlon of proposal Modification of an existinq, approved Restricted Industrial
zoning. Case ZE-180-78
Proponent HANSON PROPERTIES.. INC.
Location of current proposal Both east and west of Sullivan Road, between the Spokane
River and I-90 in the Spokane Va11ey.
i
T1tle of document being aGopted Sullivan Park Center DEIS (Vo1s. 1 and 2) and FEIS
Aqency that prepared document being adopted Spokane County Planninq Department
Date adopted document was prepared September 1980 and Februarza 1981
Descrlption of document (or portlon) being adopted A11; except portions reqardinq circulation/
traffic, sewa eg . Phasinq and site development standards.
If document being adopted has been challenqed (197-11-630), please descrlbe: )
N<
The document is avallable to be read at (place/time) :
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., M-j
Me have identitled and adopted this document as being approprlate for this proposal after tndependent revlew. The document meets our envlronmentel revlew needs for the current proposel and will actompeny
the proposal to the declslon maker.
Name of aqency adoptinq document: Spokane County
Contact person. 1f other then
responsible officlal: Thomas G. Mosher, A.I.C.P. Phone (509) 456-2205 ~
Responslble Official Wa11is D. Hubbard
Position/Title: Plannin,q Director Phone (509) 456-2205
Address: N. 721 Jefferson, Spokane, WA 99260
/
Date: January 8, 1985 Slqnature: ~
~
10/1/84 11-14
r ~
,y r
r s a if .k r '~~,~I r~~~f j6 i
i
•,ir' ' t~it♦ ~ Nl~ I
• ;I , PLA►NMING DEPARTMENt
,
BROAQWAY CENTRE BUILOING N 721 JEfFEASON 5'CREET
PNf}NE 456-2208
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99280
spoKaN[ COUntr cOURT 1+auSe
T0: U.S. Dept. of Transp. WA State Dept. of Eco. (SEPA)
WA State Dept. of Eco. (Spo.) WA State Dept. of Eco. (Env. ltev.)
WA Stete DSHS WA State Social 6 Iiealth Svs,
WA State Dept. of Transp.(4L) WA State Dept. of Transp. (Spo.)
Spo. City Planning Manager Spokane City Manager
Spo. Gity Planning Dept. Spo. City Zone,Subd.,Env.Svs.Dept.
Spo. B.egional Council Spo. Cv. Air Pol. Control Auth.
Spo. Co. Engfneer's Office Spo. Go. Health Dietrict
Spo. Co. Parke te Rec. Spo. Ca. Chief Civil Deputy
Spo. Co. Sherf€f's Ofc. Spo. Co. Utility Dept.
The Spo. Dailq Chronicle The Spokeeman Review
The Valley flerald KRQ News
KXLY News KREM News
KPBX Newe Burlington Northern, inc.
Spokane Transit System Fire District #1
Valley Garbage Service Spo. Valley Chamber of Cammerce
Spo. Area Chamber of Commerce Spo. Area. Dev. Cauncil
Town of Millvood Cona. Irrigation Diet. #19
FROM; TH OSHER, A.I.C.P., SEPA Coardinator
DATE: January 8, 1985
SUB,SECT: Accampanping Adoptia►n Notice and DS/Scoging Notice Regardiag
Sullivan Park Center; ZS-180-78
The accompanping STAFF REPORT page and map deseribe Reatricted Industrial
Zoniag applied for and granted in 1981 for propertp in the Spokane Va1Tey. An.
Envirornaental Impact Statement waa completed in conjunction with tha[ project,
describing e regional shopping center, motel/hotel, affice and buainess
complex.
The ownere af the propertp seek certain change8 to the approved zone
cla8eificatien dated Mareh 6, 1981.
Spokane Countq Planning Department staff, as responBible official for the ,
lead agency (Spokane Countq), and pursuant to WAC 197-11, hae decided that a
supplemental BIS ie needed to comply with the law. We are adapting the
esietin,g DEIS and FBIS bp the one notice and announcing the praductian af s
S-DSIS and a S-FEIS aad the ecoping requirements assocfated therewith.
cca Nanson Properties, Inc.
WZLSBY 6 XAM, INC.
. ~ ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 5, 1981
TO: HEARiNG EXAMINER COMMITTEE
FROM: PLANNING OEPARTMENT STAFF
.SUBJECT: ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-180-78
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Spokane Mall Associates
PROPERTY OWNER: Hanson Properties, Inc.
REQUESTED ZONING: Restricted Industrial
EXISTI NG ZON I NG Agricuitural (established in 1942, 1956 & 1957)
PROPOSED USE: Commercial, Light Industrial, office
PROJECT LOCATION: This site js generally located north of 1-90,
west of Flora Road, east of Pines Road, south of the Spokane River and
the Spokane lnternational Railroad right-of-way.
II. SITE PLAN INFORMATION
SITE SIZE: Approximately 230 acres
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is relatively flat with most of the
land under cultivation or lying dormant. The site is bordered on the
south by the freeway and it is bisected by the railroad tracks. There are
no existing structures.
NEIGH80RHOOD CHARACTER: The neighborhood charatter is rural
with some residential and industrial uses.
.
AGRICULTURAL SUMMARY: Urban (Irrjgated)
.
ZONING: North Agriculture, established, 1942 & 1957
Menufacturing, estabiished, 1956
Mining, established, 1955
' East Agriculture, established, 1957
West Agriculture, established, 1942
South Agriculture, established, 1942 & 1956
Restricted Industrial, established, 1976 & 1973
Freeway Commercial, established, 1966 & 1978
Agricultural Suburban, established, 1968 LAND USE: Site Cultivated, undeveloped North River, cultivated, raii line, industrial uses, '
singte family residence
East Single family residence, undeveloped
West Single family residence, undeveloped,
industrial uses
South I-90, undeveloped, single family residential,
commercial uses
1968 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial
NUMBER OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: 0
NUMBER OF BUILDINGS PROPOSED: 0
1
~
.
.
.
_
f tl1~~4~~~ ~ ~
s
1 bp
~ ~ AO r
~ ~dcll~ Atis~ $
~ ~b~ • ~ ~ ♦
- ~M~ ~ ~ , ~ ♦ ~ i ~
s ~
~ -
~1~~~ ~ • ~ ^ _ -
~~,~1~~~~~ ~ a~.~~~ :•i i :
~i~~ ~i ~i ~
: _ - , ..,.~~:•:~f:•:~et.f::.:~::~:•~;::.,
• _
. : ~ ~ •.•r.
_ •a~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~•
~~.•.r.i.ii r i~~si •
_ •a.~
•~i
ql
~ • `
/ . I
droad'~° A~~r►~ - " ~ ,
~~t0 Ya~ Atl~%
.
~ ~0~►~ O
~
G~
tAAP N `
Af-
_ ~nr "
,
-
~ SPOKANE ENYIRONMENTAL OROIMANCE file No. ZR-380-78
(YAC 197-I1-965) Section 11.10.230(2) Adoptlon Motite
)
AOOPTIOM OF ExISTIN6 EMIIIRONNEMTAL OOClN1ENT
Adoption tor (check approprlate box) E a OHS EIS [X] Other =oniunctfon w~th a SEIS
Description of proposal Mod.ification of an exi'sting, aQproved Restricted Industrial
zoninq. Case ZE-180-78
Proponent NANSON PROPERTIES4, INC.
Location of current proposal Both east and west of Sullivan Road, between the Spokane
River and I-90 .in the S,pokane Valley.
Title ot document being adopted SuZl3van Park Center DEIS (Vo1s. 1 and 2) and FEIS
Aqency that prepared document being adopte0 Spokane Connty Planninq Department
Oate edopted document was prepered September 1980 and Februaru 1981
Oescrlption ot document (or portion) being adopted AI1; except portions regarding circulation/
traffic, sewae yhas3ng and site develovment standards.
it Oocument being adopted has peen challenpe0 (197•11-630). ptease descrlpe: ~
No
The document 1s ava11aD1e to be read at (place/t1me): Spokane County Planning Department;
8:30 a.m, to 5:00 p.m., M-F
Me have identltted and adopted this document as being approprieta for thts proposat sfter lndependent
review. The document meee: our envlronmental roview need: tor the current proposal and wlll eccompanY
the proposel to the dsclslon maker.
Name of aqentY adoptlnq document: Spokane County
Contact person. 1t other than
responslble ofttctal: Thomas G. Mosher, A.I.C.P. phone (509) 456-2205
Responslble Qtticial Wa11is D. Hubbard
Posltlon/T1tle: P1ann.ing► Director phone (509) 456-2205
Address: N. 721 Jeffersan, Snokane, WA 99260
Oate: January 8, 1985 Slpneture:
~
10/1/84 11-14
SPOKI1NE ENV 1R01r+lENT/1L ORD I WWCE
Flie Pb. ZE-180-78
(MAC 197-11-980) Sectton 11.10.230 (4) Determination of stgnificanoe and sooping natics (OS).
OE1ERM1 NAT I ON OF S 1 GN 1 F i CI11rCE
/1ND REOUEST FOR OOMMENTS ON SOOPE OF E I S
Descriptlon of Proposal: Modification of en existtng, epproved Resfricted Industrlel Zoning.
Case ZE-180-78.
Proponent: FWNSON PROPERTIES, INC.
Location of Proposel: 8oth east and rest of Sulllvan Raed, between the Spokane River and I-90 !n the
Spokane Yalley.
Leed agency: Spokane County
EIS Requlred: The lead egency had defermined this proposal to have a significarrt adverse impact on the
env i rorxnent. A Supp l emerrta 1 Env 1 roranenta i I mpect Statement (E I S) 1 s requ 1 red under
R C M I 43.21 C.030(2) (c ) and w I t 1 be prepered.
The lead egency h8s tdentified the following areas for discusslon 1n the EIS: Circulation/trafflc:
sewege disposat: phasing: site develcpment standards.
Soop 1 ng : Agenc les, af fqct+ed tr I bes, artd members of the pub I i c are 1 nv t+ed f+o oomment on the soope ot
the E I S. You may oam~ent on a I ternet 1 ves, m t t i get I on measures, probab 1 e s i gn i f i cent edverse t mpacts,
and I 1 oenses or otNer epprove I s thet mey be requ 1 red. The method and deed 11 ne for gi v i ng us your
comments is 1n Mriting, no later than the close of business hours on January 29, 1985.
Responsible Offictal: WALLIS D. HU88ARD
Position/Tltle: Planning Olrector Phone: (509) 456-2205
Address: N. 721 Jefferson, Spo4cene, WA 99260
~
Date: January S. 1985 Signature
o n E• ~v
O ~
- ' O
v• ~ ?
~
,
January 18, 1985 hdEU ~r
Wallis D. Hubbard
Planning Director
Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson Street .
Spokane, Washington 99260
RE: DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE - HANSON PROPERTIES INC.
CASE ZE 180-78
We agree to the areas proposed for investigation under the
scopeing of EIS circulated. We feel that some additional areas
should be explored.
Given the potential nature of this proposal a secondary impact
should be explored. This type of development will probably
increase the amount of residences in the area through its drawing
power. The impact of these residences on the area and its
resources needs to be discussed.
Has it been determined if the air quality considerations in the
previous EIS are still valid?
We realize that economics are not a required item under SEPA. It
is felt that the economic impact on other areas including the CBD
should be explored. This conclusion is reached after reviewing
the conclusion of the 1983 study done for the City entitled "A
Study of Regional Shopping Center Demand in the Spokane Trade
Area." If you do not have opy of this report please let me
know an we will provid to you.
/
E. Terry C1e recto ~
Zoning, Subdivision and
Environmental Services E C E'
V
ETC:DLC:GM ~
JD 1 1 A.N 2 21985
P ~SPp~ANE CpUNTY
~+NNING pEpqRTMEN
r
CIl Y ZONING BUARD
Cdrroll MarleU r,hdurn.n / Vaughn P Call AICP M 3iidy, Pwooritnia E Tsrry Cleyq AICf' MCIP 1)it, i 1ut ;4 runll ti,tujlvi%, u,injt f r.1rrjiunr 111,11 ~,j rvii 4
1nt11 lonr Munrr ijd s, riuiUinri ,ju,k ur W^hu1,1l'ni 94201 i! +
e O ~ P n E, ~
~ q y
O ' - ~
•
~
- O
January 14, 1985 v ~
. •
O~ ~
nDED 1CkMr. Wallis Hubbard, Planning Director
Spokane CoLmty Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99260
Attention Thomas Nbsher
Dear Tom:
Thank you for the opportLmity to participate in t,he scoping process for
Sullivan Park Center SEIS. T have no other environmental concerns to be ad-
dressed in the supplemental environmental impact statement. I do look foYward
to seeing the S-DEIS and reviewi.ng the changes being proposed.
Sincerely,
G5~Z~ ag,
QHARLES DOTSUN
Planning Department
cc: E. Terry Clegg
Zoning Director
R ECEIVED
JAN 17 1965
SPaKANF CQUNTY
PLAMN'NG DEPARTMENT
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Lyle E. Balderson, AtCP, Plenning Director
SECOND FLOOR MUN/ClPAL BUILD/NQ / SPOKANE, WASH/NOTON 99201-3393 /(509) 458-4375
i
~
,
,
o .4"(- .~r 8 s
~
~
~
_ _ _ - - - - - - . ~ ~~~~~►I ~ _ - _
~ d'~ ~ ~
.
~~i lJ~ 1`•~V . r } f •
~j /~+(~~y(
" ~
~ . .
~s~~---
,
~
~
~
I' ~ V
1
LARRY V. ERICKSON
~ 4-
SPOKANE CDUNTY SHERIFF ER/~~-:-
~ DEAN A. LYDIG, Undenheriff
~~~a~ TERRY D. SNEDDEN, Inspsctor
~ ~~~_.~:-y~•~.~~.~~~: ' DONALD R. MANNINCi. Chisf Jalter O ~
G. RONALD DASHIELL, Chist Criminel Dsputy
4~4 m ~ .
COUNTY-CITY PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
456-4739
January 29, 1985
Mr. Thomas G. Mosher
SEPA Coordi.nator
Spokane County Plan.ning Department
Broadway Centre Building
N. 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99260
Dear Mr. Mosher:
Regardi.ng your memo of January 8, 1985, on the Accompa.nying Adoption Notice and
DS/Scoping Notice Regarding Sullivan Park Center, the Spokane Coun.ty Sheriff
Department will be vitally concerned with such a development of this magnitude
in the Spokane Valley. According to the sketch plans, the area involved is
approximately 230 acres. Development of this type of a shopping center certainly
would have an impact on police services in the valley. The greatest of these
problems, of course, would be the roadways and the number and a.mount of vehicle
traffic in and out of such a complex using Sullivan Road, Pines Road, and Flora
Road. The Spoka.ne County Sheriff Department present],y has a limited ability to
deal in the traffic control area in the Spokane Va11ey. Such a complex would have
considerable impact on our ability to deal with this increased traffic. Additionally,
the Department would probably see a significant increase in the calls for service.
Generally these calls would be limited to reports involving burglaries, thefts,
automobile accidents on private property or in parking lots, burglary alarms
(particularly those after hours), and other officer-initiated incidents while on
routine patrol in this particular area.
Although we do not oppose such a development, until further plans are drawn it
would be impossible for us to address on a more specific basis the impact to the
Spokane County Sheriff Dep artment in delivery of police services to the area.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
~
Y V. ERICKSON, Sheriff
Spokane County
LVE /p rh
~
~ 0 R E C F # ~
.
FEB 2 51085
„
SPOKANE
PLANNING OEP;~!McNt • ~ .
February 22, 1985 ,y
Uf:D 1
Wallis D. Hubbard
Planning Director
Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, Washington 99260
Thank you for your letter and comments of February 4 on the
above. We are, of course, handicapped in not having any detail
for this recent proposal. We still do not believe the previous
EIS adequately dealt with either the need for a regional shopping
center or the impact that it would have on other shopping
facilities in the metropolitan area and the CBD. Since the
Report on Shopping Center Demand (prepared by an independent
consultant) was published after the previous EIS we believe the
new supplemental EIS should at least now include references to
and quotations from the conclusions of that study. As you know
this study did not take a postion on any specific shopping
center.
Thank you for the opportuni comment on this proposed EIS
sup lemen .
~
E. Terry C1egg, or
Zoning, Subdivision and
Environmental Services
ETC:GM
ua
CITY ZONING BOARD
Carroll Martell, Chairman I Vaughn P. Catl, AICP, Manager Plannmq / E. Terry Clegg, AICP, MCIP, Dire~~_tr,r -_7r.n,nrl Subdivisl,m anr. Env~~~-.n~~cn(al Serv~Ces
^nd Floor, Itfunrcir,al 8..~7ing Spnkare
~
. ; . .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
;
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 1EFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2205
, SPOKANF, WASMINGTnN 99260
5P(rrnnt CiHr;U$C
Ini) i-
I _ E. Terry Clegg, D i r_=~~, :
Zoning, Subdivi-);Cl, 1 City of Spokane
2nd F1 oor, Muni C)k jI Ir~ 0,'_.
IL) E2 ci rl i~ 'i'f
We are in receipt ot your, letter of January l', 1985, regarding the Uetermination
of Significance for Hansen Properties, Inc. We have examined your letter and
reviewed it with the consultant for the project and have come to the following
conclusions regarding your suggestions.
You have suggested that the secondary i,»pact of the pressure for residential growth
in the area be examined, The original EIS, upon which we are substantially depend-
ing,contained adequate discussions with regard to housing and population impacts.
Since that time the County has adopted its Comprehensive Plan which, as you know,
has designated all of the area in this general vicinity north of the freeway to
the Industrial category. All manner of housing will be discouraged here. South
of the freeway in this general vicinity has been designated to Major Corrmercial
south along Sullivan Road to Sprague Avenue, The Plan has indicated Urban and
Suburban development respectively on the west and east sides of Sullivan Road.
Therefore, we feel that we have adequately anticipated and can provide for an
residential development which may evolve as a result of the current proposal. I
Additional ly, as you know, a great deal of the area south of the freeway, nor, ',r~
of Sprague Avenue, and within a mile either way of Sullivan Road has considerable
development at the present time, and such development as may occur in the future
C1'.'
i,
E2i1 0fi:, LUI1LLtti~ uit, qUuI 1'i,y l:0fiJ luLr':i,';
Our consultant has reviewed the air quality information and reports that the air,
quality evaluations are conservative in light of the somewhat smaller development
now proposed. I also pointed out that SCAPCA received the scoping notice and di:
not question our use of the unsupplemented previous document.
Regarding economics as an issue to be discussed in the environiiiental inipact stati-
ment, we refer back to the extensive economic analysis prepared in the former E1~~,.
As you are well aware, and as a result of inquires from the City, extensive
economic evaluation was performed. At that time it was clearly understood, wc:
believe, by all parties that there would most likely be impacts to the CBD ar-,
other regional size shopping areas.
.s L. ier,r.y C iey~~ - ~ - f=e Lr•uary t,ii ou,Uuu PtuNie irl ti+e J'POF,aiie 'Valley Ioca-Led a con5i~erauie distance ti,0k
the CBD, the County recognizes a responsibility to allow competition to fulfill
the requirement for shopping facilities. We are also aware that "A Study of
Regional Shopping Demand in the Spokane Trade Area" suggested that there was
no need for any more centers of regional or subregional size in the metropolitan
area. At the time that report was in its final stage the County recognized the
report, but we believe we made it clear that the County did not necessarily
subscribe to its conclusions. We also clarify that it did not establish land
use policy with regard to regional centers for the unincorporated County.
Therefore, subject to all the above and due to the considerable information
available with the first Environmental Impact Statement, expanding the scope
does not appear necessary. However, we do thank you for your condiseration and
interest in this document.
Sincerely,
~
Wallis D. Hubbard Planning Director
WDH:ks
cc: Wilsey & Hamm, Inc.
Hansen Properties, Inc.
Thomas G. Mosher, AICP, Environmental Coordinator
/
.
h1 A T'
le,
♦ i
~
u ~
10NN SPELLMAN DU^NE BERENTSC)N
GOVPfnOf SPCfPldfy
STATE OF WASHINGTC)N
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Transporta►ion Build►ng • Olympia, Washinglon 98504 o ; S 3-6(X)5
June 21, 1984
tLtIVCD
JUN 2 71984
Mr. H. R. Hammond '
Transportation Engineer WILSEY b HAM, INC.
Wilsie and Ham
P. O. Box C-97304
BPllevue, Washington 98009
Re : SR 90
Sullivan Park Center
Traffic Impact Analysis
c-I nd De jr,n S ±
Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1984, which providf-C
a copy of the "Traffic Impact Analysis and Design Study"
report concerni ng the above-referenced project. It has bF=-n
a pleasure working with you through the numerous meeting,_,
and other discussions which have resulted in this report.
The report includes considerablP detailPd information rPlatlVe
to traffic projections and resultant levels of service from
both background traffic and traffic anticipated as a result
of development of the proposed shopping center. WP have reviewed
this material and in general concur with your traffic projections
and analysis.
ThP rPport includPS genPral design details for several featurP<-
which are necessary to maintain the minimum desired Level
of ServicP "D" for traffic operations. The dPSign feature~7
and LPVPIS of SPrvice calculations are gPnPrally c-onsidPrFd
accPptable as prPSented in thP report.
ThP report concludes that traffic generated by the initial
phase of devPlopment of thP shopping center can adequately
bP accommodated with thP currPnt WSDOT design for an upgradec
diamond interchange at Sullivan Road. To maintain satisf,.-1--r-:','
traffic operations would howPVer require the constructio~:
of access ramps between Indiana AvenuP and the westbound
off- and on-ramps of I-90. ThPSP access connections would
para11P1 Sullivan Road both on thP east anci w<,:,t
k
L~V
3 _ ~ .
~
Mr. H. R. ammond
June 21, 1984
Page 2
connections are not a part of the WSDOT updated plan. Therefore,
construction funding will not be provided by WSDOT and is
the responsibility of others.
The acceptability of this plan is based on the initial phase
of development of the shopping center being limited to approx-
imately 650,000 square feet of gross leasible area. Any expan-
sion beyond that level of development for the first phase
would not be acceptable to the Department without additional .
access and capacity provi.sions.
The report also draws conclusions relative to access nPeds
for the ultimate development of the shopping center and
peripheral area. We concur with the finding that to adequately
serve the full development will require an additional access
to the area from Interstate 90. Without such an access, Sullivan
Road and possibly other interchanges in the area will breakdown
and, thus not be able to provide the appropriate level of
service to the traveler. WSDOT concurrence with development
beyond the first stage would require commitment to providing
an additional access point to service the area.
We have appreciated the cooperative attitude of you and your
staff. We appreciate the opportunity to review the final
report and have no comments or recommendations for modifications
in it. We will be pleased to continue working with you on
plans to adequately serve the public as the development con-
tinues through additional stages.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of this
material further, please feel free to contact me or Ron Hart
in our District 6 office in Spokane.
Sincerely,
.
S. A. MOON, P.E.
Location-Desi.gn Engineer
SAM:tw
cc; A. D. Andreas
Ron Hart
Gary Kennali, Spokane Cty.
Raymond Hanson
,
WILSEY&HAM
1980 llZth Ave. N.EJP.O. Boz C-97304 Tnll FreeNumhrrs
Bellevue, WA 98009 Fverett 353-8837
'I'acoma 475-6880
(2 06) 4 54-3' 5 H
i e ':;a ~7 '
A,IP
December 10, 1984 D E_ C 1;3 1984
File No. 3-2705-0103-30
UrCOIJNTY
_r~M~r'ING DEPART4"~i~lT
Mr. Tom Mosher
Long Range Planning Administrator
Planning Department
Spokane County
Broadway Centre Building
N. 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, Washington 99260
Re: Scoping for the Sullivan Park Center SEIS
Dear Tom:
I have compared the current proposal for Sullivan Park Center and the original proposal
and EIS for the rezone of the property in 1980-81. There are only three major aspects
which have changed: circulation/traffic, sewage disposal and phasing. The overall size
of the project is the same (230 acres) and the land use mix is comparable. There are
minor land use changes such as a reduced size of the retail center, and a change of
drainfield areas (no longer required due to a different sewage disposal plan) to other
land uses, but nothing at a scale which would seem to warrant restudy.
Circulation and traffic will be the major change from the original proposal. T'he
original proposal utilized an urban interchange at Sullivan Road; the current proposal is
to use fiwo diamond interchanges along I-90, an existing one at Sullivan Road (to be -
reconstructed by the Washington Department of Transportation) and one proposed
between Pines and Sullivan. This will also change access to and within the site. New
traffic projections and assignments will be required, based on the new circulation plan
and updated population, land use and employment figures.
With regard to sewage disposal, the original project proposed interim on-site sewage
disposal; the current proposal is for connection to a public sanitary sewer. This will be
an improvement, and is not expected to be a major issue.
A more detailed phasing plan for overall developments will be provided as part of the
current proposal, which may be of general interest.
Other possible issues such as overall project noise and air quality levels, and storm
water runoff are essentially unchanged from the original proposal, and do not appear to ~
be major issues for the SEIS.
.
E)Lihlir 1I71pt-i)\'efllelltti CI1g1f1CC1'If1gIlj«'CIuE)mrnt .ei-% ireti/E)ublic 1n,lic% plannint; and anak si:/envirunmenral affairs/su1-Ve}'ing
Ofi1-ices l()cared in: &:llevue, «'ashington • Portland, Oregun • Fonter Citt- a~id Fresno, California
- - --J
We propose that you proceed with the scoping process as soon as possible, and that no
expanded scoping be employed unless you feel it is necessary. I am enclosing a
description of the proposal for your use in your advertising and related public notice
materials.
Please call me if you have any questior
Best regards,
WILSEY & HAM
ristofferson, AICP
vIan e of Planning and Environmental Services
JRC/jf
Lnclosure
cc: Mr. Mike Teramoto
IZ.A. Hanson Co.
.
;R
.
~
L
L
OA,FtK df-14 tai 0 nt
Suppiemeo stateme
~r'ft
. at ImPact
vlronrr►wt
En
;
f ~b ~C
,C
~ Alternat'ves, Including the Proposed Act ion
~
Proposal and Objectives
Hanson Properties, Inc. proposes a mixed-use development, Suilivan Park Center, on a
226-acre site in Spokane County. The site is east of the City of Spokane and south of
the Spokane River, on the north side of Interstate 90 at the Sullivan Road interchange
as shown in Figure 1 in the Summary. The proposal includes a regional shopping center,
~
commercial uses, a hotel/motel, a business park, an industrial park and passive
park/open space along the civer.
~
The objective of the request is to gain approval of the site development plan (shown in
Figure 2 in the Summary), conditioned by proposed development standards, so that the
ProPertY can be Platted for develoPment of the sPecific uses with the assurance of
~
coordinated and compatible phased development ot the entire site over an estimated
1 S-year period.
Phasing Alternatives
~ The development is proposed to occur in three general phases. Phase I would include
. three major department stores and approximately 60 smaller shops, for a total retail
" gross leasable area (GLA) of about 650,000 square feet. A 300-room hotel may also be
developed in Phase I.
~
As an alternative, Phase I could include a smaller shopping center of approximately
485,000 square feet and 150 hotel rooms, with some of the diffecence replaced by up to
- 110,000 square feet of business park development.
The balance of the property would be developed in future phases, dependent on
financing and macket conditions. The approximate site areas and GLAs for each phase
and each use are shown in Table I in the Summary, and the locations of the various uses
- are shown in Figure 2 in the Summary.
The proposed phasing of the development is based in part on a phased constructio
traffic access improvements to maintain accept*ble traf fic conditions on Intersta ~j5
~
and at key intersections along Sullivan Road. The two Phase I alternatives would ve
~ similar peak-hour trip generation cates and would therefore have nearly identica
traf f ic im pacts. •
~
I
S
Affected Environment, Significant Impacts,
and Mitigation Measures
■ Elements of the Built Environment
LAND AND SHORELINE USE
Development Standacds Subsequent to issuance of the 1981 FEIS, the land use of the subject property was
reclassified from Agricultural Zone to Restricted Industrial Zone on March 6, 1981.
The reclassification contained a provision requiring submission of a specific site
development plan prior to construction approvals.
The current development proposal is somewhat different from the original proposal.
Since the sponsor would not be directly involved in construction of the individual
buildings, Sp'Clf 1C site development plans are not available and are not part of the
curcent proposal. In lieu of such specific plans, the sponsor is proposing that various
defined parcels within the site be designated for specific types of uses, and that
~ specific development standards be attached to each parcel to assure that the type,
, quality and character of future development would meet existing and proposed county
standards. Approval of the proposed land use designations and specific development
standards would allow the property to be marketed to developers of the specific uses
with the assurance of coordinated and compatible phased development of the entire
site. In preparation of the proposed development standards, three major county policy
factors were considered:
1. Under the current "Restricted Industrial" classification, all of the uses proposed,
and several additional uses, could be constructed anywhere within the site. This
broad spectrum of permitted uses does not provide an adequate frarnework or
sufficiently specific development standards for a coordinated and baianced mixed-
use plan.
~
2. Development standards applicable to two pdditional classific 'ons, " mer ial
w
~ Zone" and "Local Business Zone," containe+d in the existing z g s~r- wou be
more restrictive and more appropriate for the retail, business an otel por ons of
-
the proposal. However, there are still some aspects of these zones which may be•
1 ,
too general to control future development to the degree necessary to adequately
- substitute for a specific site development plan.
11
~i
~1
J
. The EIS prepared for the proposed zoning code (November 1984) indicates that the code
provides better defined sign, landscape and parking standards than now exist. The EIS
also states that in all segments of the environment investigated, the new code
improves enviconmental conditions over the existing zoning ordinance." Approval of the
proposed development standards in lieu of a"specific site development plan" therefore
should provide at least comparable pcotection against environmental impacts.
County staff review and administrative approval of each development application, in
light of the proposed standards, would provide the necessary enforcement.
TRANSPORTATION Background
A detailed transpoctation analysis of the proposed Sullivan Park Center was prepared in
1980 as a component of the original environmental impact statement (EIS). That
transportation study included estimates of trip generation and distribution, traffic
assignments, capacity analysis and a proposed mitigation plan to reduce adverse
im pacts on the surrounding roadway network. The ultimate development of the site and
nature of land uses being considered in this supplementary EIS are tabulated in Table I
in the summary, and can be compared to those of the original project, Table II. The
current proposal includes development in three phases, while the original project was to
be constructed in two phases.
The original EIS traffic analysis determined that several improvements would be
required to support the additional travel demands created by the combined effects of
through and project traffic. Foremost among these was the need for reconstruction of
the Interstate 90 interchange serving Sullivan Road to provide additional capacity. In
this respect, the EIS cecom mended that an "urban interchange" be constructed at this
location, and that it be combined with a grade sepacation of the Burlington Northern
- railroad tcacks which roughly parallel I-90. A schematic drawing of the urban
interchange proposal from the ociginal EIS is shown in Appendix A. That EIS also
~ recognized the need to widen Sullivan Road }north of I-90, extend Indiana Avenue
thcough the site, and signalize the Sullivan/Indiana intersection.
In March 1981, the Spokane County Hearing E ' er Committee issued its findings and
conditions related to the approval f th original EIS. e EIS examined the ~npacts of,
rezoning from Agricultural to Restricted Indu riaTland use under the zoning classifica-
tions applicable at that time. With respect to ransportation, the Committee did not
13
//7
~
.
~ • . \
~
~ The proposed second regional center was to be located east of Sullivan Road and north
of Broadway Avenue. The Valley Mall would have included 650,000 square feet of gross
~ leasable area plus additional peripheral commercial, office and restaurant space. The
traffic study for the Valley Mall was prepared in 1978, projecting 31,240 daily trip ends,
with 1,180 inbound trips and 1,275 outbound trips in the 4:00 to 5:00 pm peak hour.
Approximatley 45 percent of these trips were forecast to pass through the I-90/Sullivan
Road interchange. The traffic study for 'the Valley Mall was based on 1976 traffic
~
counts and a 1985 completlon date, so that the projections of that study are outdated
and no longer applicable to the current situation.
The zoning approval for the Valley Mall is scheduled to expire in October 1985 and no • `
~ . . _ _ _ - - _ •,1,,.1
application for an extension of this approval is being processed~., he eariier traffic 5
_ traffic related to Valley y
analyses tor SutTivan~ Park Center did not specitically conslder
Mall, since it is likely that only one such center could be supported in the Spokane
~ Valley. A regional center such as that under consideration requires a market population
of 100,000 to 150,000 persons. The population forecasts for the year 2000 indicate
approximately this population for the eastern Washington and northern Idaho macket
area. Thus, it is likely that only one regional center could be economically justified in ,
;
~ this area.
~
Traffic volume growth on Sullivan Road was derived from earlier projections by the ~
Spokane Regional Planning Conference. These estimates reflect traffic growth in the ~
~ ~range of 3 to 5 percent. The projections do not appear to be affected by revisions in
the freeway volume projections, nor are the ramp volumes significantly affected.
~ p
Projections of average daily traffic foc 1990, 1995 and 2000 without the project are
shown in Figure 4. ~
~
Traffic operations at the intersections along Sullivan Road foc these conditions are
summarized in Table III.
~
The capacity analyses were performed using the reconstructed I-90/Sullivan inter-
change geometrics which are currently under construction. The need for additional
~ I- orridor Stud is in studied b WSDOT. That stud
freeway capacity in the 90 C y b~ g y Y
may determine the need for six-laning of I-90 in the vicinity of the site. The existing
ccoss-section and bridge structures along I-90 are such that widening could be
accomplished by adding median lanes in the existing right-of-way. •
18
. ~
4.1 General Architectural Restrictions
4.1.1 Minimum Setback Lines and Lot Coverage
A. Lots 1 through 15 and lots 19 and 20 are subje to the ~
provisions of the current Spokane County Zoni
dealing with Local Business (Chapter 4.09) or pro-
posed County Zoni ng Code provi s i ons for Cornnuni ty
(Chapter 6. 26).
B. Lots 16 through 18 are subject o the provisions of th<
.
current Spokane County Zoning d`"44aling with Commerc
Zone (Chapter 4.14) or the-proposed County Zone Code
provisions for Regional Business (Chapter 6.28).
`ots 21 through 36 are subjec~;'.~-'-. t g provisions of the
current Spokane County Zoni ng ~~~~~eal i n9 wi th Restri cted
~
Industrial (Chapter 4.11) or the proposed County Zoning ,
-ode provisions for Industrial Park (Chapter 6.30).
D. Tracts A through F are subject to the provisions of the
current Spokane Zoning Code dealing with Agriculture
(Chapter 4.04) or the proposed County Zoning Code pro-
visions for General Agricultural (Chapter 6.40).
4.1.2 Completion of Construction
A. After comnencement of constructfion of any improvements,
the owner shall diligently prosecute the work thereon, to the end
that the improvements shall not remain in a partly finished condi-
tion any lonqer than reasonably necessary for completion thereof.
In any event, the construction shall not extend beyond a period of
two years from comnencement without approvals for extension by the
Design Standards Board. The owner of any site or lot on which
improvements are being constructed sha11. at all times keep public
and private streets contiguous to said site or lot free from any
dirt, mud, garbage, trash or other debris which might be occasioned
by construction of the improvements.
4.1.3 Excavation
A. No clearing or excavation or substantial site alterations
shall be made except in connection with construction of an improve-
ment, and upon completion thereof exposed openings shall be back-
filled and disturbed ground shall be graded and leveled.
4.1.4 Landscaping
, .
A. Every site on which a building stiall have been placed
shall be landscaped according to plans approved as specified herein
and maintained thereafter in a sightly and well-kept condition.
Such landscaping shall conform to Sullivan Park Center iand- ~ •
- scaping master plan and guidelines. '
B. The front yards of all lots shall be landscaped from the
edge of the street and highway curbs. Each lot shall be landscaped
except for buildings and similar structures, walks, paved parking
areas, driveways and storaae areas. A.11 of such ?ots shall, as a
. .
minimum requirement, be covered with ground cover seeding, lawn,
bark, river rock or plantings, such as trees and shrubs, which will '
prevent wind or water erosion of e~ rth and weed growth.
`
C. The owner,q4,geser occupant of any site or lot shall at ~'•T
all times keeD the landscaping in good order Shnu]d ~
the owner, lessees or occupant of y s or not fail to~ emedy any
deficiency in the maintenance of t n with~ n twenty (20)
days after proper notification, the Board hereby expressly reserves
the right, privilege, and license to make any and all corrections
or improvements in landscape maintenance at the expense of the site
owner, lessee, or occupant, as the case may be. 4.1.5 Signs
A. Al1 signs must be in conformance with Spokane County regula- ,
tions and are in addition, subject to Design Standards Board review
and approval. ~
~
4.1.6 Parki ng Areas i
A. No parking of any vehicles is permissible outside the !
boundaries of any lot in Sullivan Park Center. ~
B. All parking areas shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. i
C. All parking area planters shall be orovided for and land-
scaped in accordance with the Sullivan Park Center landscaping
master plan and guidelines.
D. Details for parking layout and landscaping for such areas
shall be provided with the submittal for Design Standards Board
approval.
~
E. Parking areas shall be maintained in a neat and orderly ;
manner. ~
~
F. All parking areas shall have adequate illumination to be
effective for night use and general security. 4.1.7 Storaqe, Loadinq Areas, and Fencinq
A. Materials, supplies or any finished products or semi-
finished products stored on the property outside of said buildings '
shall be confined to permanently screened areas within building setback lines. The said materials shall be stored in orderly piles I'
not exceeding a height of twelve (12) feet,and shall be completely
screened by architecturally designed and cbnstructed screens so as
to conceal the view of the products from all sides of the property.
The storage area shall be a drained and gravel surface, or better. ;
i
. i
~ . ~
. . . ~
~
6.1.2 In the case of additional structures or landscaping and
fencing, the fee shall be based on the scope of work to be reviewed
but shall not be less than $50.00 and no more than $500.00.
7.1 General:
7.1.1 All structures and activities within Sullivan Park Center
shall conform to the following documents:
A. All applicable federal, state, and local regulations and
codes.
B. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions recorded under Auditor's
File Number .
C. Sullivan Park Center conditions of approval.
D. Sullivan Park Center landscaping master plan and guidelines.
7.1.2 Effect of Municipal Ordinances
A. Police, fire and other public safety ordinances of any
municipal corporation having Jurisdiction over any portion of the
properties shall govern where more restrictive than these guide-
lines.
7.1.3 Intrepretation of Guidelines ,
A. The Board shall have the right to determine all questions
arising in connection with the Guidelines and to construe and `
interpret the provisions of the Guidelines, and its good faith
determination, construction or interpretation shall be final and
binding.
7.1.4 Enforcement
A. The Board or any owner shall have the right to enforce by
any proceeding at law or in equity all restrictions, conditions, ~
covenants and reservationsimposed by the provisions of these ~
Guidelines and a similar right shall exist with respect to recovery ~
of damages for any such violation. Failure of the Board or of any ~
owner to enforce any guidelines herein contained shall in no event
be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereunder.
7.1.5 Every person who submi the Board for approval
agrees, by submission of suc palns nd eyery owner or lesses of
any of said property agrees, ring title thereto or interest
therein, that he will not bring any action, proceeding or suit
against the Board to recover any such damages. In case of conflict
between plan review and the covenants herein contained, these ~
covenants shall govern the rights and obligations of the parties. ~ .
The above Guidelines were approved by the Design
Standards Board on the day of 1985.
By:
a rma n '
~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 5, 1981
TO: HEARiNG EXAMINER COMMITTEE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONE RECLASSIFICATION NUMBER: ZE-180-78
I . ~:~t_f~;~~~_ r=~_;s~``~~'it~. , I~J:"~~
AFNLiCAivi-: Spokane iti'lali Associates
PROPERTY OWNER: Hanson Properties, lnc.
REQUESTED ZONING: Restricted Industrial
EXISTING ZONING Agricultural (established in 1942, 1956 & 1957)
PROPOSED USE: Commercial, Light Industrial, office
PROJECT LOCATION: This site is generally located north of I-90,
west of Flora Road, east of Pines Road, south of the Spokane River and
the Spokane International Raitroad right-of-way.
II. SITE PLAN INFORMATION
SITE SIZE: Approximately 230 acres
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is relatively flat with most of the
land under cultivation or lying dormant. The site is bordered on the
south by the freeway and it is bisected by the railroad tracks. There are
no ex i sti ng structu res .
,
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: The neighborhood character is rural
with some residential and industrial uses.
AGRICULTURAL SUMMARY: Urban (Irrigated)
ZONING: North Agriculture, established, 1942 & 1957
Manufacturing, established, - 1956
Mining, established, 1955
' East Agriculture, established, 195;
West Agriculture, established, 1942
South Agriculture, established, 1942 & 1956
Restricted I ndustrial, establ ished, 1976 & 1973
Freeway Commercial, established, 1966 & 1978
Agricultural Suburban, established, 1968
LAND USE: Site Cultivated, undeveloped
North River, cultivated, rail line, industrial uses,
single family residence
East Single family residence, undeveloped
West Single family residence, undeveloped,
industrial uses
South I-90, undeveloped, single family residential,
commercial uses
1968 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industriai
NUMBER OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: NUMBER OF BUILDINGS PROPOSED: 0
1
THE ATTACHED CHECK IS IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS DESCRIBEO 6ELOW.
Y
IF NOT CORRECT NOTIFY US PRpMPTLY. NO RECEIPT DESIRED. SPOKAi.
DA7E I DESCRIP7ION I
~
SUPPLEMENTAL E.I.S...... SULLIVAN 75D,~
~ # 3591
# 1450 J #'69
y
DETACH THIS STRTEMETVT
BEFOEiE Dt?OSITING C.Y.c-C'h
1
1
► RECEIPT , )at 19
,
Received From ' Ard ess O ~
Dollars
or
ACCO 7 H AID
(
AMT. OF CASH `
ACCOUNT
AMT. PAID CHECK 9Z9 Y +
BALANCE MONEY
~
~ DUE ORDER . , Of
8K606 Redifprm - f--,-- -
`~~vpy~
~
PLANIViNG DEi AR7'PJiCfVT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 72' = ,
"~~I {9 • -
i~{i4'
~L~, PHONE 456-22'•- -
t • Y1I~ ~ _ ~~'f i ~~ti'1
SPOKANE, WASHINGTO;, -
. - . . ` January 3 , 19 ~ J
Hanson Properties, Inc.
Attn: Mike Teramoto
P.O. Box 7310
Spokane, WA 99207
Jack Christofferson
WILSEY & HAM, INC.
1980 112th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98009
SUBJ: SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Administrative
Agreement for Sullivan Park Center: File ZE-180-78
Enclosed herewith is your copy of the above administrative
agreement, as executed person aii_J by the Board of County
Comissioners. Shortly I will be in touch with Mr. Christofferson
to establish the scoping procedure. This scoping procedure will
formally begin the process of preparing the supplemental draft
and final impact statements.
4Thom(as G. MosYaler, AICP
Long Range Plolanning Administrator
TGM/pm
Enclosures
I
SPOKANE ENVIROM+IENTAL ORDINANCE
File No. 7F-I90-7R.
(WAC 197-II-980) Sectfon 11.10.230 (4) DetPrmination of sic!nifirancn anr! sr-onin~ n~-ticr- rI"
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal: Modification of an exfsting, approved Resfi icted Industriel Zoning.
Case ZE-180-78.
Proponent: HANSON PROPERTIES, INC.
Locatton of Proposal: Both east and west of Sullivan Road, between the Spokane River and I-90 in the
Spokane Valley.
Lead agency: Spokane County
EIS Required: The lead agency had determined this proposal to have a signlficant adverse impact on the
environment. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under
RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared.
The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion In the EIS: Circulation/traffic: I
sewage dtsposal: phasing: site development standards. _
Scoping: Agenc(es, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comrnent on the scope of
the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation meesures, probable significant adverse impacts,
and Ilcenses or other approvals that may be required. The method and deadline for giving us your
comnwents is In writing, no later than the close of business hours on January 29, 1985.
Responsible Official: WALLIS D. HUBBARD
Position/Title: Planning Director Phone: (509) 456-2205
Address: N. 721 Jefferson, Spokane, WA 99260
Date: January 8, 1985 Signature
"z
, . • . , ~ i{y1. Y, •~4 i v~ .--s~ -r~ ' . ~ ~ ~ ~ y,y_
-A
PLAIUNYf1JG DE1'ARTNIENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILOING N
s•~`~ g i I fl ~i~ K
PHONE 456-22
`~n ;i ~ y`^
YJSPOKANE; WASHINGTr:,
SPOKANE COUnTr GG'.:RT NCUSE
T0: U.S. Dept. of Transp. WA State Dept. of Eco. (SEPA)
WA State Dept. of Eco. (Spo.) WA State Dept. of Eco. (Env. Rev.)
WA State DSHS WA State Social & Health Svs.
WA State Dept. of Transp.(OL) WA State Dept. of Transp. (Spo.)
Spo. City Planning Manager Spokane City Manager
Spo. City Planning Dept. Spo. City Zone,Subd.,Env.Svs.Dept.
Spo. Regional Council Spo. Co. Air Pol. Control Auth.
Spo. Co. Engineer's Office Spo. Co. Health District
Spo. Co. Parks & Rec. Spo. Co. Chief Civil Deputy
Spo. Co. Sheriff's Ofc. Spo. Co. Utility Dept.
The Spo. Daily Chronicle The Spokesman Review
The Valley Herald KHQ News
KXLY News KREM News
KPBX News Burlington Northern, Inc.
Spokane Transit System Fire District #1
Valley Garbage Service Spo. Valley Chamber of Commerce
Spo. Area Chamber of Commerce Spo. Area. Dev. Council
Town of Millwood Cons. Irrigation Dist. #19
FROM: TH 4 tMOSHER2 A.I.C.P., SEPA Coordinator
DATE: January 8, 1985
SUBJECT: Accompanying Adoption Notice and DS/Scoping Notice Regarding
Sullivan Park Center; ZE-180-78
The accompanying STAFF REPORT page and map describe Restricted Industrial
Zoning applied for and granted in 1981 for property in the Spokane Valley. An
Environmental Impact Statement was completed in conjunction with that project,
describing a regional shopping center, motel/hotel, office and business
complex.
The owners of the property seek certain changes to the approved zone
classification dated March 6, 1981.
Spokane County Planning Department staff, as responsible official for the
lead agency (Spokane County), and pursuant to WAC 197-11, has decided that a
supplemental EIS is needed to comply with the law. We are adepting the
existing DEIS and FEIS by the one notice and announcing the production of a
S-DEIS and a S-FEIS and the scoping requirements associated therewith.
cc: Hanson Properties, Inc.
WILSEY & HAM, INC.
A
r
! e ~
SPOKANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCE
FILE NO. ZE-180-78
Section 11.10.230(7) Administrative Agreement
SEPA ENVTRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ADMZNISTRATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between SPOKANE
COUNTY, a unit of local government of the State of Washington,
having office for the transaction of business at West 1116 Broadway
Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as the
"Agency"; and WILSEY & HAM, having offices at 1980 112th Avenue
N.E., Bellevue, Washington 98009, hereinafter referred to as the
"Consultant"; and HANSON PROPERTIES, INC., having offices at North
8700 Crestline, Spokane, Washington 99207, hereinafter referred
to as the "Applicant",
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971
as amended, and the Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 197-11,
the Agency has prepared and adopted local SEPA rules, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to these rules, when a supplemental
environmental impact statement (SEIS) is required for a private
proposal, the Agency shall direct the production thereof and require
that the Applicant reimburse the Agency for certain costs as
stipulated in the Spokane Environmental Ordinance which are related
to the hearings, as well as certain miscellaneous operating costs;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant hereinabove has agreed to undertake the
production of a SEIS through the Consultant, and in conjunction
therewith desire to formalize with the Agency his obligation to
reimburse the Agency for certain administrative costs in conjunction
with the preparation of the draft SEIS, comments on the same, and
production of the final SEIS; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant recognizes that the Consultant works under
the direction of the Agency and that the SEIS may well contain
information, project alternatives, and mitigating measures resulting
in conditions of project approval deemed undesirable by the Applicant,
or that project denial may actually occur.
' ~ • , . cDnRANE $NVIRONM$NTAL ORDINPuf'S
Section 11.10.230(7 File No. ZE-180-78
.
.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set
forth hereinafter, the parties hereto do agree as follows:
1. The Applicant recognizes his responsibility and legal
obligation to assist the Agency in the full production of a SEIS
through hiring of the Consultant, as set forth within the Agency's
SEPA rules for the following described project:
SULLIVAN PARK CENTER (ZE-180-78) Approved for Zone
Reclassification by the Spokane County Hearing Examiner
Committee on March 6, 1981,
hereinaf ter referred to as the "Proposal."
2. The parties recognize the Consultant-Agency relationship and
that the SEIS is being prepared as much or more with the enhancement
of the environment and general well being of the public in mind as
with the Applicant's interest and well being.
3. The parties recognize that the Agency, pursuant to its SEPA
rules, shall recover from the Applicant such costs incurred by the
Agency in administering: (1) the production of the draft SEIS for
the proposal; (2) the review comment responses related to the draft
SEIS for the proposal; (3) public hearing related costs; (4) the
production of the final SEIS for the proposal; and (5) miscellaneous
operating costs which the Agency shall perform in conjunction with the
above administrative functions either as a result of State laws,
Agency ordinances or at the request of the Applicant.
4. The basis for all charges in paragraph 3 hereinabove shall be
as follows:
(a) Upper level staff time will be at the hourly rate paid
to Agency staff inembers providing such services. In computing the
hourly rate, all fringe benefits will be included.
(b) Miscellaneous operating costs shall be those costs
actually incurred by the Agency in production and circulation of the
SEIS including, but not necessarily limited to, other department
(within the Agency) employees' salaries (computed in the manner as set
forth in subparagraph (a) hereinabove), actual costs of materials
(paper, stamps and envelopes), and/or miscellaneous expenses.
5. The Applicant shall deposit an initial amount of $750.00 with
the Responsible Official for the Agency for payment of all costs as
set forth in paragraph 3. The Responsible Official shall maintain a
separate ledger of expenses for this proposal. No Agency staff
member will participate with the Applicant or the Consultant in the
administrative responsibilities of the Agency as the Lead Agency
purusant to the Agency SEPA rules until the Applicant has signed this
agreement and deposited with the Agency said initial deposit amount or
such additional monies as provided for herein.
:""'KANg ENVIRONM$NTAL ORDINA"'"n
~ • Section 11.10.230(7; rile No. ZE-180-78
.
Whenever the ledger account set up pursuant to the terms of this
agreement reaches an amount of $100.00, the Applicant agrees upon
request to deposit an additional sum of $500.00, which shall be
deposited in the same manner as the initial deposit. This process
shall be repeated as often as necessary.
The Agency reserves the right to cease production of and/or to not
issue the DSEIS or FSEIS in the event of nonpayment of the above fees.
If, after completion of the functions called for within the Agency
SEPA rules by the Agency, there still remains money on account for the
proposal, the Agency shall pay over all remaining monies to the
Applicant.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, th Parties hereto have caused this agreement
to be executed on the ~ day of December, 1984.
;34ARD OF COUN-TY GMIMISSIONtRS _
QF 5P0 E COUNTY WASH GTON
~
~ .
_
ATTES T :
WILSEY & HAM WILLIAM DONAHUE
"CONSULTANT" Cle k the Board
n
1 BY. •
Tit : D P y Clerk
. ~ 144*
HANSON PROPERTIES, INC.
"APPLICANT"
BY I/ A. 4'.
~
Title:
pec" .
ATTEST: POKANE CO Y
By
T i
~
i
,
~
'i
i~
.
- ~ ~ ~
. - ,
` or w~ `-~O _ -
.
a ,
~
3 . Sc
. . ~
,
,
1~~?-~
v `
J T7
1
~ i
' J ~ , - ~r s \
~ ~ .
.
~
~
~ . .
ts' .
i
. ~Q~S~fV P.O. Box 7310 ■ Spvkane, Wasl~ing1on99207 a U.S A. ■ (509)467-0770 ■ Telex326474
~
RAHCO. lnc.
RAHCO Diu., Inc.
R. A. Hanwn Co., lnc.
hianson Properlies. Inc.
R. A. Hanson Mining Co.
July 11, 1984 ►=~~CEIVE.:-
,1UL 1 G 1984
.
Mr. S. A. Moon WILSEY & HAM, INC.
Location-Design Engineer
Department of Transportation
State of Washington
Transportation Building
Olympia, Washington 98504
Re: SR 90
Sullivan Park Center
Traffic Impact Ana].ysis and
_ Design Study ' .
Dear rir. , Moon :
After reviewing your letter dated June 21, 1984 to Randy Hammond and
discussing the subject matter with Ron Hart of the WSDOT-Spokane, it
is our understanding that our consultants may now proceed with design,
planning and preliminary engineering for a 2•saster Site Development Plan
incorporating the access plans outlined below for submittal to Spokane
County.
Although the WSDOT SR-90 R/W Plan Sheets 13, 14, and 15 of 25 Sheets
referenced by letter as C.S 3203-R/W2728 delivered by WSDOT Right-of-
Way Agent, David McCoury, on June 5, 1984, indicate by "hatch marks"
he prohibited access zones, we understand that upon approval of final
'esign and engineering by the WSDOT, access will be permitted through
-he prohibited access zones in the following locations.
1. I-90/Sullivan Road
A West-bound off-connecting access ramD from the I-90 off ramp to
Sullivan Road paralleling the East side of Sullivan Road and inter-
secting with Indiana Avenue, and a West bound on-connecting access
ramp from Indiana Avenue paralleling the West side of Sullivan Road
and merging with the Sullivan Road West bound on-ramp to I-90.
L..
. `
40
WILSEY&HAM
1980 112th Ave. N.E./Suite 200 Mailing Address:
Bellevue, WA 98004-2985 P.O. Box C-97304
(206) 454-3250 Bellevue, WA 98009-7730
January 6, 1986 File No. 3-2705-0107-30 ECE IVED
AN 10 198i
Mr. Jerry Hickman
Regional Non-Game Biologist SppKpNE COUN' `
Washington State pt~R14IH6 OEPARTU'=
Department of Game
N. 8702 Division
JpJkai-IC, wasiii rigion yyL I tS
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SULLIVAN PARK CENTER AND RIPARIAN
ENVIRONMENT ALONG THE SPOKANE RIVER
Dear Mr. Hickman:
On behalf of Mr. Mike Teramoto and myself I want to thank you for taking
the time last month on December 18, 1985, to meet with us to review the
proposed Sullivan Park Centers potential impact on the riparian environ-
ment associated with the Spokane River. I also want to thank you for
your timely response to Mr. Moshers letter request on the same matter.
Though it is clear to me from our meeting and your letter that your
Department believes "Sullivan Park can be developed and minimize the
loss of riparian habitat" it is my recollection some other important
facts were discussed which assist in putting this matter in perspective.
Being that our meeting occurred two days after your response to the
County, I believe it would be helpful if your Department would also
provide this information to Mr. Mosher so that he could inform the
Commissioners in the public hearing. The items I felt were also of
_
illiNut"i.aiiCr a~-'e dy i u i ii,'rrls:
l. The riparian zone adjacent to this site is not unique to the area,
that Washington State has a winter feeding population of bald
eagles and this feeding habitat extends along the whole length of
the Spokane River.
2. There are no known nesting/breeding habitats on the site or in the
whole county, and that there are only three known bald eagle nest- .
ing/breeding areas in all of Region 1. It was also noted that
Region 1 contains the ten eastern counties and that based on the known sites and the literature on eagle habitat Spokane counties
climate is to arid for nesting/breeding sites.
• ~ ~ ~
I
Mr. Jerry Hickman Page Two ~
January 6, 1986
3. That following our explaination of the large riparian park proposed
for the project and its associated development restrictions that ~
these provisions (especially distance provided) exceeded your,
expectations. ~I
Regarding restricting motorized vehicles along the rivers edge it is
important to note that most current use of motorized vehicles (motor-
cycles, snowmobiles, etc.) utilize the Inland Empire Paper Companys
property which is between our site and the river. However, we also want ,
to discourage this use and are willing to work jointly with your Depart- 'I
ment and the ccIunty in vior~-inc, out a 4.',a; 'ir t,,hich to discoLiraqA it in
the future.
In conclusion, if the aforementioned information is a correct summary of
our meeting, I believe it would be beneficial if you could take the time
to supplement your December 16th letter response to Mr. Mosher. Once
again thank you for taking the time to meet with us as it assured us
that we were being environmentally responsive in the planning for
Sullivan Park Center.
Uery truly yours,
WILSEY & HAM
.
Randy . Bl ir, ASLA
Director Development Services
RJ B/ 1 j r A- 21
cc: ke Teramoto, R.A. Hanson Company
om Mosher, Spokane County Environmental Coordinator
Jack Christofferson, Wilsey & Ham _
~
.
l
~~fs
'
~PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2205
t ~J.
SPOKANE; WASHINGTON 99260
SPOKANC COUNTY COURTMOUSC
December 23, 1985
Jerry Hickman
Washington State Department of Game
N. 8702 Di vi sion Street
Spokane, WA 99218 ,
Dea r Mr. c kma n:
I am in receipt of yourimemorandum of December 16, 1985. Thank you for
responding so promptly.
I am going to urge the utmost conslderation of your suggestions by the
appl icant as wel l as by the County. I particul arly woul d l i ke to suggest the
consideration by the Park Department whic h should have considerable influence
over the actual devel opment of the ri pari an area in cooperati on wi th the
project's sponsor to attempt to 11mit the vehicle access to that area between
the rai 1 road right-of-way on the west and Sul l i van Road on the east.
A1 so, I would like to inform you that the heari ng has been rescheduled from
January 7, 1986, to January 28, 1986, sti 11 at 1:30 p, m. , i n the County
Cortmi ssi oner' s Assemnbly Room. I i nvi te you to attend and be avai 1 abl e as a
resource person to the County Commissioners, the citizens, and the project's
sponsor, but real ize your schedule may not so permi t.
Thanks agai n for respondi ng to our 1 nqui ry.
,Si erely,
THOMAS G. MOSHER, AICP
Environmental Coordinator
,
~ t
.
.j-~ ' , ► PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456•2205
-s~~~, e ➢
, SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
SPOMAME COUhTr COi1RT MCUSC
T0: Sam Angove, Di rector
Spokane Parks and Recreation Dept.
FROM: Thomas G. Mosher, AICP
Envirormental Coordinato
DATE: December 23. 1985 ~
SUBJECT: Attached Memorandum from Jerry Hickman,
Washington State Department of Game
Mr. Nickman's comments, although brief, I believe are quite important. He is
sayi ng that Sul l i van Park Center can be devel oped wi th a mi nimi zed 1 oss of
ri pari an habi tat. He i s al so sayi ng the habi tat can be preserved al ong the
ri ver, parti al ly wi th the buffer impl anted shrubs establ i shi ng a vi sual
barrier. He goes on to say that human nctivity in the riparian area should be
kept to a mi nimum, and particul arly notes that motori zed vehi cl e usage shoul c1
be mi ni mi zed or el imi nated.
I woul d a sk you i f your present pl ans for the area, i n cooperati on wi th the
proj ect' s sponsor, woul d i ncl ude attempti ng to el imi nate or restrict motori zed
vehicles in the stretch of river from the railroad, which divides Mirabeau
Park from thi s stretch of ri ver habi tat, to Sul l i van Road? If thi s is a
presently adopted objective of your Department, i t woul d bear reestati ng i t at
the present time. On the other hand, i f such an objective woul d not be
inconsistent with your Department's plan for the area and you could so state,
I believe that such position or statement would be a benefit to the County
Comni ssi oners, project sponsors and ci tizens in consi deri ng thi s matter.
Any overal l observation or response to Mr. Hickman's memorandum might al so be
helpful to all.
cc: Douglas S. Adams, Subdivi sion Admi nistrator
Mi ke Teramoto, Hanson Properti es, I nc. , Spokane
Randy Blair, Wilsey and Ham, 1980 112th Ave. N.W.
P.O. Box C-97304
Bellevue, WA 98009
Tom May, Attorney, Spokane
Attachment
,
. ~
~ ~ -
Ncx s. w^YLAM) OIfP(10f JH ti'~`
f M.ST^TE Of W1151-IINGTON R ECEI VED
DEPARTMENT OF GAME DEC
Spokane Regional Office 2 3 1985
N. 8702 Division Street sPp~A
Spokane, Washington 99218 P1A~N~NG E couN rY
DEPARTMENT
December 16, 1985
F0: Tom Mosher, AICP, Spokane County Planning
FR(M: J. Hicivnan, Washington Department of Garne__
SUBJECT: Sullivan Park Center Proposal &,Riparian Environment
along the Spokane River
The Washington DePartment of Game is pleased to provide you with up-
to-date and local infonrtation regarding use of the riparian zone next
to the proposed center. The area in question is a potential feeding
site for eagles during the winter months. I believe the Sullivan Park
Center*can be developed and minimize the loss of riparian habitat.
' The habitat can be preserved along the river and a buffer of planted
shrubs could be established to pravide a visual barrier to the wild-
` life using the riparian zone. Hmm use in the riparian area should
` be kept to a"minimua. The area of the riparian zone would be inappro-
priate for hunan use of any motorized vehicles. Motorized vehicles
are respansible for a large portian of wildlife harassment identified
in the literature.
On Jaruiary 7th, 1986, I will be helping to transplant mountain sheep
in northern Pend Oreille Cotmty, so I am t,m,able to attend your hearing.
In svnmary,,bald eagles use the entire Spokane River Valley in small
nvnbers each winter. The areas used for feeding and roost sites de-
pend fram year to year on food availability. The bald eagle and
other raptors are, as you laiaw, highly mobile species. Also, I wish
the Department of Ganne had the personnel and budget to be of more as-
sistance to you on this issue.
JH:db
sTrre
)ACk S. W-\1'L.:WD
Directur
STATE OF WASHINGTON R E C
E V E
DEPARTMENT OF GAME DEC 2 3
Spokane Regional Office 198~
N. 8702 Division Street SPOKANE
Spokane, Washington 99218 pLA COUN f Y
NNING DEPARTMENT
December 16, 1985
T0: Tom Niosher, AICP, Spokane County Planning
FROM: J. Hiclrnian, Washington Department of Game~
SUBJECT: Sullivan Park Center Proposal & Riparian Envirorv»ent
along the Spokane River
The titiashington Department of Game is pleased to provide you with up-
to-date and local information regarding use of the riparian zone next
to the proposed center. The area in question is a potential feeding
site for eagles during the winter months. I believe the Sullivan Park
Center can be developed and minimize the loss of riparian ha.bitat.
The habitat can be preserved along the river and a buffer of planted
shrubs could be established to provide a visual barrier to the wild-
life using the riparian zone. Human use in the riparian area should
be kept to a minimwn. The area of the riparian zone would be inappro-
priate for hLUnan use of any motorized vehicles. Motorized vehicles
are responsible for a large portion of wildlife harassment identified
in the literature.
On January 7th, 1986, I will be helping to transplant mountain sheep
in northern Pend Oreille County, so I am unable to attend your hearing.
In summary, bald eagles use the entire Spokane River Valley in small
numbers each winter. The areas used for feeding and roost sites de-
pend from year to year on food availability. The bald eagle and
other raptors are, as you lrnow, highly mobile species. Also, I wish
the Department of Game ha.d the personnel and budget to be of more as-
sistance to vou on this issue.
JH:db
,
Y ~
~
. ' t T 1
, .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
j ~ PHONE 456-2205
- SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
SPOMAN[ COUNTr CoURT NoUsE December 13, 1985
WA State Department of Game
Attn: Jerry Hickman, Regional Non*Game 6iologist
N. 8702 Division
Spokane, WA 99218
REFERENCE: Sull.ivan. Park Center Proposal and Riparian Environment along the
Spokane Ri ver; Dear Mr. Hickman:
Doug Adams, Subdivision Admjnistrator, as the planner in charge of
processing the Sullivan Park Center application, asked if I would pursue the
hearing testimony regarding the habjtat of the northern portion of the Sullivan
Park Center site, speci fi cal 1y the proposed Ri parian Park.
The Washington State Deparmtent of Game was involved in October of 1980
with the initial proposal for the Sullivan Park Center. Your agency responded
to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement by letter of October 13, 1980,
which letter was included in the Fina1 Environmenta1 Impact Statement. The
project was apprQved shortly thereaften and has since been re-submitted for a
change of conditions to the original zone change, some zone reclassification
requests and subdivision of the land into smaller parcels.
Because there wasn't any modlfication of the origlnal plans which would
have affected the riparian environment dlfferently, the scoping documents for
the Supplemental Draft and Final EIS's prepared in 1985 did not address any
additional matters related to the flora, fauna and general habitat, particularly
the riparian environment, associated with the project. The Washington State
De partment of Game was the recipient of three copies of the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement. This distribution elicted no response from
the Game Department. Hence, it has become a point of some awkwardness to
have since learned that Department of Game personnel have been counseling and
advising persons opposed to the center without also counseling and advising
the proponents or the County, which in this case is faced with trying to
decide whether or not a modified proposal should be approved and what mitigat-
ing measures should be adopted as conditions of approval.
We realize the project sponsor may not have yet initiated any contact
to the Spokane Regional Office of the Department of Game, but they will likely
do so in the near future. We at the County would have hoped that the distri-
bution of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement would have
been sufficient to have directed constructive efforts toward the consideration
of the issue before us.
Jerry Hickman, Regional Non-Game Biologist
De ce m be r 13, 1985
Pa ge 2
We used the most recent Special Species Program printout from the Depart-
ment of Game and found that there are no species listed as being endangered
or threatened in the area of the project. Subsequent discussions with other
Game Department personnel have identified some information for the general
Spokane River area, but which is not apparently included in the Special Species
Program information. We have been advised by yourself, upon direct inquiry,
that there has been some informatjon regarding eagles which apparently has not
been recorded in Olympia, more specifically the sitings of some small groups
of feeding eagles for the area.
The hearing brought forth some testimony that this general area is a
substantial and possibly significant habitat for small ground animals, and a
number of birds of prey, including at times both golden and bald eagles. We
would appreciate it if the-Game Department-would be able to set forth to us
such information as it may have available regarding the habitat at this
particular location, as well as information regarding the various species which
frequent the area or may be expected to frequent the area at various times
during the year. We would also apprecjate an evaluation from the Oepartment of
Game as to the nature and importance of this habitat and the species as exists
today and how that habitat and those species involved might be affectd by
implementation of the nearby proposal. Limitations on human usage, particularly
motorized vehicles, might be addressed, as your Department may judge appropriate.
I hesitate to be too directive in specifying the kind of information we
need because that would presuppose that I know what the problems are in the
area and something of the information which you possess. I would rather not
presume that, but would advise the Depa rtment that we would be interested in
the above evaluation, as well as your assistance on liow to possibly make this
project have the least adverse impact on the Riparian Park area, if in fact
the project is to be approved.
I have encouraged the project sponsors to provide the Department of Game
with as much information as possible regarding the proposal.
Your Department's insight regarding the above issues would be quite helpful
to the Board of County Commissioners as they deliberate the appeal of this
project as approved by the Hearing Examiner Committee. I would hope that the
Board of County Commissioners could benefit directly from input from the
Department of Game. The appeal hearing is set for 1:30 p.m., January 7, 1986,
in the Commissioners Assembly Room on the ground floor of the County Court House.
Thanks for any time that the Game Department personnel may be able to
spend responding ur questions and upgrading the information available to
decision mak regarding the species and the general habitat in the area.
Si y,
~
Thomas G. Mosh r, AICP
Environmenta Coordinator
TGM/pm
Jerry Hickman, Regional Non-Game Biologist
December 13, 1985
Page 3
Attachments cc: Wallis D. Hubbard, Planning Director
Douglas Adams, Subdivision Administrator -
Mi ke Teramoto, R. A. Hanson Properti es , Inc.
Rand Blair & Jack Christofferson, Wilsey & Hamm, Bellevue, WA
Tom May, Attorney, Spokane, WA
Albert Sam Angove, Director, Parks b Recreation Dept.
.
.
~ s~m~~•
~r
~ HANSO~ P. O. Box 7310 ■ Spokane, L'Jashinqton 99207 ■ U SA ■ -0; 70 ■ T-1e.K
1 -
~
KAHCO. Inc
KAHCO Disc.. (nc.
R. A. Hanson Co.. Inc.
Hanson Properties. lnc.
R A ",°n5°nMin'nq c° November l, 1985 R ECEIVED
N OV 5 1985
SPOKANE COUNTY
I'tANNING DEPARTMENT
Evie Crossman
c/o Western Dance Center
N. 1901 Sullivan Road
Spokane, Washington 99216
Dear Mrs. Crossman:
Enclosed please find a copy of the "Sullivan Park Center - Master
Plan for Development". Hopefully this will provide you with ~
better understanding of the proposed project.
As our prior letter mentioned, Randy Blair and Randy Hammond of
Wilsey & Ham, and Dick Simpson of Simpson Engineering will be
available at 8:00 AM on November 15, 1985, immediately preceeding
the "Continued Hearing", at the County Planning Department Hearing
Room to answer questions or clarify information for you. Spokane
County's Environmental Administrator, Mr. Tom Mosher, and it's
Environmental Consultant, Mr. Jack Christofferson, have indicated
that they will also be available at this 8:00 AM session.
In the event that you feel you might need additional time to
address your concerns, please contact Cathy Smith at our office
(467-0770). Schedules permitting, our consultants will come over
from Seattle to meet with you prior to November 15, 1985.
Thank you for your interest in our proposed development.
Sincerely,
HANSON PROPERTIES, INC. I
~
Mike eramoto I
Corgorate Real Estate Director
~MT:cls
Enclosure
.
. `
,
, . : HANSON
E;,;H(~u.
kAHCU C
R. A. Hansun ~ Hanson Propertie, :
R. A. Hansnn titirnrna _June 4, 1985
Mr. Steve Horobiowski
Zoning Administrator
Spokane County Planning Deparl,ment
North 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, Washington 99260
Dear Steve:
During the review process of the planning proposals for the Sullivan
Park Center and the corresponding Preliminary Supplemental Environmentai
Impact Statement, quite repeatedly the question was posed to our
consultants and myself "if we were cognizant of the status of the
James S. Black Company's Valley Mall project:''
These questions made it apparent that we will probably have to addre-s';
the Ualley Mall situation throughout the SEIS and hearing processes.
My original thoughts were that the Valley Mall issue was absolutely
"none of our business". However, the questions referencing the close
proximity and potential impacts of two similar proprosals will require
that we have sufficient knowledge of the other project.
Therefore, we would appreciate the assistance of your Zoning Department
and any other involved departments in providing,from the County Planning
Department's perspective, information and status of the Valley Mall project.
We hope you understand that we are requesting this data solely in order
that our staff and consultants could intelligently respond to future
questions regarding this subject. In no way are we attempting to acquire
_ _ , , _ 1 • r. ~ ,
y _
i i i ~l i 1 fv U l.i
I U i y L1 f, .1 I iLl L'. G: i U I I i y u i i l.l i1 J i J , Q L.' .
Si ticerely,
HANSON P PERTIES, INC.
0
, . , ,
hiT:cls
cc : Doug Adai,'i;;
Tom Mosher
Randy Elaii-
. ~
~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~ ! ~ti - ~fT:.
~
sv~.L'_:;1, y =
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
~•V ~ `I[;I '~'J~~j~ .f i-+~-Y' +y
PHONE 456-2205
~ ; ~.1 Y,`•
. :
SPpKANE, WASHIPiGTON 99260
SPOKAhE COUhTr CO JaT HOUSf
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: 4,zMarcia Raines, Zoning Administrator
o,0Y Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee
FROM: .;,r /Thomas G. Mosher, AICP, Administrator°
~ Special Programs
DATE: March 3, 1981
SUBJECT: Mitigating Measures from the Environmental Documents
Concerning Sullivan Park Center
After reviewing the environmental documents, the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and the Final Environmental Impact Statement, I have listed I
below various mitigating measures listed in the document which could, in my
opinion, be incorporated into conditions of approval for the project. My
opinion, from a review of the environmental documents, is that sufficient reason
for denying a rezone to Restricted Industrial, properly conditioned, is not
present in the Environmental Impact Statement. The following are certainly
subject to rewording as may be appropriate.
1. Retain in as natural a state as possible the eight (8) acre buffer strip on I
the site's northern boundary. It may be desirable to plant shrubbery and
vegetation at the edge of the development site which in fact discourages
passage by human beings into the natural area. (DEIS, page 20)
2. To the maximum extent possible temporary means to conserve and control
soil erosion and runoff should be applied during construction periods.
(DEIS, page 25)
3. It shall be the policy of the owners and tenants of the site to perform
regular sweeping and cleaning of parking areas, roadways, and paved
drainage swales. (DEIS, page 33)
4. The grass percolation areas which result as a part of the stormwater
runoff accommodation system should be considered an intrical part of that
system and be maintained in whatever manner retains the most effective
manner of operation. (DEIS, page 35)
~ v
5. It shall be a condition of approval that the vegetation utilized in land-
scaping the site shall be as drought-resistent as possible in order to
decrease the amount of water necessary to maintain it. The irrigation
system itself t)tilized shall be that which is most conserving in its use of
water. (DEIS, page 41)
6. A deed restriction shall be imposed upon the property whic4i will specify
and recognize the area under the jurisdiction of the Washington State
Shoreline Management Act as defined and identified in Chapter 90.58 RCW
and the Spokane County Shorelines Program. (DEIS, page 42)
7. Direct access to the river and natural area on the north side of the site
shall not be encouraged by any provision of the site design. (DEIS, page
50)
8. Require that lighting on the site, particularly on the fringes of said site,
be of a"down- lighting" nature. (DEIS, page 57)
9. Detailed site plan development shall provide provisions for on-site accom-
modation of the public transporation system, including if possible, sheltered
waiting areas. (DEIS, page 62)
10. Detailed site plan and development shall include provisions for the use of
bicycles, including travel lanes and parking facilities. The Spokane County
Engineer's Office should be consulted with regard to these facilities.
(DEIS, page 72)
11. To the maximum extent economically feasible, the site and facilities de-
signed shall be as energy-efficient as possible. In addition to energy-
efficient landscape design, earth berm construction, consideration for solar
heating and cooling, various energy-related mitigating measures addressed
on pages 88 through 91 of the DEIS shalt be considered.
12. A legal instrument shall be executed which would establish a willingness on
the part of the project sponsor and/or any future property owners to
participate in an LID with regard to the establishment of a wastewater
collection system capable of functioning on the site and generally serving
the site within a regional context. (DEIS, page 96)
13. It shall be the responsibility of the project sponsors to notify the proper
government officials, at both the State and local level, of any potential
archaeological or historical artifacts which are discovered, and to subse-
quently take whatever recommended action is established. (DEIS, page
100)
14. The applicant, heirs or assigns shall be required to submit specific site
plans before construction commences, recognizing that such site plans may
be subject to additional environmental analysis as appropriate. (FEIS,
page 134)
15. Approval of any future detailed site plan will be subject to the ability of
the site plan and project to be adequately accommodated by existing con-
ditions or guaranteed improvements, including but not limited to projected
traffic volumes and an adequate road network as judged by the Spokane
County Engineer. (FEIS, page 134)
.
/ !
. ,
~ ✓ ` •~~~~r"''vt,,
jt>I!-N ti(1 l1M A;: , ~ ~ UU ANEHfKtN iY~.
Gn~,rrno+
n' • Scc rcrar Y
57nT[ CX wnti► ilNGTC ~N
DEf ARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
(.)I►irt' r>1 I).tru !.•lr/nnnntr,~f,i • N,irlh la A1d)'1.1irClit't'!. Uuv 5299, nloulh Cenrf.,l Srabun
October 3, 1984
Nfr. . ~1ike Teramoto
Hanscm Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 7310 .
T . -
I
. . • - _ "
Sullivan Road Interchange
Sullivan Park Shopping Center
Dear Sir:
Your let ter of .3uly 11, 1984, ack-iowledged and corcrnented on Nh- . S. A.
t-;oan's letter of Jwne 21, 1984, relative to the abcve proposed development. You have requested us to more clearly state our position relative to.
whar is expected fro2n Hanson Properties, Lnc., as a part of development
at this location.
r1r. Movn' s above-referenced letter dQes establish the Deparmient' s
position on this subject. Tt:is has been reviewed and is supported by
top managenent of our Headquarter' s department, As discussed with Nr.
Moan during our July 19, 1984 meeting, we have established our specific
requirenents of the developer at this time. Ir. reply to your questian. .
the follvwirig applies :
l. In regard to yourr concerns about aur current access and right
of way plan no t showizzg the s lip ramps be tween Indiana Avenue
and the I-90 westbrnmd off and an ramps :
"Ihese wi.ll rot be shown until such time as we da have aspecific proposal and are prepared to process that proposa.l
with supparting data through Federal highways for conet.n-rence.
WSDOT wi.ll further be willing to approve and recam-end
approval by FHWA of these features, and will require that
they be constn.icted by the developer to miti.gate impacts
of the proposed initial phase of development for your
shopping center.
This will be dependent upon Indi.arla Avenue being consr_ructed
as a public road operated by the Colmty and both Indiana
Avenue and the rarrps be i'ng open to all traf f ic users.
Wi thout this feature, 5ullivan Raad Interchange as ttow
proposed by the Department cannot adequately serve the
projected 1990 traffic volunes.
•
Tiike Termmt_o
Uctol>er 3, ] 1)(8/,
zi gc Z
2. In reierence Lo your request of our sWport for a second
interctw-ge on I-90 in the viciniry of the extended alignment ,
of Evergreen Koad :
The Department does support and will recannend approva
of a seconcl access point to serve this area. We not only .
will suppart, but feel this is essential for the ultimate
phase of development as proposed. As noted before, however, WSDO'I' at this tame does not have funding for
such construction and would look to the developer to
f inance this feature as part of the required access for .
ultiniate develolxnent of this proposed center.
Briefly, but not limited to, certain steps must be taken
before a secand access point could be secured at any
iocation on an interstate facility. lh.is wouZd incluoe
preparation of an access point supporting doctarient,
processing for approval by WSDO'T and approval by Federal
iiighways thraugh Divi.sion, Region and the Washingtan D.C.
offices. As we km.cyw, this is a time consumiZg process
and may take up to two years. Environrnental Actions, Uesign and Access Hearing Processes will be in order.: .
In our discussions with Mr. Moon, you advised that the
initial phase of development would probably be reduced to
nearly 350,000 or 400,040 square feet of leasible area
with the ultimate development being in the range fran
600 , 000 to 700 , 000 square feet. The Traf f ic Irripact _
Analysis provided to us in March identified a first-stage
of 650,000 square feet of leasible area. Since this
seems to be in the range of what may now be proposed for
ultimate developcnent of this site, Nfr. . Moon has some
cancern over possible confusion of the Department' s
pos it icm relative to needed access. The requiranezzts
outlired above and in Nx. Moon's letter of June 21, 1984,
addressed the 650,000 relative to 1990 traffic iunpacts. ,
If this now is to be the ultimate size of the development,
then traffic impacts for the year 2000 should- be developed
and used as a minimtm. Fran our previous analysis, it-
nppears that this could not be acconmodated solely through
tlle Sullivan Itoad Interchange cven with the additianal
-liP rml)s as requi_r.ed above.
If tiicrc are f ur ther cc?ricei7is in 1-egard tn the State' s position, please
contact us at your convenience. Mr. Ninon has further requested for
fut:ul-e co1-i-e>Tcnidence tc> I)e direcLed to the District Office.
N -~l truly yours, ,
,
R . RNINni:~~
District AdminisYac c: S. A. Mot ):'i
__~t
s
i 1
HANSON P O f3ox 7310 ■ Spokane, VJashinnton 99207 ■ U S A ■ (5Q9) 467-0770 ■ Telex 326474
. ►l,ati~c>. i".
RANI:U Uisc.. 11-t< <; EIv E D
R A Hanson Co. Inc.
Hansnn PrQaftws. Inc. October 10, 1984 1984
R. A Hanson Mirnng Co rJLJ(~ Z
12
W1LSFY & HAM INC.
Mr . Walter R. Horning,
District Administrato~-
tat iur,
Department of Transpor,
State of Washington
Box 5299 North Central Station
Spokane, Washington 99205
Re : L6332 Pro j ect 65066S
Sullivan Road Interchange
Sullivan Park Shopping Center
Dear Mr. Horning:
Thank you for your letter dated October 3, 1984 clarifying the require-
ments and procedures pursuant to the subject project. :
With regard to the confusion relative to the scale of the proposed
development, I apologize for the misunderstanding which I created.
1"y intentions, on July 19, 1984, in discussing the possibilities
of reduced densities were solely to evaluate relative potential
impacts. For the record, we are still projecting towards a development
of the magnitude outlined in Mr. Hammond's submittal of March 9, 1984
and as acknowledged by Mr. Moon's letter dated June 21, 1934.
We anticipate that the formal plan approval process along with the
corresponding environnental analysis will commence through the Spokane
County Planning Department within the next 60 days. We will def initely
keep your staff apprised and involved through out the proceedings.
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to you, Mr. Moon,
Nr. Hart and your staff for the professional assistance you have so
graciously provided to our consultants and staff. Again, thanks.
Very truly yours,
HANSON PROPERTIES, INC.
J
4ea---~TTr- Mi~ moto
MT.cls
cc : S.A. tioon, Ron Hart
SRaiidy Hammond, Raymond Hanson
Frank Carr, Rex Smart
bcc: Duaine Rasmussen
1 I
~
/
S.r,. rioon
page Two
r
2. Second Access Point
A new interchange in the general vicinity East of the alignment-
of Evergreen Road with a direct ilorth-South unimneded connectic-~i
from I-90 to Indiana Avenue.
~
In order to develop a viable Master Land-Use and Infrastructure Plan,
our consultants will have to include future considerations of circulation,
utilities, etc. in the current planning and design phases. Therefore,
to avoid any future misunderstanding and to insure that there is a mutual
meeting-of-the-minds among the State, and County Agencies, and our
consultants, we have presented hereinabove our basis in establishing
planning direction.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for the cooperation and assistance you and your staff have
been providing our consultants.
Very truly yours,
HANSON PROPERTIES, INC.
r •
~
Mi e'"T r amo t o MT:cls ~
cc: Ron Hart - WSDOT, Spokane
Randy Hammond, Wilsey & Ham,"~
Gary Kennaly, Spokane County Engineer
Dick Simpson, Simpson Engineering
Rayr.iond A. Hanson
Frank B. Carr
Rex Smart
1~
♦t
~
. , . ~ . . .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
► ~~'I '
• ~ .
PHONE 456-2205
. , .
f~ . SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
SPOKqNE COUNTV GOJRT HCUSC
August 6, 1984
Mr. Mike Teramoto
Hanson Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 7310
Spokane, WA 99207
Dear Mr. Teramoto:
Re: ZE-180-78
We have reviewed the credentials of Wilsey and Ham, Inc, which were
transmitted to us on August 3. We are familiar with Wilsey and Ham,
Inc., and can readily approve this firm as suitable for continuing
environmental review associated with ZE-180-78.
Consistent with our Spokane County Environmental Ordinance, you may now
contact Mr. Tom Mosher of our staff to proceed with the SEPA adminis-
trative agreement for the furtner environmental review described above.
Sincerely,
Wallis D. Hubbard, Director
•
By: Thomas G. Mo er
Long Range Planning Administrator
WDH:TGM:ks
cc: Jeff Dagget, Wilsey & Ham, Inc.
- \
~ -
, HANSON P. O. Box 7310 ■ Spokane, Washington 99207 ■ U.S.A. ■(509) 467-0770 ■ Telex 326474
RAHCO, 1nc.
RAHCO Disc., Inc.
R. A. Hanson Co., Inc.
Hanson Properties, Inc.
R. A. Hanson Mining Co.
August 3, 1984
iqr. Wallis Hubbard
Director
Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson
Spokane, Washington 99216
Attention: Mr. Tom Mosher
Re: ZE-180-78
May 6, 1981
Dear Mr. Mosher:
Transmitted herewith are the credentials of Wilsey and Ham for your
review.
Since there will be some modif ications, primarily to access and the
infrastructure, from the original plans submitted for referenced zoning
approval and as further addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement
prepared by IPEC, we hereby request that Wilsey and Ham be approved by
the Spokane County Plann ing Department to conduct an EIS review with
respect to the proposed modif ications.
Should you desire further information, please do not hesitate to call.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
HANSON PROPERTIES, INC.
- ~
.
M' eramoto
~
MT : cls
Enclosure
cc: Jeff Dagget, Wilsey & Ham
~
19a4
SPOKANE ~~u C~1ENT
P~A~~~llt~1G ~EPAR
~
t
Proposal:
An updated development plan for Sullivan Park Center, a proposed multi-use center
(commercial, business park, industrial park and hotel) to be developed on a site of
approximafiely 230 acres. The general project, land use and conceptual plan was
previoijs_ly approved :n 19S 1 as part of a rezoning action.
3 4 f~~ .jl'•~:
1 ~ i{•. ~ ~/t tiP ~
:1 ~ E~ l,~~:i': ~
• ' . i~ :~1. 1 .
, . ijl,t, • ;i. , S,1'.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
; I BROAOWAY CENTRE BUII.DING N. 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2205
:
, .
„ SPOKANE, WASMINGTON 99260
• . . .
SPOXANC COUNTY GOURT NOUSC November 27 , 1984
Mtke Teramoto
R.A.Hanson Company, Inc.
P.0.6ox 7130
Spokane, WA 99207 •
RE: SEPA Environmental Iropact Statement Agreement, Section 11.10.230(7)
of the Spokane Environmental Ordfiinance
At the suggestion of Jack Christofferson, I am sending you a copy of the SEPA
Environmental Impact Statement Administrative Agreement. Section 11.10.230(7)
of the Spokane Environmental Ordinance. 'I am also sending you other portions
of the Spokane Envfi ronmental Ordinance, particularly Sections 11.10.120,
11.10.1229 11.10.1249 11.10.126 and 11.10.240. These sections contain the
authorizatton for chargtng fees, directions for tfie client, consultant and
County to enter into a SEPA Adminfistrative Agreement and the directive that
an initial fee of $750 be deposited with the County before the production of
the EIS can begin. The properly authorized person from your company should sign this as the
"client". The similarly authorized person from your consulting firm should
sign the agreement. Finally it should be returned to the county with a check
made out to the Spokane County Treasurer in the amount of $750. We will place
this signed Administrative Agreement on the Board of County Commissioners
regular business meeting docket at the earliest opportunity for their signa-
ture. At that point we can proceed in earnest to comply with the State Environ-
mental Policy Act.
If u have any further questions, please give me a call.
Tbomas G. M s er, A.I.C.P.
Long Range anning Administrator
TGM :1 m
Encls.
' r HANSON ( ~ .1~~ ■ ':~pokan,r,',"!~;•hin:~I.-,n99207 ■ U /1 ~ (509)4f37-0770 ■ Telex326474
RAf 1CU. If:,
R,\tICO [1i:, . Iii,
R A Han,on C,; . I.
H ,nson Propertses. I F~,,.,,,,,,,;,,.,, October 15, 1984
tc
~
PIA SPQk4Ne
e~ . k'a 11 i s Hubb ar d e°~~rr
Director ~EPA~lI'r~~f
Planning Department vT
Spokane County
ryorth 721 Jeffersor, Street
Spokane, Washinoton 99260
Dear Wa11;T :
Tr:ank you for tize cuLdial recepLioti and proiessional assistance
extetlaed by you, your adrninistrators and the other County representatives
to our consultants from Wilsey and Ham and myself last Friday.
Randy liammond, Jack Christofferson, and Randy Blair were impressed
with the high caliber of professionalism and the cooperative spirit
exemplif ied by all of you. They further commented that Spokane
Couzity has among the rnost qualified and understanding management and
personnel in Wilsey and Ham's experience.
We will def initely keep your staffs apprised and involved throughout this
endeavor. Please feel free to communicate any additional c: T-:--:~c--r.:~= j-
any time during the proceedin,:.
Again, thanks.
Sincerely, -
HANSON PROPERTIES, INC.
,
rTi_ke T r_'ar,lotc_
I,ii : cls
cc: Ton Mosher, County Planning
Steve IIorobiowski, County Planning
Bob McCann, County Enginee.r
Jim Legat, County Utilities
Don Largent, County Utilities
Raymond A. Hanson
Frai:k B. Carr
~ -by W
~
~ 51
~ACO ~tq q ~
p~p G~U I~41 ,
~ 'c
~ -
. w~
. ~
~
Y?OF
- - - - - - - _
,
: , _ - _ _r - - - _ -
_ - ' . ~ . . . ,~1
ra . _
.
• ~ _ . - ' • '
1►~, u
Va ~-V-.d► Lt
4UbbUIL .
qMht~ Z7 , jl%~'r`
. .
1011%
,
_ _ - -•-----w-~'_"~."
- _ - . . _ - - - - -
' _ _ ` - - - - - • .
SPORANE gNVIRONMENTAL ORDI1dANCS
FILE N0. ZE-180-78
Section 11.10.230(7) Administrative Aqreement
SEPA gNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMgNT
ADMINISTRATIVE AGRSgMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between SPOKANE COUNTY N~, a unit of local government of the State of
Washington, having off ices for the transaction of business at ~e-rt4
Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred
~ to as the !~Agency'~, and WILSEY & HAM, having offices at 1980 112th
~ Avenue N.E., Bellevue, Washington 98009, hereinafter referred to as
the "Consultant"; and HANSON PROPERTIES, INC., having offices at North
8700 Crestline, Spokane, Washington 99207, hereinafter referred to as
the "Applicant",
W I T N E S S E T H: ~
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 as
amended, and the Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 197-11, the
Agency has prepared and adopted local SEPA rules, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to these rules, when a supplemental
environmental impact statement (SEIS) is required for a private
proposal, the Agency shall direct the production thereof and require
that the Applicant reimburse the Agency for certain costs as
stipulated in the Spokane Environmental Ordinance which are related to
the hearings, as well as certain miscellaneous operating costs; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant hereinabove has agreed to undertake the
production of a SEIS through the Consultant, and in conjunction
therewith desires to formalize with the Agency his obligation to
reimburse the Agency for certain administrative costs in conjunction
with the preparation of the draft SEIS, comments on the same, and
production of the final SEIS; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant recognizes that the Consultant works under
the direction of the Agency and that the SEIS may well contain
information, project alternatives, and mitigating measures resulting
in conditions of project approval deemed undesirable by the Applicant,
or that project denial may actually occur.
KANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDIN B
Section 11.10.230(7, File No. ZE-180-78
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set
forth hereinafter, the parties hereto do agree as follows:
1. The Applicant recognizes his responsibility and legal
obligation to assist the Agency in the full production of a SEIS
through hiring of the Consultant, as set forth within the Agency's
SEPA rules for the following described project:
SULLIVAN PARK CENTER (ZE-180-78) Approved for Zone
Reclassification by the Spokane County Hearing Examiner
Committee on March 6, 1981,
hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal."
2. The parties recognize the Consultant-Agency relationship and
that the SEIS is being prepared as much or more with the enhancement
of the environrnent and general well being of the public in mind as
with the Applicant's interest and well being.
3. The parties recognize that the Agency, pursuant to its SEPA
rules, shall recover from the Applicant such costs incurred by the
Agency in administering: (1) the production of the draft SEIS for
the proposal; (2) the review comment responses related to the draft
SEIS for the proposal; (3) public hearing related costs; (4) the
production of the final SEIS for the proposal; and (5) miscellaneous
operating costs which the Agency shall perform in conjunction with the
above administrative functions either as a result of State laws,
Agency ordinances or at the request of the Applicant.
4. The basis for all charges in paragraph 3 hereinabove shall be
as follows:
(a) Upper level staff time will be at the hourly rate paid
to Agency staff inembers providing such services. In computing the
hourly rate, all fringe benefits will be included.
(b) Miscellaneous operating costs shall be those costs
actually incurred by the Agency in production and circulation of the
SEIS including, but not necessarily limited to, other department
(within the Agency) employees' salaries (computed in the manner as set
forth in subparagraph (a) hereinabove), actual costs of materials
(paper, stamps and envelopes), and/or miscellaneous expenses.
5. The Applicant shall deposit an initial amount of $750.00 with
the Responsible Official for the Agency for payment of all costs as
set forth in paragraph 3. The Responsible Official shall maintain a
separate ledger of expenses for this proposal. No Agency staff
member will participate with the Applicant or the Consultant in the
administrative responsibilities of the Agency as the Lead Agency
purusant to the Agency SEPA rules until the Applicant has signed this
agreement and deposited with the Agency said initial deposit amount or
such additional monies as provided for herein.
)KANE ENVIRONMENTAL ORDIN E
~
• Section 11.10.230(), File No. ZE-180-78
,
Whenever the ledger account set up pursuant to the terms of this
agreement reaches an amount of $100.00, the Applicant agrees upon
request to deposit an additional sum of $500.00, which shall be
deposited in the same manner as the initial deposit. This process
shall be repeated as often as necessary.
The Agency reserves the right to cease production of and/or to not
issue the DSEIS or FSEIS in the event of nonpayment of the above fees.
If, after completion of the functions called for within the Agency
SEPA rules by the Agency, there still remains money on account for the
proposal, the Agency shall pay over all remaining monies to the
Applicant.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this agreement
to be executed on the /g day of December, 1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
~f
YAW-
I v - ~►&M
ATTES T :
WILLIAM E. DONAHUE
Clerk of the Board
By By: ~~l b
T i t LOW: U , p00t 40.~ Deputy 1 rk
HANSON PROPERTIES, INC.
"APPLICANT"
sy
Title:
ATTEST*A SPOKANE COUNTY
B ~
y Title
K
PROJECT NAME FILE NUMBER(S)
4~/ /f~u_ C~ ZL... 18,0 -19
OFFICE OF RESPONSIBILITY CHECK RECEIVED
llZlp5- ~ r 7(7
~
ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT ELEMENTS OF ENVIRONMENT
11~;Il~/~!f
ScO~/r✓4
ACCEPTANCE LETTER LEAD AGENCY NOTIFICATION
~Y4_
DRAFT EIS ISSUED END OF REVIEW PERIOD
x ~ ~ t 5' r
FINAL EIS ISSUED END QF 7-DAY PERIOD
REMARKS :
FOLDER INDEX
SECTION 1. PAPER WORK
SECTION 2. PRE-DRAFT CORRESPONDANCE
SECTION 3. P-DEIS
SECTION 4. DEIS
SECTION 5. P-FEIS and FEIS
REV. 5/23/79
i
, ,
' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~
BROAQWAY CENTHE NUILpING N 721 IEVFE-k ;pN ;1REE T
1 b r 1~T~
' PHONE 456-2205
t i ~ y y -
- SPOKANE WASHINGTQN 99260
A N 1 1U N 1♦ C':I1 i 141 N l) ll S(
December 11, 1985
Mike Teramoto
Hanson Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 7310
Spokane, WA 99207
Subject: Additional Funds Required for SEPA Administration
Dear Mr. Teramoto:
I have updated the EIS Administra tive Expense Agreement Accounting
Form for the Sullivan Park Center (attached). As of November 18, 1985
the funds has dqclined to a balance of $109.98. Since that time I have
spent additiona1"~~'ime in addressing the alleged adverse environmental impacts
of the project in anticipation of the appeal hearing on January 7th. I
anticipate other additional time will necessarily be spent. The effect of
this is that we will use up all of the funds which were submitted in advance
under our agreement signed in approximately December of 1974.
That agreement and the Spokane Environmental Ordinance stipulate that
additional funds shall be deposited with the County in the event the accounting
ledger shows less than $100 balance. We have reached that point and time and
I therefore am requesting the submission of additional funds for the purposes
of administering the SEPA responsibilities of the EIS. I believe that
submission of $300 would safely cover extra anticipated administrative time
I foresee.
Therefore, at your earliest convenience, would you please submit a check
made out to "Spokane County Treasurer" to the Spokane County Planning Department
Attn: Thomas G. Mosher.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sin er Y.
;
,
THOMAS G. PIOS BR, AI CP
Environmental Uoordinator
cc: Wallis D. Hubbard, Planning Directo r
Attachment
A
' • ~
fqL4t
-
.
4-ilaf,[,ff P',, ~ .
~
. .
~
f
- ~ ' HANSON . P O Box 7310 ■ Spokane, Washington 99207 ■ U S.A ■ (509) 467-0770 ■ Telex 326474
~ -
RAHC:O. Ini
RAHCO Disc., Inc
R A. Hanson Co., Inc
Hanson Properties. In~
R. A Hanson Minfng Cu. ~
September 24, 1986
Mr. Doug Adams
Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson
Spokane, Washington 99260
M
Re: Sullivan Park Center Appeal
Writ of Certiori
Dear poug:
Transmitted herewith are the original and one copy of the certified
transcription of the proceedings which were conducted by the
Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee. Rick Dullanty requested if you would kindly include said transcripts
in your submittal of the County's total records through the Prosecutor's
Office for certification to the court.
I have been informed that certification of the transcriptions for the
hearings before the Spokane County Couunissioners should be completed
shortly. Could you apprise me as to the status of collation of the
balance of the County's records.
Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks for your continued
professional expertise and assistance.
Sincerely,
HANSON PROPERTIES, INC.
~
Mike,oramoto
MT:cls
Enclosures
cc: Rick Dullanty
Raymond Hanson
Frank Carr
~
,,w
^
Wiff U'_X
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON 5TREET
^ ' i ,~J p{~ • PHONE 456-2205
'y? o- ~ ~ ~~:W•~ ~
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
SPOKANE COUNT'/GOURTHOUSE
MEMORANDUM
T0: Bob McCann, Land Developmerit Coordinator, Courity Engirieer's Offi ce
J i m Legat, Uti 1 i ti es Engi nee r, County Uti 1 i ti~es Dept.
Doug Adams, Subdivisions Administrator, Plarinirig Department
Steve Horobiowski, Zoning Administrator, Pl annirig Department
FROM: Thomas G. Mosher, AICP, EIS Coordinator
DATE: May 10, 1985
SUBJ: Sullivan Park Center Preliminary Draft Su plemental EIS
Please find attached the most recent projected schedule for the production
of the Suppl emental EIS and the i ni ti ated cons i derati on by the Heari ng
Examiner Commi ttee for Hansen Properties, Inc. `s revi sed Sul 1 i vari Park
Center. You wi 11 note that between May l Oth and May 20th i s the revi ew
of the Prel i mi nary Draft Suppl emental E IS.
Herewith attached is that document. In order to maintain this schedule
woul d you please revi.ew and comment upon the Prel iminary Draft and return
such comments to me no 1 ater than noon on Fri day, May 17th. Iri order to
mai ntai n the schedul e, i f T don't hear f rom you by that ti nle I wi 11 ass ume
that you have no input to the Prel iminary Draft.
Also, consistent with the Board of County Corrmissioners intentions and
the Spokane Envi ronmental Ordinance, wi 11 you ei ther report to me the
hours which you spend reviewirlg this document in your department or main-
tain such records of your own for reporting to me at the end of the enti re
EIS process.
Thanks for helping to make this process work and for advaricing this project
towards publ i c heari rig.
f. ~R ~G N~ ~ O~n:Gt~o ~QJ d~ ► , tiU~'i ~1. (~Q'1,•~
, ~ J
~ W44 Go~S + a& d4"51,Cf -~*4& , Jc&#la, aaA&os
~
r4.1 Xlft~
HANSON
P. O. E3ox 7310 ■ Spokane, VVashington 99207 ■ U.S.A. ■ (5091467-0770 ■ Teiex 326474
RE CE IVE 2^~
:~...RAHCO, lnc.
RAHCO Disc_. Inc.
R. A. Hanson Co., Inc. MAY s
Hanson Properties, Inc.
R. A. Hanson Minmg Co
May 3, 1985 SPOKANE COU+d i'~
ni n,fiirrT7 : *7!
TU: Kar~dy Blair Info Copies To: Duaine Rasmus3sen
Randy Hammorid Rick Dullani,
Jac:k Christofferson Doug Adams
Dick Simpson Steve Horobiowsk~
r/
FROM: Mike Teramoto Tom Moshe Raymond Hanson
Frank Carr
RE: Sullivan Park Center Rex Smart
Application and SEIS proczss
Projected Schedule
Target Date
Event On or Before
Submit Complete Application May 17, 1985
Review Prelirninary DSEIS May 10, 1985
Publish & Distribute DSEIS May '20, 1985
Comment Period Etids (30 plus 15 days) July 4, 1985
Resporise Periocl July 15, 1985
Revi ew Dr,aft FSEIS July 25, 1985
Publish & Distribute FSEIS Auaust 5, 1985
Updated Title Repcrt (adjacent property cwners) ku;ust 23, 1985
Newspaper Publication September 4, 1985
Certi f i ed hia i 1 i ngs September 4, 1985
Installation of Site Signs September 4, 1985
Heariny Examiiier Committee September 19 or 20, 1985
yOTE: Supercedes schedule dated 4/30/85. Revised to be in full procedural
compliaiice with SEPA, notification requirements, and agencies review
time necessary for major agenda items.
Pendi ny Heari ng Exami ner docket on 9/ 19/85,
P. O. Box 7310 ■ Spokane, Washington 99207 ■ U.S.A. ■ (509) 467-0770 ■ Telex 326474
` HANSON
RAHCO. lnc.
RAHCO Disc., lnc.
R. A. Hanson Co., Inc
Hans4n Properties, [nc.
R. A. Hanson Minfng Co
February 13, 1985
Tom Mosher
Long Range Planning Administrator
Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson
Spokane, Washington 99260
Re: Sullivan Park Center
(ZE-180-78)
Dear Tom:
Please f ind enclosed a courtesy copy of a very rough preliminary draft
of the approach we are currently utilizing toward application for uses
and standards for the subject property.
A copy has been forwarded to Randy Blair for refinement. We certainly
would welcome your comments prior to f inalization and the formal
application process.
Please feel free to call Randy Blair (206-454-3250) or myself at
467-0770 anytime. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
HANSO PROPERTIES, INC.
,
Mi Teramoto
MT:cls
Enclosure
cc: Steve Horobiowski
WILSEY & HAM • UETT[ OF UMQ~SAUUMQ~
Engineering d~ Planning Servi C E I~ E
1980 112th Avenue N.E., Suite
P.O. Box C-97304 q
Bellevue, Washington 98009-TI3t) rA t ~ 7 1 ~ Q}{ C) DATE Joe No
(206) 4543250 r' ~ v 9 Ma v 1985 2 7 05 - O 10 3
ATTENTION
S!'OKANE COUNTY RE Mr. Tom Mosher
To Mr. Tom Mosher PLANNING DEPARTMENT Sullivan Park Center PDEIS
Spokane County Planning Department
Broadway Centre Building
N. 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99260
WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached Ll Under separate cover via the following items:
Fl Shop drawings CJ Prints El Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
F copy of letter n Change order Review copies of PDEIS, Sullivan Park Center
COPIES I DATE I NO. I OESCRIPTION
2 5/9/85 Review copies of PDEIS, Sullivan Park Center
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
~ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted Ci Resubmit copies for approval
Li For your use El Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution
C 1 As requesteci CJ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints
X For review and comment Ci
L FOR BIDS DUE 19 f-I PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS Tom: Enclosing two copies--I thought you might want to send one over to
Public Works for review while you're reviewing a copy.
Please check over the cover memo and amend as necessary; we'll need it retyped
on County letterhead with Wally's signature for reproduction of the DEIS.
Also review the fact sheet and fill in blanks where indicated. Check the "price
per copy"of the DEIS; you may have a policy on this.
Please call if youu have questions.
Best regards,
COPY ro Mike Teramoto
SIGNED:
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at onte.
FORM 240-2 - AveiteDie f,om ;.~e,, Tpwnaend Mass 01469
~
AIRBILL NUMBER
~ FlEtiSt _E tE ALL INFORMA i lON IN TH't ci BLGCKS GuTLir+: !
00 ~ ; n`-,:..~;: 4 6 Lc
. ~ }
SEE BA "4RM SET fOR COMPI.ETE PRFPARATIpN INSTRUi. 1!~ Lii
A
~ vOUFi frpEnA! ExPG+f_SS nCi"o?UNf NLIMAF` LnTE II .~-.f
71056 1006-0548--I 5-9-85 ~
FAOM (Your Name) TO (RecipienYs Name) li Hofd Fa Ptck-Up a Saturday Oelivery, ~
~
Jack Chrt stofferson 3-2705-0103 Tom Moser PACiaonl's Me N`",ber
COMPANY DEPARTMENTlFLOOR NO. COMPANY DEPARTMENTIFLOOR Np. LLJ
WiL3EY & NAH INC Spokana County P1anning Oepantaent a
V
STREET ADDAESS STREET ADDRESS (P.O. BOX NUMBERS ARE NOT DEUVERABLE) W
1,1980 1 t 2 TN A U NO 0200 N. 721 Jefferson Strest, Broddway Centre Bl a9
CITY STATE CITY STATE ~
EEtLeYUE WA S okane, Washin ton I8 39260 W
S SHIPMENT. SNIPPER AGREES THAT ZIP ~LCuMTE 1rv L40E REdU~AFD ~
ZiP ACCUM7F IIP COOE REOUIREO IN TENDERir~G :E0
~R D.C.
4 5 54964u a &IE OSPECIAL- ~ lul
9 IS IQ IQ 14 I ~ I TAICORHCOPJ. A~~l EN
TIAL DAMAGS ARI51NG
YpUR NOTESIREFEAENCE NUMBfRS (F1RST 12 CHARACTERS WILL AlSO APPEAR ON INVOICE) CARRIAGE MEREOF, F E.C. D(S- ~p~~ EXPRESS I1SE Q
GLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES. EXPRESS OR IMPLI[G 4'~ii'F~
RESPECT TO THtS SHIPMENT. THiS 15 A NQN-NEGO11A91.E FpEJGMTCHARGES ~
AIRBILL SUB.IECT TO CONDITIONS DF CONTRACT SET FORTFt
QN flEYERSE Of SHIPPER'S CQPY UNLESS YOU DECLARE A I ~
PAYMENT ❑ 8111 Shippe~ p e+n aec►~or5 F.E.C. ACCt_ ❑ 8tU 3rd Pdrty F.E.C. ACCL ❑ BIN Crodit CStd HIGHER VALUE 7HE LfA81LIT'Y OF FEDERAL EXPRESS CpR-
PORATION IS UMITED 10 S100 00. FEDERA! EXPRES5 COES CL
❑ CBSh In AdvanCA ACCOUnt NumbetlC190it C2rd NumbRr MOT CARRI' GARGQ LIa31LiTl' INSURANCE DEaAAED VALUE CHAAa o
SERVICES DELIYERY AHO SPECIAL HANDLMG pACKAGES I MfElGHT IA~ I 01S EMP. N0. DATE I ~
CHEp( ONLY ONE BOX CHECK SERVICES fiEWiRED n
I I I I Cl CASH RECEIYED AGTIPRO AOVANCf ORIGIN J
PRiQf~ITY 1 04ERM1EN7 LETTEH EIN p F~~R a;Gh-UP AT FOLLOWING
1 O IOVERNIf{H7 7AGUfiES) 6 0iua io ? et ERAL fXF'RE aS LOCATION SHQV4'N 0 ft~ 9 ;up to 70 LE5.1 ERViC~ GL!I[1E. REC(PIENT 5 ~1 LL
COUAIER PAK 7❑ NE NUMBEH f5 REOUIRED I I pTWpPMn AGTIPRO ADVAti(:EDESTiNAT10N U.
Z O,UOAioN~T~ENVF1aPE 8❑ y❑ QELrvER I I I ❑ aHs. ro oEL ❑ a+s. ro nac I Q
ro~ u~.,v ~ TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL STREET AOORESS OTFIER O
~ SEfIWICE 3 ~ r°u~o m s"wiasd011 9❑ 3❑ s~..TUan: I. AEIOUIRED I applin
, ED IroNS LBS luu Surwq d Ab Padupu oNy.RViAqfRClWpil R NE A I ~
SrpN0Afl0 AlR g❑ sss tsiqnmue s«uiKr swwee ~~'S ~ CITY STATE ZIP TOTAL CHARGES nw Z
m.o , mn a,.tpe Avotiw.~ ❑ REGULAR STOP
5 oELneEar iNO eus119ss O OI~~CALI STO~P ~,tij~
oAv va iovnNC oIc4 up 8❑ na. a Les a
Ua ro -L, ;_65 ❑ F.E.C. LOC. _ I
. a 7❑ Exp~ CaParadon Empfoyee No. RECElVEO BY: (Sipnaturol
~ N~~:~~i IS NEXT BUSINESS DAY or~asafau s~v~cE Ftderal ess U
MONOAY THAOUGN FtiIDAY)~ TWO OAYS X . PART W
~ROM ALASK1l,NAWAII SA7URDAY DEUV- 8 ~ ~2041?30751 `
ERY AVAILABLE IN CONTINENTAL U.S. DATE/TIME Fa federal Exptess Use DATEfiME HECFIVEp F.E C. EMPLOYEE NUMBER fEC-S-0751 D10 9
SEE "SPECIAL HANDLING. 9❑ REVfS10N DATE
~ 1 93 4:
?FtINiEC U S r
Xe,-~
.rz 5-v11iVA4-~
INSERT A(ahead of Table I)
The total commercial (regional mall and peripheral retail) space planned for Phase
(650,000 square feet) is about 26 percent less than the 880,000 square feet Phase
previously proposed. The total commercial space estimated for Phase II (1,0389000
square feet) is the same as previously proposed for Phase II. Beyond Phase II (beyond
1995), the current proposal would accommodate an additional 310,000 square feet of
commercial space, most in peripheral deveiopment to the east and west of the regional
iall. This additional development potential results from a proposed change in use of 30
cres of land previously required for on-site disposal of treated sewage and from a more
efficient circulation road design. This kind of continuing development may have
occurred with the previous proposal after the planned future sewer connection was
made and the 30-acre drainfield area became available for development. However, this
possibility was not specifically included in the previous proposal or discussed in the
previous EIS.
r I
~
V'
~y
~
i,
.
MEMo
T0: Tom Mosher, County Plannin
~
FROM: Jim Legat, County Uti 1 i ti es .
DATE : May 17, 19t _ SUBJECT: Sullivan Pai-r. L-A-1 i ;r,,f,,r~~:k~;~
The County Uti 1 i ties Depart.mer.t has revi ewed the sub iect stibmi ttal and I
has the following coment.
Because there is interest outside this project for sani tary sewers i n
the area between this project and the County sewer interceptor, it may
be possible that the future county trunk line that would carry sewac;e I
southwesterly from the project to the County interceptor could be
constructed sooner than previously expected. Should the timing of ,
the trunk line be such that connection of this project would be poss .
then Spokane County would not allow the construction of the proposec
interim force main to be built southward along Sullivan Road to the
existing sewer interceptor.
RE CE IV F.~.
j,
Pt AMNINr, DEPAR7M
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
pafP Februarv 28 19 85
Inter-office Communicarion
To Thomas G. Mosher, E.I.S. Coordinator I
from Snokane Countv Enaineer 1`1
1
SUbJE.'Ct Gul.l,ivan_Pa.r.k_Ce.n.t.e.r P_rPliIDi„a r~ T?ra fp Sunpl emPntal E_ T. S.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-referenced Supplemental E.I.S.
The following comments are offered for consideration and directed toward the develop-
ment of the draft document.
Page 1/Paragraph 3- This paragraph makes general reference to the developer's respon-
sibility for the "development of the roads, and utilities on platting", etc...
Comment: This paragraph should make reference to the developer's responsibility for
roads both within and off of the site.
Reference is also made to the designation of sites within the development for
"certain types of uses and that specific development standards based upon existing
and proposed zoning regulations be attached to each parcel".
Comment: In addition to the kinds of land uses associated with each phase and the
development standards, reference should be made to the level of services which
will be required to support each phase. Included within this would be the iden-
tification of necessary road improvements which would be required to support a
proposed phase. The needed roadway improvements would be identified by a traffic
analysis for each phase. The preparation of this analysis will be the developer's
responsibility with review and approval by the County Engineer.
Page S/Paragraph 3- Reference is made to Interstate 5. This should be Interstate 90.
Reference is made to a"review" of traffic conditions being made at the completion
of each phase in order to determine the improvements required for additional
phasing of the development.
Comment: A traffic study which would be prepared by the applicant should be made a
requirement of each phase of development. This analysis would be completed prior
to the commencement of each phase. We believe that this is a necessity since the
development of other properties within the vicinity of the development could im-
pact the road system and the capability of that system to accommodate incl(eased
traffic volumes.
Page 11/Paragraph 2- This paragraph discusses accident patterns at I-90 - Sullivan
ramps and the improvements which are currently underway. It is stated that "these
actions will improve the accident experience", etc.
Comment: We suggest that the word "should" be substituted for the word "will".
Paragraph 4- This paragraph references the original E.I.S. and the traffic volumes
anticipated by both Sullivan Park as well as a second regional shopping center.
Traffic data relative to the James S. Black "Valley Mall" proposal has not been
included within this analysis.
Comment: It is our understanding that the shopping center which was proposed by
James S. Black was approved by the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee.
This approval is scheduled to expire in October of 1985. However, the applicant
may be granted an extension of time on that project if it is requested. There-
fore, any traffic analysis of the Sullivan Park Center must consider the traffic
impacts of the James S. Black proposal.
Page 13/Paragraph 2- This paragraph discusses long-range plans for the improvement of
Sullivan Road and the anticipated completion date of the improvements.
Comment: The E.I.S. documents should discuss the impacts of the Sullivan Park Center
if the improvements to Sullivan R+oad are not constructed.
Page 18/Paragraph 1-"At the proposed new I-90 Interchange"
Comment: "At the proposed new I-90 - Evergreen Road Interchange"
Page 22/Paragraph 4- Generally discusses the inability of the existing roadway system
to accommodate the proposed development and that improvements to the system will
be necessary.
Cotmnent: It should be noted that unless mitigating improvements are constructed
prior to each phase of the proposal, that proposed phase would not be approved.
Page 24/Paragraph 1- Generally discusses the ability of the Evergreen Road corridor to
accommodate increased traffic volumes.
Comment: Should be discussion regarding needs for traffic control devices at key
intersections (i.e. Mission and Evergreen), timing f or installation.
Page 25/Paragraph 4- Discusses a north only connection for proposed interchange to
accommodate Phase II.
Comment: It appears as if access to the south from the proposed Evergreen Inter-
change would be desirable with Phase II. An expanded discussion regarding this
southerly connection should be included.
Also the "proposed Interchange" ahould be referenced to as the proposed "Evergreen
Iaterchange". This should be consistent throughout the test.
Page 26/Paragraph 3- This paragraph discusses the abandonment of a proposed bridge
across the Spokane River in the Flora Road alignment.
Comment: Spokane County is still considering the construction of the bridge at Flora
Road. This is dependent upon a significant major expansion of the Industrial Area
north of the Spokane River and the availability of construction funding.
The supplemental E.I.S. generally addresses the need for roadway improvements and
the addition of a freeway interchange to serve the project. However, the kinds of im-
provements and/or their construction in conjunction with each phase is not discussed.
Roadway construction costs, road right-of-way acquisition costs and costs for
installation of traffic control devices and drainage structures are not addressed in
the document.
-2-
It should be noted that the costs of any roadway improvements, right-of-way acqui-
sition, modification of freeway interchanges or construction of new interchanges shall
be the responsibility of the applicant and that Spokane County will not share in the
cost of constructing improvements.
It should also be noted that the location of the Indiana Avenue intersection at
Sullivan Road has not been approved by the County Engineer. Prior to initiation of
phase I, the location of the intersection will be reviewed by both the County Engineer
and the Washington State Department of Transportation.
BMc/set
-3-
/
'.t
HANSQV ~ _ , . .
. ~
RAHCO.Inc.
RAHCU Disc., Inc. ~
R. A. Hanson Co.. Inc. ~
Hanson Praperties. lnc. J~/~ /ti v~ O
R. A. Hanson Mining Co. Ma~/ 28, 19$~j '~'ln ~ 1985
SP-OKANE COUp1 C Y
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
T0: Randy Blair Info Copies To: Rick Dullanty
Randy Hammond Ron Hart
Jack Christoffersoii Doug Adams
Dick Simpson Steve Horobio ski
Tom Mosher
FROM: Mike Teramoto Bob McCann
Raymond Hanson
RE: Sullivan Park Center Frarik Carr
Application and SEIS Process Rex Smart
PE-1504-85
ZE-180-78
Projected Schedule
Target Date
Event: On or Before:
Submit Complete Application May 17, 1985 (Done)
Complete Review of Preliminary DSEIS May 31, 1985
Publish and Distribute DSEIS June 14, 1985
Comment Period Ends (30 plus 15 days) July 29, 1985
Response Period August 9, 1985
Issue Preliminary FSEIS to County August 16, 1985
Complete Review of Preliminary FSEIS September 6, 1985
Submit Master Plan Report and Text to County SeptembAr 13, 1985
Publish arid Distribute FSEIS September 20, 1985
Updated Title Report (adjacent property owners) September 27, 1985
Newspaper Publication October 9, 1985
Certified Mail ings October 9, 1985
Installation of Site Signs October 9, 1985
Hearing Examiner Committee October 24 or 25, 1985
NnTF-: Supercedes schedule dated 5/3/85. Revised to allow agencies
a ditional review time necessary for major agenda items and consequently
insure complete procedural compliance with SEPA, all codes, ordinances
and regulations.
Periding Hearing Examiner Committee docket 10/24/85, this item may be
scheduled to be heard solely and separately on 10/25/85.
1i,~-- -
.~.a~ ► s- ~sr
~ 4D.~ ' s
i ~
"L4-"
~
i
FEBRUARY 12, 1985
DRAFT
PREFACE
In accordance with the Zone Reclassification (ZE-180-78) provision
requiring subntission of a specific site development plan, and with
respect to the possibility of the adoption of a new Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has elected to request for specific
classification and developrcient standards described on the following
pages.
In order to develop the conditions requested and design of the
proposed plan, the appl.icant and it's consultants thoroughly analyzed
the foll_.owinn facto_rs,
1. The broad spectruici o~:
Industrial" classification precludes design of a pragcriatic and
marketable specific site plan for the entire property.
2. A five year "Sundowner" cross-over classification is not
sufficient tirue for a project of this raagnitude.
3. Specific land-use designations for specific parcels with
development standards provides the rriost logical approach froru
developntent, marketing and administrative perspectives.
4. A specific land-use plan with encurnbered developnient standards,
sonte platting, and projected densities will also be within the
parameters of the DEIS, FEIS AND SEIS. - U
5. The proposed approach to landuse plan, developrnent standards and
r
SEIS should be sufficient such that any further approvals should be administered solely by the appropriate staff of county
departntents (i.e. Planning, Engineering, Utilities, etc.).
~Therefore, irregardless of adoption of the new zoning code, the
requested approach should satisfy current County posture toward good
developnient, the new code, and prudent developruent practices.
SECTION I
Parcel Nuaiber :
Outlined in: (color)
Legal: (if available) ~
J
Approx irria te S i ze :
Existing Classi£ication: Restricted Industrial
Proposed Reclassification: Coirtruercial (under present code) with
restrictions fron, regional business (B-3) as described in the proposed
zoning code as arctended. (Exhibit A attached)
EXHIBIT "A" \
SECTION 6.28 REGIONAL BUSINESS (B-3) ZONE
,
Section:
6.28.100 Purpose and zntent ~A
6.28.200 Uses
6.28.210 Perruitted Uses
6.28.220 Accessory Uses
6.28.230 Prohibited Uses '
6.28.300 Developntent Standards
6.28.315 Miniruun, Lot Area and Miniruun, Frontage
6. 2 8. 3 30 Ma x ircturrt Bu i ld i ng Coverage
6.28.340 Parking Standards
6.28.345 Signage Standards
6.28.350 Landscaping Standards
6.28.355 Storage Standards
6.28.355 Refuse Areas
6.28.365 Walls
6.28.380 Public Tr_arisit
6.28.100 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the 8-3 zone is to provide for the location of a wide
range of retail and service activities. This zone will iRiplecctent the
Major Conintercial category of the Coictprehensive Plan. The uses within
this zone tctay often require large areas for custor<<er parking, retail
service, sonte outside activities, display and other contntercial
activities. The businesses locating within these areas often draw
custoriters front the county at large and other outlying areas rather
than fron, a ruore litrtited trade area. Further it is the intent of this
section to irciplentent coirtprehensive plan policies which encourage
coirtntercial develooirient along Major Arterials or highways and establish
regional serving comcuercial areas. General characteristics of these
areas include paved roads and sidewalks, public sewer and water, a
full line of public services including rrtanned fire protection and
public transit accessibility.
6.28.200 Uses
~
6.28.210 Permitted Uses
Hereafter in the B-3 zone no building, structure or intproventents or
portion thereof shall be erected, constructed, converted, established,
altered or enlarged nor shall any lot or preniises be used except for
those uses specifically perruitted in this pursuant to the Business
Zones Matrix. In addition the following specific standards are
required for the following perraitted uses:
l. Dwelling Units provided that:
a. Developntent standards 6.28.315, 6.28.325, 6.28.330, 6.28.340,
6.28.345, 6.28.350, 6.28.355 6.28.360 and 6.28.365 are met;
and
b. Mininiuru lot area shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet;
and
c. One or ruore dwelling units shall be allowed only in a building
or structure with contruercial or business use on the entire
ground floor; and
d. One or ntore dwelling units shall not comprise more than fifty
percent (50%) of the total gross floor area of any building;
and
e. The niaxiniunt height for a building with niixed contntercial or
business use and residental use shall be sixty (60) feet; and
f. Common open space dedicated for the use of the residents of
the dwelling units shall be provided at eight hundred (800)
square feet per unit for the first twelve (12) units with an
additional one hundred (100) square feet per unit for greater
than twelve (12) un i ts up to a max iniurn of f i f teen thousand
(15,000) square feet. Minirrtunt for any dirriension of dedicated
contrrion open space shall be twenty-five (25) fe--t.
2. Tower - The Planning Director shall review and approve buildin:J
perntits for towers in accordance with the following safety
standards:
a. The tower shall be enclosed by a fence not less than six (6)
feet in height with a locking gate:
b. The tower shall have a locking trap door or the climbing
apparatus shall stop twelve (12) feet short of the ground;
c. The blade inipact area shall lie conipletely within the
applicant's property or within adjacent property for which the
applicant has secured and filed an easenient;
d. The tower col lapse or impact area shal l 1 ie coatpletely wi th i n
the applicant's property or within adjacent property for which
the appl icant has secured and f i led an easerrient as designed
and certified by a registered engineer and shall be deterrrtinec'
by relating "blade diatueter" to a"throw trajectory" based on
the following scale:
Hlade Diameter (ft.) 5 10 15 20 30 35 40+
Radius of Irripact Area 100 165 220 270 340 365 385
(ft.)
e. Before the issuance of a bui ld ing percrti t, the appl icant sha 1 I.
have derrionstrated that all applicable requirerrtents of the,
Federal Cornmunications Corrintission, Federal Aviation
Administtation and any required avigation easelt,ents can be
satisfied.
3. Solid waste hauler provided that:
a. Minimum lot area is two (2) acres.
b. Adequate ingress and egress to and on the site shall be
provided.
c. All travelled areas on site shall be paved.
6.28.220 Accessory Uses
All accessory uses, buildings and structures ordinarily appurtenant to
any of the uses allowed in this zone under the Business Zones Matrix
are peratitt
1. Caretaker's residence, provided that it is liraited to the duration
of need associated with the custodial, ruaintenance or overseeing
of the owner's property, building and/or use.
6.28.230 Prohibited Uses
All uses not specifically authorized in the B-3 zone are prohibited,
including, but not lirrtited to, the following:
1. General zesidential use, except as specifically perruitted in this
section;
2. General industrial use;
3. Public and ser<<ioublic use, except as specifically permitted in
this section;
4. Mining, and
5. General agricultural
6.28.240 Conditional Uses
Those uses desiynated as con;iitio«al us?s in the 13-3 zone and the
Business Zones Matrix rriay be permitted, provided that a conditional
use perntit authorizing such use has been granted, as set forth, by a
Conditional Use Permit, and provided further that at a ruinirnuru th~_
developnient standards of this section and the following special
standards are rriet.
1. Transmission facility provided tiiat:
a. The Hearing Body shall consider the puUlic convenience and
necessity of the facility and its particular proposed
location.
b. The Hearing Body shall consider any probable adverse effect
upon the Corrtprehensive Plan and/or prooerties in the vicinity
and iaay require such reasonable restrictions, conditions of
development and/or protective irraproveiuents as will uphold th.~=
purposes of the Cocuprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code an:?
mitigate any adverse effect upon properties in the vicinity.
2. Commercial composting storage/processing provided that:
a. Minirrtun, lot area is five (5) acres.
b. If within one-half (1/2) ruile of an approved FAA airport, .:i
bird ruanageTuent plan shall be submitted Eor review and
approval.
3. Solid waste transfer site provided that:
a. Mininiunt lot area is two (2) acres.
b. Adequate ingress and egress to and on the site for trucks
and/or trailer vehicles shall be provided.
c. Paved access route on site or a SCAPCA approved dust pallitive
progrant for all driven on areas.
d. The site will either be landscaped (berraed with landscaping to
preclude viewing froR, adjacent properties) or fenced with a
sight obscuring fence.
4. Firewood sales/lot/processing provided that:
a. No noise level above the standards identified in WAC-173-60
shall be allowed as raeasured at the site's exterior
boundaries.
b. Any site that has truck and/or trailer traffic shall have an
adequate aniount of area for vehicular circulation and
appropriately designed ingress and egress points.
c. Any area used for vehicular parking or travel, sales or
processing shall be paved.
5. Racetrack (horses, dogs, autos, go-carts, snowrriobiles, off-road
vehicles, motorcycles) provided that:
a. Sound levels as rueasured at the outside perirrieter ownership
boundaries and/or roads adjoining the site shall not exceed
f i f ty-seven (57) dBA bewteen the hours of 7: 00 a.m. and 10 : 00
p.m., forty-seven (47) dBA between the hours of 10:00 p.ru. and
7:00 a.m. or as n►odified by the standards of WAC 173-60-040.
b. Minirriuru distance frorr, the track area and grandstand seating to
any property line shall be five hundred (500) feet.
6.28.300 Develop;nent Standar~?s
Prior to the issuance of a ouilding perr<<it, evidence of conipliance
with provisions 6.28.315 thru 6.28.380 shall be provided to the
Departntent.
6.28.315 Miniinur<< Lot Area and Minirnuit, Frontage
There is no specific ntinirrturu lot area for uses in the B-3 zone,
provided that any building site shall have frontage on a public street
or road of Major Arterial or higher classification sufficient for
proper ingress and egress as deterrrtined by the County Engineer.
6.28.325 Minintunt Yards
The ntinintunt yards and setbacks for pernti tted and accessory uses in the
B-3 zone shall be:
1. Front Yard: A ntinitrtum of sixty-five (65) foot setback from the
centerline of all roadway right-of-way or thirty-five (35) foot
setback frorrt the lot front line; whichever provides the yreater
setback froru the centerline of the roadway right-of-way.
2. Side Yard: None, provided that for any lot side line contiguous
to residental zoning or existing residential developnient, the side
yard shall be fifteen (15) feet.
3. Flanking Street Yard: A rrtiniruun, of sixty-five (65) foot setback
frorct the centerline of all roadway right-of-way or thirty-five
(35) foot setback from the existing property line; whichever
provides the greater setback frocrt the centerline of the roadway
right-of-way.
4. Rear Yard: Fifteen (15) feet.
6.28.330 Maxiniurr, Building Coverage
Buildings in the B-3 zone shall cover no rrtore than fifty percent (50 0)
of the site.
6.28.335 Maximum Building Height
The maxintum height of buildings or structures in the B-3 zone within
one hundred fifty (150) feet of residential zones shall be thirty-five
(35) feet. The maxintum height of all other buildings shall be sixty
(60) feet.
6.28.340 Parking Standards
Parking standards for uses in the B-3 zone shall be as provided in
general developTi,ent standards parking n1_an subrc,itted herewith.
5.28.345 SiqnaQe Standards
Signage standa_rds for uses i,n the B-3 zone sha11 5e as ~rovi-ae:~ in
g_-nerca i deVE'1.O~IloE?'"1 si'3i1agf? InerP_W ith.
6.28.350 Gar.dscapinc St~:nc3aY,~
Landscaping standards cor u5es in che B-3 zone shall ue jis nr-.,7:
developraent standards lanscaping plan subruitted herewith.
6.28.355 Storage Standards
All storage not accessory to the use on the premises shall be
ataintained within a conipletely enclosed building or behind sight
obscuring fencing. Storage will not occur within any required front
or flanking street yard nor in any public street or road right-of-way.
Automobiles, recreational vehicles, and other vehicles or iuachinery
norntally displayed for sales purooses on an open lot may be so
displayed.
6.28.360 Refuse Storage
Al1 outdoor trash, garbage and refuse storage areas shall be screenF:=:
on all sides front public view and at a ruinituurrt be enclosed on three-
sides with a five and one-half (5 1/2) foot nigh concrete block,
niasonry wa11, or signt obscurinq fence wilth i sig'nt obscl.ir~n~
access.
6.28.365 Walls
Refer to developrrient standard landscaping plan subrriitted herewith.
6.28.380 Public Transit
All developnients within the Public Transportation Benefit Area
requiring twenty (20) or ruore parking spaces shall provide bus loading
and shelter facilities if so required by the Director in consultation
with the Spokane Transit Authority.
BUSINESS ZONES MATRIX
USES PERMITTED
B-3 ZONE
USE
Aiabulance service P
Anintal clinic/veterinary, large &
sniall anirrtals P
Antique store P
Apparel/tailor shop p
Appliance sales/service P
Archery, rifle, pistol, gun range or
club, (indoor only) P
Art gallery/studio P
Autontobile/taxi rental P
Autontobile/truck painting/repair P
Autorciobile/truck sales P
Bakery, retail P
Barber/beauty shop P
Bicycle sales/service P
Book/stationary store P
Bowling alley P
Building supply, retail P
Butcher shop/meat rriarket P
Candy/confectionary store P
Car wash, automatic or self service over 1 bay P
Caretaker's residence P-Acc.(1)
Carpenter shop (excluding planing mills,
sawRtills, etc. ) P
Ceramics shop P
Church P
Colleges, public and private P
Conttaercial cornposting storage/processing C. U.
Conintunity hall, club or lodge P
Contntuni ty trans i t center P
Day care center P
Departruent/variety store P
Drug store P
Dry cleanets/laundrorrtat (not a plant serving
niore than one (1) outlet) P
Dwelling unit P(1)
Entertainnient/recreation facilities
(bingo hall, dance hall, skating rink, etc.,)
(N. E.C. ) P
Exercise facility/spa p
Filnt, camera sales/service p
EXHIBIT A
Fir2 station p
Firewood sales/lot/processing C.U.
Florist shop p
Food locker p
Funeral honte p
Furniture sales/repair P
General personal service (N.E.C.) P
General retail sales (N.E.C.) P
Gi f t shop p
Grocery store p
Hardware store p Hobby shop p
Honte improvement store (flooring, paint,
rug, wallpaper) p
Hospital p
Hotel/ruotel p
Jewelry sales/repair p
Kennel (no outside runs or areas) P
Library p
Liquor store p
Locksn►i th p
Luruberyard, reta i 1 p
Massage parlor p
Medical office or entergency clinic P
Ministorage facility p
rrianu.factured honie sales p
Museunt p
Nursery/greenhouse, retail/wholesale P
Office, business, professional (N.E.C.) P
Outdoor advertising display/structure P
Pawnshop p
Park and ride facility P
Park, public P
Pet shop p
Photographic studio P
Post office P
Print, blueprinting, photostating, zeroxing
shop p
Public pay parking garage P
Public pay parking lot P
Public utility facility P
Racetrack (horses, dogs, autos, go-carts,
snoanciobiles, off-road vehicles, motorcycles) C.U.
Radio/T.V. sales/service P
Recreational vehicle sales - srciall (less than
twelve (12) feet in length) P
Recreation vehicle sales - large (greater than
twelve (12) feet in length)
P
EXHIE3IT A-Continued
Recycle collection center P
Rental shop p
Resort p
Repair shops for power equipntent P
Restaurant, non-alcoholic P
Restaurant, alcoholic P
Restaurant, drive-in P
Secondhand store P
Self service car wash - 1 bay P
Service station, autontobile P
Sign painting shop P
Solid waste hauler P(1)
Solid waste transfer site C.U.
Specialized training/learning schools
or studios (dance, gymnastics, r(tartial arts,
etc. ) (N. E.C. ) P
Tavern p
Tax iderrcty P
Theatre, indoor P
Theatre, outdoor P
Tower P1
Trade school P
Transrciission facility C.U.
Truck stop P
Upholstery shop P
Warehouse P
EXHIBIT A-Continued
SECTION II
Parcel (s) :
Outlined in: (color)
Legal: (if available)
Approx irctate s i ze :
Existing Classification Restricted Industrial
Proposed Reclassification: Coruruercial
(under present code) with restrictions from Coritrrtinity Business (B-2)
Zone as described in the proposed Zoning Code as aiaended (Exhibit
"B" attached).
SECTION 6.26 Contntunity Business (B-2) Zone
Sections:
6.26.100 Purpose and Intent
6.26.200 Uses
6.26.210 Perntitted uses
6.26.220 Accessory Uses
6.26.300 Developrrtent Standards
6.26.310 Miniruunt Lot Area and Minintun, Frontage
6.26.325 Mininturu Yards
6.26.330 Maximum Building Coverage
6.26.335 Maxintun, Building Height
6.26.340 Parking Standards
6.26.345 Signage Standards
6.26.350 Landscaping Standards
6.26.355 Storage Standards
6.26.360 Refuse Areas
6.26.365 Walls
6.26.370 Mechanical Equipntent
6.26.380 Public Transit
6.26.100 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the B-2 zone is to provide for the establishnient of
corarciercial centers which will meet the needs of a corrtrrtunity for a wide
range of retail and service uses and to icr►plement the Major Coniniercial
Category of the Comprehensive Plan. The "B-2" zone is intended
prirrtarily to accocurciodate contrriunity shopping facilities consisting of
varied retail, service and office estabtishcrtents grouped at one
location served by arterials where they can serve a trade area
encorrtpassing the several neighborhoods usually within a distance of
approxiirtately one to one and one-half (1 1/2) ntiles of such zone. The
function of the B-2 zone is to provide a wider selection of goods and
services than can be found in the B-1 zone, and to do so within a
shorter dtiving distance from the horae than the B-3 zone. It is
further intended that the location and quantity of the land in B-2
zone should be corrirrtensurate with the purchasing power and needs of the
present and potential population within said trade area. The intent
is that generally each B-2 zone should contain front five (5) to twenty
(20) acres of usable land, and usually no business frontage therein
should extend along any street for a distance greater than fourteen
hundred (1400) feet. It is intended that these conimunity shopping
facilities be provided wherever possible in one business island
centrally located in the trade area or in business clusters rather
than in ribbon developntent along arterials or in several oversized
neighborhood shopping centers. General characteristics of these areas
include paved roads and sidewalks, public sewer and water, a full line
of public services including nianned fire protection and public transit
availability.
6.26.200 Uses
6.26.210 Perntitted Uses
Hereafter in the B-2 zone no building, structure or intprovenients or
portion thereof shall 'oe erected, constructed, converted, established,
altered, or enlarged, nor shall any lot or preniises be used except for
one or ruore of those uses specifically perntitted in this zone pursuant
to the Business Zones Matrix. All such uses shall be within an
enclosed building unless specifically stated otherwise. In addition
the following specific standards are required for the following
perrrtitted use:
1. Dwelling units provided that:
a. Developntent standards 6.26.310, 6.26.325, 6.26.330, 6.26.340,
6.26.345, 6.26.350, 6.26.3551 6.26.360, 6.26.365, and 6.26.370
are met; and
b. Minimum lot area shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet.
Density shall be pursuant to UR-12 density standards; and
c. One or rciore dwelling units shall be allowed only in a building .
or structure with contirtercial or business use on the ground
floor; and
d. One or ruore dwel l i ng un i ts sha 11 not corupr i se ntore than f i f ty
percent (50%) of the total gross floor area of any building;
and
e. The rrtaxirauni height for a building with iuixed contruercial or
business and residential use shall be fifty (50) feet; and
f. Contraon open space dedicated for the use of residents of the
dwelling units shall be provided at eight hundred (800) feet
per unit for the first eight (8) units with an additional one
hundred (100) square feet per unit for greater than eight (8)
units up to a iuaxiruunt of ten thotisand (10,000) square feet.
Miniraurct for any dintension of dedicated corurrion open space shall
be twenty (20) feet.
2. Tower - The Planning Director shall review and apPLove building
perntits for towers in accordance with the following safety
standards:
a. The tower shall be enclosed by a fence not less than six (6)
feet in height with a locking gate;
b. The tower shall have a locking trap door or the climbing
apparatus shall stop twelve (12) feet short of tne ground;
c. The blade inipact area shall lie contpletely within the
applicant's property or within adjacent property for which the
applicant has secured and filed an easeRient;
d. The tower collapse or inipact area shall lie conipletely within
the applicant's property or within adjacent property for which
the applicant has secured and filed an easenient as designed
and certified by a registered engineer and shall be determined
by relating "blade diameter" to a"throw trajectory" based on
the following scale:
Blade Diameter (ft) 5 10 15 20 30 35 40+
Radius of Icupact
Area (ft) 100 165 220 270 340 365 385
e. Before the issuance of a building perrait, the applicant shall
have dernonstrated that all applicable requirei<<ents of the
Federal Corctutunications Conatission, Federal Aviation
Adntinistration and any required avigation easentents can be
satisfied.
6.26.220 Accessory Uses
All accessory uses, buildings and structures ordinarily appurtenant to
any of the uses allowed in this zone under the Business Zones Matrix
are oerrrtitted.
6.26.230 Prohibited Uses
All uses not specifically authorized in the B-2 zone are prohibited,
including, but not lirhited to, the following:
1. General residential use, except as specifically permitted in this
section;
2. General industrial use;
3. Business use, except as specifically peric►itted in this section.
4. Publ ic and seraipubl ic use, except as speci f ically perraitted in
this section;
5. Mining; and
6. General agricultural use.
I
6.26.240 Conditional Uses
Those uses designated as conditional uses in the B-2 zone and the
Business Zones Matrix ntay be perrrtitted, provided that a conditional
use permit authorizing such use has been granted, as set forth in an
approved conditional use perniit and provided further that at a ntininiu«.
the development standards oE this section and the Following special
standards are Irtet.
1. TransrrLission facility provided that:
a. The Hearing Body shall consider the public convenience and
necessity of the facility and its particular proposed
location. I
~
b. The Hearing Body shall consider any probably adverse effect
upon the Coiciprehensive Plan and/or properties in the vicinity
and may require such reasonable restrictions, conditions of
developrrient and/or protective irciprovei(tents as will uphold the
purposes oE the Corctprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code and
rrlitigate any adverse effect upon properties in the vicinity.
6.26.300 Developrcient Standards
Prior to the issuance of a building perrctit, evidence of conipliance
with provisions 6.26.310 thru 6.26.380 shall be provided to the
Depa r trtten t .
6.26.310 Minintunt Lot Area and Miniruurrt Frontage
No corrtrctercial developtaent shall consist of less than five (5) acres of
usable land. For purposes of this section a developrrtent i<<ay be a
combination of parcels totaling five (5) acres with an integrated,
unif ied design or developatent plan. The miniraunt frontage for building
sites in the B-2 zone shall be one hundred (100) feet at the street
and a ntinirriunt average depth of one hundred forty (140) feet. The
developirtent shall have access to a street or road of the Secondary
Arterial classification or_ a higher classification.
6.26.325 Mininturc, Yards
The rctinintun, yards and setbacks for perrriitted and accessory uses in the
B-2 zone shall be:
1. Front Yard: A irtinirriurct of sixty-five (65) foot setback fron, the
centerline of all roadway right-of-way or thirty-five (35) foot
set'oack frorr► the lot front line; whichever provides the greater
set'oack frotct the centerline of the roadway right-of-way.
2. Side Yard: None, provided that for any lot side line contiguous
to existing residential developntent, the side yard shall be at
least fifteen (15) feet.
3. Flanking Street Yard: A rrtinimurr, of sixty-five (65) foot setback
frocct the centerline oF all roadway right-of-way or thirty five
(35) foot setback fron, the existing prouerty line; whichever
provides the greater_ setback frocrt the centerline of the roadway
right-of-way.
4. Rear Yard: Fifteen (15) feet.
6. 26 . 330 Max intun, Bu i ld ing Coverage I
Buildings in the B-2 zone shall cover no rctore than fifty percent (50%)
of the site.
6.26.335 Maxintutct Building Height
The maximum height of buildings or structures in a B-2 zone when
within one hundred (100) feet of residential zones shall be thirty five (35) feet. ThP rrtaxirriurri height of_ al.l other bui].dings shall be
fifty (50) feet.
,
6.26.340 Parkinw, Standards
Parking standards for uses in the B-2 zone shall be as provided in
general development standards parking plan submitted herewith.
6.26.345 Signage Standards
Signage standards for uses in the B-2 zone shall be as provided in
general developi<<ent signage standards subruitted herewith.
6.26.350 Landscaping Standards
Landscaping standards for uses in the B-2 zone shall be as provided in
developcuent standards landscaping plan subraitted herewith.
6.26.355 Storage Standards
All storage in the B-2 zone shall be within an enclosed building,
provided that retail products which are for sale or rental ruay be
stored outdoors during business hours only, so long as such storage
does not occur within any required front or flanking street yard nor
in any public street or road right-of-way. Recreational vehicles and
other rrtachinery norntally displayed for sales ourposes on an open lot
may be so displayed. I
6.26.360 Refuse Storage
All outdoor trash, garbage and refuse storage areas shall be screened
on all sides from public view and at a rctininiuru be enclosed on three
sides with a five and one-half (5 1/2) foot high concrete block,
masonry wall, or sight obscuring fence with a sight obscuring gate for
access.
6.26.365 Walls
Refer to developrrient standards landscaping plan subntitted herewith.
6.26.370 Mechanical Equipntent
All rooftop irtechanical equipntent shall be placed behind a perruanent
screen, restricted frorci view.
6.26.380 Public Transit
All developrrtents within the Public Transportation Benefit Area I
requiring twenty (20) or more parking spaces shall provide bus loading
and shelter facilities if so required by the Director in consultation
with the Spokane Transit Authority.
BUSINESS ZONES MATRIX
USES PERMITTED
B-2 ZONE
USE
Anibulance service p
Animal clinic/veterinary, large and
small aniruals p
Antique store p
Apparel/tailor shop p
Appliance sales/service p
Archery, rifle, pistol, gun range or club
(indoor only) p
Art gallery/studio p
Autontobile/taxi rental p
Bakery, retail p
Bank, savings/loan p
Barber/beauty shop p
Bicycle sales/service p
Book/stationary store p
Bowling alley p
Butcher shop/meat rnarket p
Car wash, automatic or self service over 1 bay P
Ceramics shop p
Church p
Colleges, public and private P
Corctatunity hall, club or lodge P
Comraunity transit center p
Daycare center p
Drug store p
Dry cleaners/laundrontat (not a plant serving
niore than one (1) outlet) p
Dwelling unit p(l)
EntertainRient/recreation facilities
(bingo hall, dance hall, skating rink, etc.)(N.E.C.) P
Exercise facility/spa p
Film/carriera sales/service p
Fire station p
Florist shop p
Food locker p
Funeral home p
Furniture sales/repair p
General personal service (N.E.C.) p
General retail sales (N.E.C.) p
Gift shop p
Grocery store p
Hardware store p
EXH I B I'I' B
Hobby shop p
Home improvement store
(flooring, paint, rug, wallpaper) p
Hospital p
Jewelry sales/repair p
Kennel (no outside runs or areas) P
Library p
Liquor store p
Locksn►ith p
Massage parlor p
Medical office or eniergency clinic P
Museurr, p
Music store p
Nursery/greenhouse, retail/wholesale P
Office, business, professional (N.E.C.) p
Outdoor Advertising display/structure P
Pawnshop p
Park and ride facility p
Park, public p
Pet shop P
Photographic studio p
Post office p
Print, blueprinting, photostating, and
zeroxing shop p
Public pay parking garage ?
Public pay parking lot
Public utility facility
Radio/T.V. sales/service
Recreational vehicle sales - srciall (less than
twelve (12) feet in length p
Recycle collection center p
Rental shop p
Repair shop for power equiprrtent J
Restaurant, non-alcoholic f~
Restaurant, alcoholic ~
Restaurant, drive-in L>
Secondhand store P
Self service car wash - 1 bay p
Service station, autontobile p
Sign painting shop p
Specialized training/learning schools or studios
(dance, gyrunastics, ruartial arts, etc.) (N.E.C.) P
Tavern p
Tax idernty p
Theatre, indoor p
Tower p I
Transniission facility C„J.
Upholstery shop p
EXHIIIIT B-Continued
SECTION III
Parcel: #
Outlined in: (color)
Legal: (if available)
Approx iruate s i ze :
Existing Classification: Restricted Industrial
Proposed Reclassification: Restricted Industrial with restrictions of
Industrial Park (I-1) zone as described in the proposed Zoning Code as
amended (Exhibit C attached).
SECTION 6.30 Industrial Park (I-1) Zone
Sections:
6.30.100 Purpose and Intent
6.30.200 Uses
6.30.210 Perntitted Uses
6.30.220 Accessory Uses
6.30.230 Prohibited Uses
6.30.300 Develoontent Standards
6.30.310 Miniruum Lot Area and Miniiaurct Frontage
6.30.325 Minirrtura Yards
6.30.330 Maxiirtun► Build ing Covera:rF_
6.30.335 Maxiraun, Building
6.30.340 Parking Standards
6.30.350 Landscaping St::.. , , - ?s
6.30.360 Refuse Storage
6.30.365 Walls
6.30.370 Mechanical Equiprr►ent
6.30.375 Utilities
6.30.380 Lighting
6.30.385 Environment
6.30.390 Architectural Treatrcient
6.30.395 Public Transit
6.30.100 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the I-1 zone is co provi(le Lor tizose iiign tec;inology
industrial and incidental corrintercial uses of a light intensity, havin,f
no objectional or obnoxious effect on adjacent properties.
Developrrient and operation standards are intended to provide
compatibility with and protection to surrounding residential and
comiaercial prooerties by ntinirrtizing traffic congestion, noise, glare,
vibration, odors, airborne particulate and toxic substances. Sites in
this zone should have priictary access to a rriajor or secondary arterin.'
as defined by the Spokane County Engineer. Restrictive developme1;~.
standards of this zone are intended to result in a clean, qui=-
industrial development to accorctatodate industries operating
substantially in enclosed buildings. Developrctents in this zone
aesthetically pleasing working environnient. General characteristics
of these areas include paved roads and sidewalks, public sewer and
water, a full line of public services including rrianned fire protection
and public transit accessibility.
6.30.200 Uses
6.30.210 Perntitted Uses
Hereafter in the I-1 zone no building, structure or iiriproveRients or
portion thereof shall be erected, constructed, converted, established,
altered, or enlarged, nor shall any lot or pretuises be used except for
one or ruore of those uses specifically perirtitted in this zone pursuant
to the Industrial Zones Matrix and the requirements of Section 4.16.
All such uses shall be within an enclosed building unless specifically
stated otherwise. In additional the following specific standards are
required for the following permitted uses:
1. Public utility facility provided:
a. Its proposed location is necessary for the public's
convenience; and
b. It is adequately buffered, screened or landscaped from
adjacent uses to insure safety and visual compatibility.
2. Tower - The Planning Director shall review and approve building
perruits for towers in accordance with the following safety
standards:
a. The tower shall be enclosed by a fence not less than six (6)
feet in height with a locking gate;
b. The tower shall have a locking trap door or the cliirtbing
apparatus shall stop twelve (12) feet short of the ground.
c. The blade inipact area shall lie conipletely within the
applicant's property or within adjacent property for which the
applicant has secured and filed an easen►ent;
d. The tower collapse or itr►pact area shall lie cotuuletely within
the applicant's property or within adjacent property for which
the appl icant has secured and f i led an easerctent as des igned
and certified by a registered engineer and shall be determined
by relating "blade diar<<eter" to a"throw trajectory" based on
the Following scale:
Blade Dianeter ft I
~ 5 10 15 20 30 35 40+
Radius of Irupact
Area (ft) 100 165 220 270 340 365 385
e. Before the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
have derrionstrated that all applicable requirett►ents of the
Federal Corrtruunications Contruission, Federal Aviation
Adn►inistration and any required avigation easeictents can be
satisfied.
6.30.220 Accessory Uses
All accessory uses, buildings and structures ordinarily appurtenance
to any of the uses allowed in this zone under the Industrial Zones
Matrix are perrrtitted.
6.30.230 Prohibited Uses
All uses not specifically authorized in the I-1 zone are prohibited
including, but not 1 imi ted to, the following :
1. General residential use;
2. General commercial use, except as specifically perrrtitted in this
section;
3. General public and sentipublic use;
4. General agriculture use; and
5. Mining.
6.30.240 Conditional Uses
Those uses designated as conditional uses in the I-1 zone and the
Industrial Zones Matrix ntay be perntitted provided that a conditional
use perruit authorizing such use has been granted, as set forth in
Section pursuant to conditional use permits, and provided further that
at a«iinirrturu the developrrkent standards of this section and the
following special standards are nket.
1. TransRtission facility provided that:
a. The Hearing Body shall consider the puUlic convenience and
necessity of the facility and its particular proposed
location.
b. The Hearing Body shall consider any probably adverse effect
upon the Comprehensive Plan and/or properties in the vicinity
and caay require such reasonable restrictions, conditions of
developn►ent and/or protective iaiproven►ents as will uphold the
purposes of the Corriprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code and
anticipate any adverse effect upon properties in the vicinity.
6.30.300 Development Standards
Prior to issuance of a building perntit, evidence of conipliance with .
provisions 6.30.310 thru 6.30.395 shall be provided to the Planning
Department.
6.30.310 Minirrtum Lot Area and Mininium Frontage
The ntinirrturrt lot area for uses in the I-1 zone shall be one (1) acre of
usable land with a rrtinintun► width of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet
at the lot front line. Minirauia continuous frontage on a public road
or street for each lot or parcel shall be one hundred twenty-five
feet.
6.30.325 Minirr►um Yards
No building or above ground structure shall be constructed within:
1. Front Yard: A rriinimum of 65 foot setback frocc, the centerline of
the roadway right-of-way or 35 foot setback frotr, the existing
property line; whichever provides the greater setback frocc► the
centerline of the roadway right-of-way.
2. Side Yard: No requirenkent except when a coTr►mercial or industrial
building abuts any residential zone then the side yard shall be
five (5) feet for each story of the building.
3. Flanking Street: A rrtinin►un► of 50 foot setback fron, the centerline
of all roadway right-of-way or 20 foot setback froia the existing
property line; whichever provides the greater setback from the
centerline of the roadway right-of-way.
4. Rear Yard: 15 feet.
6. 30 . 330 Max irc►unt Bu i ld ing Coverage
Buildings in the I-1 zone shall cover no more than fifty percent (500)
of the lot area.
6.30.335 Maxiniurct Building Height
The maxirrkun, height of buildings or structures in the I-1 zone shal]_ be
forty (40) feet.
6.30.340 Parking Standards
Parking standards For uses in the I-1 zone shall be as provided in .
general development standards parking plan subrnitted herewith.
6.30.345 Signage Standards
Signage standards for uses in the I-1 zone shall be as provided in
general developictent signage standards subn►itted herewith.
6.30.350 Landscaping Standards
Landscaping standards for uses in the B-3 zone shall be as provided in
developruent standards landscaping plan subcctitted herewith.
6.30.355 Storage Standards
All storage not accessory to the use on the prentises shall be
rrtaintained within a corripletely enclosed building or behind sight
obscuring fencing. Storage will not occur within any required front
or flanking street yard nor in any public street or road right-of-way.
Autocuobiles, recreational vehicles, and other vehicles or rckachinery
norrrkally displayed for sales purposes on an open lot rrkay be so
displayed.
6.30.360 Refuse Storage
All outdoor trash, garbage, and refuse storage areas shall be screened
on all sides fron► publ ic view and at a minintunt be enclosed on three
sides with a five and one half (5 1/2) foot high concrete block,
masonry wall, or sight obscuring fence with a sight obscuring gate for
access.
6.30.365 Walls
Refer to developraent standards landscaping plan subn►itted herewith.
6.30.370 Mechanical Equiprrtent
All roof top «iechanical equiprr►ent shall be placed behind a perrc►anent
screen, restricted frorrt view.
6.30.375 Utilities
All utilities, including landscape sprinkler systeiris, shall be
underground, with the exception of lignting fixtures. All waste that
would otherwise not be accepted by the City of Spokane Treatrnent Plant
rctust be pretreated per Spokane County Health District standards. All
lots rr►ust provide for hook-up to regional sewer syste:rts and be
connected to said systenk when available.
6.30.380 Lighting
Al1 lighting of the building, landscaping, parking lot, or sirrLilar
facilities shall be designed to direct the light away fron, adjoining
properties.
6.30.385 Environntent
All uses in the I-1 zone shall entit no obnoxious odors of any kind,
exhaust no waste into the air nor create dust by industrial operation
or transportation or or adjacent to the site, rrteet the requirements of
the Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority, carry on no
operation that would produce heat or glare perceptible fronk any
property line of the site on which the industrial operation is
located, create any electrical disturbance off the site, and produce
no industrial noise in excess of the standards identified in WAC
173-60 as taeasured from any residential oroperty adjacent to the site
on which the industrial operation is located.
6.30.390 Architectural Treatn►ent
Refer to general develooritent standards subi<<i tted herewi th .
6.30.395 Public Transit
All developrr►ents within the Public Transportation Benefit Area
requiring twenty (20) or more parking spaces shall provide bus loading
and shelter facilities if so required by the Director in consultation
with the Spokane Transit Authority. Refer to Section 8.02.140 for
requiren►ents for a Public Transportation Plan.
INDUSTRIAL ZONES MATRIX
APPROVED USES
I-1 ZONE
USE
Assentbly - light p
Bakery, wholesale p
Bottling plant p
Business Office p
Brewery, winery and/or distillery P
Corrtntunity transit center p
Day care center in connection with an
industrial use p
Distribution center for honie deliver P
Electrical corrtponent cr►anufacturing/asseiribly p
Fire station
Garnient manufacturing p
Jobber distribution nlant n
Laboratory p
Park and ride facilities 111
Pharrc►aceutical rrtanufacturing P
Post office p
Prefabrication construction including sales P
Printing, blueprinting, photostating and
xeroxing p
Professional office (architect, engineer,
draftsnian, etc. ) p
Public pay parking garage/lot P
Public utiilty facility p(l)
Recycle collection center
Reserach facility p
Restaurant p
Sign ntanufacturing/repair p
Storage, general - indoors P
Storage, general - outdoors p(I.)
Tower P(1)
Trade school p
Transcrtission facility C.U.
Upholstery, covering p
Warehousing p
Wholesaling p
Woodworking, cabinet shop p
EXHIBIT C '
RANDY BLAIR
WILSEY & HAM
REVIEWING AND WILL INCORPORATE THE FOLGOWING:
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PARKING
LANDSCAPING
SIGNAGE
WALLS
AESTHETIC CONTROL
~
'A~ HANSON P. n Box 7310 ■ Spohane, V'Jashington 99207 ■ U.S.A. ■ I:509) 467-0770 ■ Teiex 320474
,
RAHCO. Inc.
RAHCO Disc., Inc.
R. A. Hanson Co., Inc.
Hanson Properties. Inc.
R. A. Hanson Mining Co.
July 23, 1985
Mr. Gary Fergen
Assistant Director
Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson
Spokane, Washington 99260
Re-: Proposed Spokane County Zoning Code
Dear Gary:
The SEPA Administrator for the Lead Agency, Mr. Tom Moshei,, has
informed the Sullivan Park Center DSEIS author/principal contributor,
Wilsey & Ham, and our office that the comment period for the DSEIS
expires on this date. Under the direction of the Lead Agency, the
next two and half weeks wi11 be devoted to preparation of the FSEIS
and responding to corrments to the DSEIS. Wilsey & Ham is planning
to submit the preliminary FSEIS for review by the Lead Agency on
August 16, 1985.
As you are aware, the OSEIS addresses the proposed Zoning Code.
Wilsey & Ham has been informed that the Spokane Board of County
Commissioners has conducted a Public Hearing on the proposed Code
but have not taken any action to officially adopt said code. Furtner,
unofficial opinions indicate a strong possibility that the code, with
amendments to the final draft, will be adopted in the near future.
The target dates for the FSEIS process are as follows:
Event Cate
Submit Preliminary FSEIS to Lead Agency August 16, 1905
Lead Agency completes Preliminary FSEIS Review September 6, 1985
FSEIS to printer September 12, 1985
Distribute FSEIS (official date of issue) September 20, 1985
y
e'
Mr. Gary Feraen
July 23, 1985
Page Twa
Since there is a possib7lity that the Cade cvuld be adopted during or
shortly after the FSEiS process, we would appreciate your pr~oviding,
as pragressive2y evident, the latest status pursuant to the Code to
Wi lsey & Ham for i ncarpvrativn into the FSEIS and modi fi cati ons to
the text as appropriate.
Thank you for yaur assistance.
Very truly yours,
HANSON PRnPERTIES> INC.
.
MikeiTeramota
r
MT:cls
cc: Daug Adams
Steve Horobi ski
Tom Mosher
Jaek Chri stofferson
Randy Bla7r
~
4~~ 5TA1'Q E C E ' V E
~
DUANE BERENTSON J L?C 1985
Secretary 7889 ' y
r~
s STATE OF WASHINGTON S;' 0 K ANE C 0 U N T Y
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONP A~~ N! N G D~ P~t R T M E N T
Offrce ot I)i5trrct Adminisrrarnr • N'orth 2714 Mayfair Streel, Box 5299, North Centra! Station • Spokane, Washington 99205-0299
July 23, 1985.
Wallis D. Hubbard, Plannning Director
Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99260
Re: Sullivan Park Center
Supplement to Draft EIS
Dear Mr. Hubbard:
The District 6 office of the Washington State Department of Transportation has
been working with Hanson Properties, Inc. on transportation related issues
arising from their proposed Sullivan Park Center. Our concerns for mitigating
adverse impacts have been addressed in the draft supplemental environmental
impact statement.
It is importaff"to reemphasize that approval of an additional interchange in the
vicinity of Evergreen Road will require concurrence from the Federal Highway
Administrration. Concurrence is not assured and will be jeopardized by any
design that results in a decrease in mainline capacity of the existing interstate
system.
We concur with the conceptual approach to improving the transportation
network as it relates to the Department of Transportation's interests in this
project.
ruly you rs,
WALTER R. HORNING, P.E.
District Administrator
WRH:so
cc : HQ Records Control
ilte 330
: s[ Interstate l3dnk t3uildint-
JUL2L)
SPOKANE COl; Nf Y
July 23, 1985 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Thomas G. Mosher
North 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, Washington 99260
Dear Mr. Mosher:
In review of the Sullivan Park Center Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement, Spokane Transit Authority has determined that the proposed
project will not have an adverse impact on transit provison in the Spokane
Valley.
Currently, STA provides service along Sullivan Road via the #20 Valley/
Trentwood Feeder route. Service is projected to continue within the area.
Spokane Transit Authority looks forward to working with the project
sponsers to assure adequate transit provison and passenger amenities to the
project site.
Sincerely,
.
7~''1c~. •
Christine M. Fueston
Transit Planner
CMF:sja
~')1 458-25: .
sTArE.
4 4
ANDRFA BE.ATTI' RINIhFR s ? -
Director `~yc
STATE OF WASHWGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
July 16, 1985
Mr. Thomas Mosher
Spokane County P1anning Department
N 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99260
Dear Mr. Mosher:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft supplemental
environmental impact statement for the Sullivan Park Center proposed
by Hanson Properties, Inc.
We support the proposed connection of the Sullivan Park Center
sewage facilities to Spokane County's Valley Sewer System. We
recorrmend the sponsor coordinate his efforts with other developers
along North Sullivan so the installed system can be designed as a
permanent component of the Valley Sewer.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Roger Ray of the Eastern
Regional Office at (509) 456-2926.
Sincerely,
,
'J
Ba rbara J. Ritchie
Environmental Review Section
BJR:pk
cc : Dee Weber, ERO
S 1 A J F . ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E(
IA( ( )B THOh1Ati
[ )I(P( IOf t.,
ST.ATE OF WASHINGTON SP(} IKq NE
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVVM ~ ~ I 1 1 ~I'e>t Tt%r,nt ~ -Fir~f -1tonue h7_- l 1 • 011'mphi, l1'd_';hin,gfo11 98504-~-J ! 1 • (_'4)) 41- 11
July 16, 1985
Mr. Wallis D. Hubbard, Planning Director
Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99260
Log Reference: 670-C-SP-04
Re: Sullivan Park Center DSEIS
Dear Mr. Hubbard:
A staff review has been completed of your draft supplemental environ- ~
mental impact statement. In the event that archaeological or historic
resources are discovered during project activities, please notify the
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia,
Washington.
Sincerely,
~
Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D.
State Archaeologist
(206) 753-4405
dw
~
3
.
United States so;l Room 360
Department of Conservation U. S. Courthouse
Agriculture Service S okane tYashin ~
p , gton 992(.1
J ► v , I, L
P!_Ar1NiNG oFPa,*.
y 11 , 7 ~R~
Thomas G. Mo s hot-
Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, Washington 99260
Dear Kr. . ?iosher : •
The Soil Consecvation Service has reviewed your Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the Sullivan Park Center.
P~a e 9, "Sewage Disposal Alternatives": As you have indicated in your report,
there is a very real potential for contamination of the aquifer due to the
Garrison gravelly loam soils at the site. Therefore, the wording of this
paragraph should be revised to reflect that interim on-site disposal is not an
acceptable consideration for this project at any time at this location.
If you have need for additional information or assistance, please feel free to
call our field office located at N. 222 Havana, Spokane, Washington, 99206, -
telephone 509-456-2120.
Than you for the opportunity to review your document.
Sincerely,
.
d• ' .
LYNN A. ROWN ~
State Conservationist
cc: J. Weston, AC, SCS, Spokane AO
J. Kelton, DC, SCS, Spokane FO
O Tne Sod Conservation Service SCS-AS-1
~ s an aqency oi the 10-79 ~
:~~'DArtmpnt A ~r'C-jItute
t
~
(-~Department of Natural H,esources
P. 0. Box 190, Colville, Washington 99114-0190 BRIAN BOYLE
509-684-5201 or 1-800-562-6010 ca„mi..ron.r of Puo►ic c..,w.
~ RECEIVED
~eae ~o
DATE: July 8, 1985
lyt~~
JUL 11
T0: Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson Street Sf OKANE COUiqfY
Spokane, WA 99260 PLANNING DEPARTMENI ~
FROM: Walt Wruble TITLE: Spokane Local Manager
ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 190, Colville, WA 99114-0190
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL CIiECKLIST
ACTION SPONSOR: Hanson Properties, Inc.
PROJECT: Sullivan Park Center Draft EIS
We do not have an interest in the above mentioned project and have no
comments on the proposal.
X We do have an interest in the above mentioned project and wish to make the
following comments:
Surf ace Miniq Permit - A surface land mine reclamation permit and reclamation
plan shall be required if more than two acres of land is to be disturbed or more
than 10,000 yards of mineral is removed in any type of mining operation. (For
example, the removal of top soil or any other aggregate type of material to be
sold or used for construction off the proposed site.)
This is adjacent to State awned lst and 2nd Class Shoreland.
WW: lm
cc: Ryder Chronic, Area Manager
Ross Hesseltine, Arcadia District Manager
Fi le
~
Equal Opportunity, Affirmetive Action Employer
.Q?* 3
~
STATZr Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 190, Colville, Washington 99114-0190 BRIAN BOYLE
Commissioner oi Public Lands
509-684-5201 or 1-800-562-6010 ~
r ~
RE( E IV F r,)
18 89 a y
~
DATE: July 8, 1985
T0: Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jef ferson S treet KA I~ r i, U
Spokane, WA 99260 PL,4NNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Walt Wruble
TITLE: Spokane Local Manager
ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 190, Colville, WA 99114-0190
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF llRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEriENT/ENVIRUNMENTAL CIiECKLIST
ACTION SPONSOR: Hanson Properties, Inc.
PROJECT: Sullivan Park Center Draft EI5
Wz do not have an interes t in tlle above meiit ioned 1)ro jecC and have no
comments on the proposal.
X We do have an interest in the above mentioned project and wish to make the
following comments:
Surface Mining Permit - A surface land mine reclamation permit and reclamation
plan shall be required if more than two acres of land is to be disturbed or more
than 102000 yards of mineral is removed in any type of mining operation. (For
example, the removal of top soil or any other aggregate type of material to be
sold or used for construction off the proposed site.)
This is adjacent to State owned lst and 2nd Class Shoreland.
l,1W : lm
cc: Ryder Chronic, Area Manager
Ross Hesseltine, Arcadia District Manager
File
Equal Opporfunity, Affirmative Action Employer
~ 3
- - ~
E C E~ ~
. j.. ~ A n t.. ~t
`O
JUL g 1985
o - - '
SPOKANE CouiV i Y ~
.lUL 2 1985 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
v. ~
I)~ 1
Wallis D. Hubbard, Planning Direct~~"
Spokane County Planning Department.
North 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99207
Re: Sullivan Park Center - Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement
Dear Mr. Hubbard,
We appreciate the opportunity that you have given us to review the
referenced document. At this time we have no comment to make on
the subject project document. If we can be of any assistance
during the remaining development of the final supplemental to the
environmental impact statement please contact our department.
Sincerely,
~J
Brad W. Blegen, P.E.
Public Works Director
GGS/das
cc:Public Works File
Planning and Programming
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SKYWALK LEVEL MUNlCIPAL BUILDING / SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201-3343 /(509) 456-4300
RECEIVED ~AnE,
o w,1
JUL
~ •
SPOKANE CUUiV f 0
.lUL 2 19$5 PLANNING DEPARTME s ~
N T o
~ ~
Wallis D. U~~~ E r\$
Hubbard, Planning Director
Spokane County Planning Department
North 721 Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99207
Re: Sullivan Park Center - Draft Supplemental Environcnental Impact
Statement
Dear Mr. Hubbard,
We appreciate the opportunity that you have given us to review the
referenced document. At this time we have no carment to make on
the subject projeet document. If we can be of any assistance
during the remaining development of the final supplemental to the
environmental impact statewent please contact our department.
Sincerely,
Brad W. Blegen, P.E.
Publie Works Director
GGS/das
cc:Public Works File
Planning and Prograrrming
~
~t
.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SKYWALK LEVEL MUNIC/PAL BUILOING / SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201-3343 /(509) 456-4300
~
Spokane County Conservation District
North 222 Havana Street - Spokane, Washington 99202 - Telephone (509) 456-2120
July 1, 1985
Spokane County Planning Department
N. 721 Jefferson
Spokane, WA 99201
SUBJ: Sullivan Park Center DSEIS
PE-1504-85
ZE-180-78
Dear Sir:
COMMENTS: Reference page 9, Sewage Disposal Alternatives
Under no condition, for any interim period,
should on-site disposal be considered at this
time or any other time. Location to the River,
the groundwater (aquifer), the highly permeable
Garrison gravelly loam soils and the size of
the project makes on-site disposal unacceptable
and should not be listed as any option or temporary
alternative.
Sincerely,
~
ROBERT SCHMIDT
Chairman
Enclosure: Soil Interpretation/GgA
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT
~
; SAVMaIv~
, i SAYRM3IVR i 1 t i10s aNv
03ssda9 tt i 9NIdtl)SONV,:
AlH9t108O6S3NO1S 39?!V1 I 1: A1rtof1JM06S3NU1S l1rWS-3172l300W I •SNMdI ,
,
j=---------------------------------------------- -
, I SN0IS?13AI0 ii 7 S1334iS ,
. I ONV uNd SadOM ~
, 9 S33It2l831 S : itiooi ~
AONYS OOl6S3N01S 396'Ol i il NOIlOV 1SOMj-31VM30JW :
---------------------------------------------T sr ---------------------------------------------7
, S9i,~I:lIflS ~
, i NOIlV9I2lelI i i 1 IVI3tl3WW03 :
, It i I -I l7WS .
A1H9f10d0 1 :1 1H5I1S t ,
T ------------TT ---------------------------------------------7
, ; _ _ ~ S1'u3w3SvE :
, : 39VNIVaO HlIm ,
, ; i S9NI113A0 .
a31vn Ol d330 t t3 1NOIlS 3 ,
---------------------------------------------r Tr--------------------------------------------- 7
031 M31If10tl:: ~ S1143w3StiE ;
SaNOd S i ~ lnjN1IN
, S 031YAVJX3 SONIl13hC
y31V11 ON-3a3A3S i 1HSIIS l
----------------------~------------T -----------------------------------------------7
, S S33A31
, S ONV S3AI7 11 ~ StvOIlVA7OX
, I S1N3WHNU@W3ti 7 AOIIvHS
39Vd33S-383A3S f I l 3AVJ aHNV81f13-383n3S S
~~-----------------1N~Wd01~~~a l1T5 3N~ll~~'d----------------
, ~ V3MV
, i 8lDAa3S3M Si ~
, ; ONOd 7 : t 11IJONVI
39Vd33S-3a3A3S i i0 i 601 tl3A03
--------------------1N~W3~VNVN ~ IklIOG
:t S3N013 l17W5639vd33S-a00d I
------------------------------------""-------T T_--------------------------------
, (v:aaa ) .
, I liUSd01 i I Iliia%vl
; ; ; ; AcV1I:J75
' WItI1336 tl36V6S3NO1S IIVNS-MOOd I i9 39vd3.3S-Jy3nlS ;
,
ir3d l)
13nva9 '1IIJuNVI
A~71INvS
; 3ldVd02id 1 S 10 39dd335-383AJS ~
---------------------------------------------T ------------TT
S'0?2iY
. ~ QNVS 'vOQ9Vl ,
39ti
, 318v80dd I SI 39a-J33S-3d3A3S 1
r------------ rr ---------------------------------------------7-T
,
S0l3ij ,
, i l1I~aV0a I: ~ ~+OI1d2iGSay ;
A r:dl 0 111
0009 A11I-1 =uJa-3--~A3S : ~
-------------------1dIy~1VW NOT13~tlI~N03-----------------------------------------S~IlIl137~ Ad71'.'~rS-----------------•-
,31Vd3QOWt-9--;--------_--7 --------r--09<-r--------~--_--~-------_--------s--0;9C-~-------~--------------
1--- ?'vOV_--
, ~~~Ft3v ~ ~ tVI)i (NI)1--------T (N~1-=--------~ (NT):----------------T--(l~) ~ SH1NC;9
, l30d~ :dil)SlC1017'IINItSS3tJJaVH: -l1d37.'»3N7yYH:H1d300 SHINJN: 0 NIN : Hld3Q I
-
, H~oaff 13----: rudd a3IN~w3~-: 3181f1 a31vn H9TH----; 9 n,ia
---------------------------------------r---------~----------r--------~--------------~----------~----------~-----~-----
,
f 1 0 i ~ ' ~
-------r--------
, , . ;Oi•: NOl 3 - i B•L-9091 50•0-£0•0 t OZC I
, ; iST': I101 i - 0 8'L-9'9t ZT'0-6010 : 013-900 : - :~T-Gitah-S:
-
I £ " 'Lt•t Ol ' - ! 8•L-909: ST'0-ZT'0 I 60Z-900 I
~:,1 A; ~-Z t -
~I3d3vo3;--i~~I~-;-~I3df-3d~o~~ST'I-T-A-~~aTInt~Iod------------ T--7Hd3-i---- 7gIiNT3---
~ i 2i311VN140083199613791 113MS :(N3/50HNrf)iN0I1Jtl3liiAlI3Vdtl3 b31VM. AIIIIn ~ AtI5r.3C: ~(1Jol~ %
,
; AIIAIS78803 :JINV9801 ONIRtNOIS0831 -HNIMHS iAlINIIYS i lIOS i 3l8tllItlAd : -v3wa3a OHl~S 1SI~n0 A7~77~~1d~
------r -------r s-----_-------------
~
, uN i - S Oc-JT Oh-OZ SS-Si 09-Ob10£-OTI t-VS ~197 lS-A69-Sj3I-Atl9-8S:u-9--
~ ]-jNi ;:-3Z : 6b-7T 39--=! OL-ob iL-Sbi;j-0 i b-V •I-tl 67.-Ili r+3 •p9~ 1-d9 •l-Aa7 ~1S-AM9ibb-~
;-dN: 0Z-OZ 1 OS-Ob 09-09 OL-Sy 08-09t0I-0 S i-Vi A) •WS'. l-y9 s t_G
.-x?3vT;----------ooi-;--ob--;-7{--F---~__TZi3di: T -
:AlIJIlt lIWII i=ON '~A~TS J~NrSS{1~ r~ N11r11 lNI £<1 OlHStl7 l 03IA 1Nfl I 38(llx~l 7JSn ~ t•NI1
'-Shcdt alllOIli SS3l lVI831YW J0 1N332l3df13Y2lJt • 1 = ~-Ild I
7lT1933592-lT69-alr;rM
;
--------------------------------------s~~'►?3AT-3~'or'W~fl~~~f~'~A6~-~~aab3-~WVbi Aii3naa~-xa3n-.vnoa~J-ro-aniv'~3iHi a~HS~:i
bT llOSdfIS NY01 All3AV89 NR02l8 d'HOIHl •NI S[ 't1~M'f~Y1J►Aj' M/17' A'srA%i'~j NMOaB HSIAdM9 Ae1W0 V 3AdH SlIOS 3S3Ht 4A11v7IdAl
'SAdO OLT 01 OZT $I SAA tA OS O1'L4 SI 11l1IW tS3H.3NI SZ Ol 81 SI dYM 'S33a1 J0 SONV1S 03a311v:)S QNV SSVa!~ ti'tKIoh
%3I1Y1393A •SXV3218 30Vbe31 d331S A131Vb300W Ol d331S 0N11 'S33Y!la31 9NIdOlS A11N39 Ol 13A31 NJ SS301 JVV HSV OINV7lQA
Ji 3'I1Nd,4 v NlIH H5dN1f10 IdI3b-19 NI 03NM0A SlIOS 03NIVa0 A13AISS33X3 1tlHA3WOS d330 Ad3A J0 S13ISNOJ S3I833 rvosiaave
S3dOlS 1N33a3d S Ol 06NVOI A113A11a9 NOSIbMtlJ +169
3 a 0 7 3 a S N 0 I 1 V l 38 d a 3 1 N I l I 0 S 14
Y a - 7 .
N019NIHStlf1 4A1Nf10J 3NtlHOdS
- w
•83iVn qNnUd~) J0 NQI1nZlOd 3Sntio AdW 311'd A1III8V~Wa3d 3AISS33X3 .
S31QM1DUJ
*81 AWV01 31I5 30N".a
-----______---;--------------r-----____-----~-
f
, ---------------°---____-------------_______-___-_----__.._w--__._.----
~ a , R ~ 4a5I ~ 'a'tl'73A 31~3qapAtl~N~E ~
0412 ~ SdV3A IVW80N i
~ i sav3A 31eVa0ntlA ,
~
:(1A A80 *3Vf•Sgl) Nocianaoad lvIlN310d ;
- - -------_..._......__f -__..._____r____-----------------------------
,
i
E
JArSd t SSd4A IVINIV3d3d 213H1C;:
9 7 +sISOd ; 3SO a;
5 ~ Nidfll ~ 3Nldfll;
S ~ JS3A : 3no5jj Ntifloa;
5 ~ aO0)l l S3tt~103fVflf' IIt1I'D8d:
OT ; ltiAS : Atla3GI10NS N04WOO:
Ai ~ 3A37 ~ SfIHiUNtd3) N5i1b9M0NSt
~I ~ d5J7 ; SS'vtl:lltl31A!5 HJPJflti3fli6:
Qh 1. .0I31 t ]f13S3J3Hb0I;
- T T-TNdlIN)
,
10~wAs ~ ~wVN iNvI3 NOw.it-.1 ,
-
{loi`J '1 AdOf NO ISDciW03 39tl~N~3ii d ~ 1fJbId ~
-----------------------Erao~'I~I~~'3n~i~~ol~
7 i___:_-__--------------------------------------__
~
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 i a i
t i I I I i
~ - ;a~i~d •A~ aIVj ; ~I~~ :aQOd •A~ a4od ~ ai7-i t aiv=l r aivA ; t700O _ 41v.A 11 81dA ~ t
7 C7~~7ti'lc:OVC~l3h3 Ol[J00R: QlN3d0.N1L1llaNS.'L7N7113Mi aSf121HSt d3JIN031. f7MOtlVH.' 0']IM :2 55Vd~)1'8 NIVtiJ; i
-----------------a`____---------
----~____-------------zITlT97TTFi~'I947'96A--J37'1IIlTR --------___________________r__..----________
~ ~ i ~
1Sna)l Aa'OltliZl= 3NId HO1OaS:tZ: 3Nid V50a30N0d:9t` 3NId tavi)jtSnai ~
:3T: N'13 4VIa38I5;9[: HSV hi33801iL: 3AI10-N7ISSflti:ii; 2i3dINnf` '1W AAJOd: ~
,
t t: 9ne-15b3a VVI83nIS: L.: DVIIIll 91, avWf1S HSf18ANf1ASt 903"1AofISA3NflFi NVddnlVll
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~1H0 a ~3~ i1H` S~ d 71Hf S~~J~d'~`------IIHT -------S~I53d5--- - ! '
------___--------__--------------__----------~,5 H'73dQ0NTX
41 1
~ ~ 1 f 1 1 . i 1
I t 1. i Z I d i i ~ t
Y ~ ~ i F 1 1 ~ 1
1 9 /
10
~~ufd d50~~flNDd; i~T. ~NId V3OdAJNOd,3iva30oua; 1H9I15 :31tib30Uwt3ltia30o~1; l~i:~IIS r C76t
-
; IxJNI~ ~'13d1~4O 7 C1~ItlZVH ~=A~12i0F~ k lIrII~ ~
~ lNdlc 01 S33a1 ~ 31IS3 533M1 NQKWO3 i 1N111d I'H1G1NI11 iONIl033S; '-dIfl03 ;MQISOH3 S riAS
; :_____..-____~.~°w3~~v`ad"`irv3~~~3vrud;a_""~`--_---_
~
~ -
Y s Z ~ i 1 1 ` ~ 1 1 1 i 1 Y i t " ~
,
; oatp az 3 ; 5•z I a•ti ; o•t : : az : 09 1 ac : 03 : aE : 3i ~ ; .
,
(ne) iwnviI
f AVH 3Wf19311 1 SNIadS I 831NIl1 ~ l.lI"II8
:0335 •SSn831 51a0 0 3an15tld I -ssraO I A31819 i GLd3NM i 61q3Hn Y -tldV7 ~
~
-----------------------~~~~Ii~~~N~W
,
; I s1Yra~ tt ; ~
~ i QHM t! :Sq3dv OitaDid;
i - , I SHlyd II
~ A1Sf10-3l.'I~t3U0N i 11 - AlSf1Q-31Yb300H ~
_ T,ra _ ____.._-______-__..r---..~_.~.__.~yw___ 4
z i saNno0Avldi t ; sv38v dKVo ;
l ----S3NOLS 1'i114iS-3a3A3S I 11 AiSC10-31va3aOW
_ , i'R3►~"J~fi~~~1"i~PRZfTI~~~3~'a
Fs-~ . , ,
S3S-1f0tf1 ' S3dQlS 1N33M3d S Ol p+Wa Ol A113hvb5 NJSIHciVO ,59
,
.
~
HANSON P. O. Box 7310 ■ Spokane. Washington 99207 ■ U.S A. ■ (509) 467-0770 ■ Teiex 326474
RAHCO. Inc.
RAHC.O Disc., Inc.
R. A. Hanson Co., Inc.
Hanson Properties, Inc.
R. A. Hanson Mining Lo.
June 21, 1985
T0: R Li n dy ~IUir, i;i; l`~ Tv:
Randy Hammond Ron Hart
Jack Christofferson Doug Adams
Dick Simpson Steve Horo':,-~~,~::k ~
&oPlm Mosher
FROM: I'ii ke Teramoto Bob McCann
Dua i ne Rasiliussen
RE: Sullivan Park Center Tom Mulkey
Application and SEIS Process Raymond Hanson
PE-1504-85 Frank Carr
ZE-180-78 Rex Smart
In accordance with 6JAC 197-11-455 and under the administration of the
Spokane County Planning Department, the DSEIS was officially issued on
this date, June 21, 1985.
Accordingly the Projected Schedule outlined in memo dated Mdy 28, 1985
should be amended to reflect only the following:
Comment Period Ends (30 days) July 23, 1985
WAC 197-11-455(6)
Comment Period Extension (15 days) August 7, 1985
(Decision by Spokane County Planning Dept.)
WAC 197-11-455(7)
Unless directed otherwise by the Spokane County Planning Department.
the balance of the Schedule of Events and Tarcet Dates outlined
memo of 5/28/85 will remain the same.
Thank you.
-
~
*IPA I
.
• A//
k~it hi'/' i dy 07'
,
~~~r.~~~ • ~ ~ .
, -
Q U
C6S~s
- 44o(~r) t~%s s~J ~c
r - ~
r -f ~'ft
,6J r~~ dA ~
~ 464e'i-A&
~ ' ,~•.,f~~ i~-~CSS ~~ayt-G.
~~Aw
~►J~ rt~ ~.zi~ P.•~~
~z S ' G,~~- ~
vxl~f' sr7~o~'w -
` /
~ A
(17,5,01) r jlvA ~~~-v zevt.
~
~ ~ •1/~' 1 ~
!
/
~ •
~ T .
. ~ ~ ~I'r I i~
~
+
0- x
i
i
M44)
10~
4"55
i
w
, i~~~' ✓
, ~,~~zr ~v S Sfir~
- r.4-y"
. ~ dotz co w" o rc
wd"*Vkw
~ce~~kt
,
~
.
~ aw
,
.
~
. ~ ~
~
.
~ r
i~1`v~, v~ ~A~i~~G~'~► w7~
I
~
I
w • ~L~r/
r
~0 #
r
~
~
t
~
.
dOP
. - ~
. ~
.
A.w
oi.4 -oor owk
~r-rors
.0-n®r ~ w
~ .
5?l y`~''~ G'u~'
,e=r-~1
707 z
-
_ c
.
jrrr1'~
a.O
r ~06~
r
~ r s
i
A '
/ Z
y~/~ ~~~''t/"' •IY~~~'W✓
/~~~I I _ •
~
~`~~~~'~`I~~~►G.~i•~
.
~ . .
• ~~4
ILOOO,
_
C~ .
. ~
C
~ 704
~
. 1Q4 r / j 0 voie ` -T &7/
~
zc
"
e3
~
~
.f l c3
~ .
r►,Oot )Ot
~
~
. ~
.
• J,
- " ~
a~-
as~ ,
~
~
/
.
f '
HANSON ? P, O. Box 7310 ■ Spokane, Washington 99207 ■ U.S.A. ■ (509) 467-0770 ■ Telex 326474
~
RAHCU. Inc.
RAHCO Disc., Inc.
R. A. Hanson Co., Inc.
Hanson Properties, lnc.
R. A. Hanson Mining Co. D@ C EITIb @ r 11, 1984
R E C E I V E
Thoma s G. Mo sher , A. I. C. P. p E C 12 1984
Long Range Planning Administrator
Spokane County Planning Department SPOKANE COUNTY
Vorth 721 Jefferson Street PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Spokane, Washington 99260
Re : SEPA/EIS Administrative
Agreement
Dear Tom:
Transmitted herewith are the original and one copy of the Spokane County
SEPA/EIS Administrative Agreement which has been tailored slightly to
apply specifically to the proposed project (ZE-180-78) and further which
have been duly signed by the "Consultant" and the "Applicant". Also
enclosed is a check payable to the Spokane County Treasurer in the amount
of $750.00.
After execution by the Director of the Spokane County Planning Depart-
ment and endorsement by the County Commissioners, we would appreciate
your forwarding a fully executed copy of the agreement to my attention.
Thank you zor the professional guidance you have been graciously providing
our consultants. We look forward to working with you throughout this
endeavor.
Should you desire further i-Lztormation or have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call me.
Again, thanks.
Sincerely,
HANSON PROPERT ES, INC.
i ,
G
--iri~~e amo t o
~
MT:cls ~
cc: Jack Christofferson
Wilsey & Ham, Inc.
\ ,HAN5ON,, P O Box 7310 ■ Spokane, Washfngton 99207 ■ U S.A ■ (509) 467-0770 ■ Telex 326474
,
I;Af fcV, In;
tt.aHCO Dis(. In,
IN A. Hanson Co.. It<<
Fi,>>ison Properties. Int
Il A !{anson Minin_y Cn.
DATE: June 21, 1985
T0: Spokane County Planning Departinent
SUBJECT: Sullivan Park Center DSEIS
PE-1504-85
ZE-180-78
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 197-11-455 WAC (State
Environmental Policy Act Rules) and Chapter 11.10 Spokane County
Code (Spokane Environmental Ordinance), the Lead Agency, Spokane
~County Planning Department, and its responsible off_icial are
administering the issuance of the DSEIS and accordingly have
directed that the enclosed twenty (20) copies of the DSEIS be
transmitted to your office via hand-delivery.
RE-OtkU
v
~
' N
~ ~ec
vb~nn
i
~
J
. a
~
FIGE NO.: PE-1504-85
ZE-180-
~I
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION E E V E
J U N 2 1
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
~ sraKANE camr
COUNTY oF SPOKANE ) PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I, Catherine L. Smith, Being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and
says:
That I am a citizen of the United States of Ainerica and a
resident of the State of Washington, and over the age of eighteen
years.
That pursuant to instructions provided by the SEPA Lead
Agency, Spokane County Planning Department in its administrative
capacity and in direct compliance with the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act and Rules (Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter
197-11 WAC) and the Spokane Environmental Ordinance (Chapter 11.10
Spokane County Code), on the 21st day of June, 1985, I personally
accompanied and witnessed the deposit, in the United States Mail
at the USPS Hays Park Station, Spokane, Washington, 99207, with
sufficient first class postage prepaid, of true and correct copies
of the DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for
Sullivan Park Center (file numbers noted hereinabove). Said
mailings were individually addressed to each and every agency and
entity listed on the Distribution and Address List, which directly
corresponds to the DSEIS Distribution List, and further which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, excepting
therefrom the Spokane County Departments and Agencies, indicated
by asterisk, which copies were hand-delivered on this date by
Michael T. Teramoto to the Spokane County Planning Department for
intra-county distribution.
DATED this 21st day of June, 1985.
~
Subscribed and sworn to me this
,;2l`{~' day of June, 1985.
A
otary ubl ic in and 6r Spokane
Count . Washin9ton, Jesiding at
Spokane, Washington.
~
7
DISTRIBUTION AND ADDRESS LIST
STATE ENVIRONMENTAG PROTECTION ACT
SPOKANE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CODE
SULLIVAN PARK CENTER
SUPPLEMENTAG ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PE-1504-85
ZE-180-78
UNITED STATES FEDERAL
1. U.S. Dept. of Transportation 2. U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration
Regional Administrator, Region X District Administrator
412 Mohawk Bldg, 222 SW Morrison 711 South Capitol Way, Suite 501
Portland, Oregon 97204 Olympia, Washington 98501
3. U.S. Environ. Pzotection Agency 4. U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Regional Administrator, Region X U.S. Department of Agriculture
1200 Sixth Avenue Federal Building
Seattle, Washington 98101 Spokane, Washington 99201
5. U.S. Postal Service
Administrative Of f ices
E. 703 Trent
Spokane, Washington 99202
WASHINGTON STATE
6. WA State Dept, of Ecology 7. WA State Dept, of Ecology
Environmental Review Section North 4601 Monroe Street
Mail Stop PV-11 Suite 100
Olympia, Washington 98504 Spokane, Washington 99205-1295
(2 copies)
8. WA State Dept. of Fisheries 9. WA State Dept. of Fisheries
115 Gen. Administration Bldg. Regional Office
Olympia, Washington 98504 N. 8702 Division
Spokane, Washington 99218
10. WA State Dept, of Game 11. WA State Dept. of Game ;
Environ. Affairs Program Regional Office
Habitat Management Division N. 8702 Division
600 N. Capitol Way Spokane, Washington 99218
Olympia, Washington 98504
12. WA State Dept. of Game 13. WA St. Dept. of Natural Resources
Nongame Prograni c/o Environmental Coordinator
3109 Seminar Bldg.(SE3109) Mail Stop EX-11
Evergreen State College Olympia, Washington 98504
Olympia, Washington 98505
14. WA State Dept. of Natural Res. 15. WA State Social & Health Services
Northeast Regional Office Water Supply and Waste Section
Area Headquarters Mail Stop LD-11
P.O. Box 190 Olympia, Washington 98504
Colville, Washin,':
16. WA State oc.~in1 - i;d 1.~' `-t-~L_ ~t_pL~_ o~ , ra~~s•~orA- ~ ic rl I
Dept. S ~ w~ ~ ~ ~ L . L
Health Services Highway Administration Bldg.
Regional Office Olympia, Washington 98504
W. 924 Sinto/L-32/4
Spokane, Washington 99201
18. WA St.Dept. of Transportation 19. WA State Energy Office
N. 2714 Mayfair 400 E. Union First Floor
Spokane, Washington 99207 Olympia, Washington 98504
20. WA St. Archaeology & Hist. 21. WA State Office of Financial I
Preservation Management ~
111 West 21st Avenue 101 House Office Building I
Olympia, Washington 98504 Olympia, Washington 98504
22. WA State Office of Governor 23. WA St. Commerce and Econ.
ATTN: Environmental Affairs Development
Legislative Building 101 Gen. Adm. Bldg. AX-13
Olyctipia, Washington 98504 Olympia, Washington 98504
24. Dept. of Community Development 25. WA State Utilities and
9th N. Columbia Building Transportation Comm.
MS/GH51 Attn: Environmental Planning
Olympia, Washington 98504 1B-7
Highway Administration Bldg.
Olympia, Washington 98504
REGIONAL
26. Spokane Regional Council
4th Floor City Hall
W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, WA. 99201-3333
(2 copies)
SPOKANE COUNTY
27.* Spokane County 28.* Spokane County
Air Pollution Control Boundary Review Board
Authority Attn: Environmental Review
Attn: Fred Gray, Director
29.* Spokane Board of County 30.* Spokane County Engineer's
Commissioners Office
Spokane County Courthouse Attn: Bob Turner
(3 copies) (3 copies)
~
31. *Spokane County Health District 32. *Spokane County Parks & Rec.
Attn: Dennis Kroll Attn: Sam Angrove
(2 copies)
33. *Spokane County Chief Civil 34. Spokane County Public Library
Deputy E. 12004 Main Avenue
Attn: Jim Emacio Spokane, Washington 99206
Civil Division (2 copies)
(2 copies)
35. *Spokane County Sheriff's 36. Spokane County Conservation Dist.
Office Attn: Jud Melton, Dist. Conserv.
Attn: Larry Erickson Agricultural Center Building
N. 222 Havana
Spokane, Washington 99206
37. *Spokane County Planning Dept. 38. *Spokane County 1208' Study
(20 copies) c/o Spokane County Engineers
39. *Spokane County Utility Dept. 40. *Hearing Examiner Committee
Attn: Bill Dobratz c/o County Planning Dept.
(4 copies)
41. Fire District #1 42. Central Valley School Dist.#356
E. 10319 Sprague S. 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206 Spokane, Washington 99206
43. E. Valley School Dist, #361
N. 3415 Pines Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
CITY OF SPOKANE
44. Office of the Mayor 45. Planning Manager, City of Spokane
W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd. 4th Floor, City Hall
Spokane, WA 99201-3333 W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, WA 99201-3333
46. Spokane City Public Library 47. Spokane City Public Works Dept.
Main Branch, W. 906 Main W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, Washington 99201 Spokane, Washington 99201-3333
48. Spokane City Planning Dept. 49. Spokane City Zoning, Subdivision
4th Floor, City Hall and Environmental Section
W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd. W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, WA 99201-3333 Spokane, WA 99201-3333
50. Spokane City Manager 51. Spokane Transit System
W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd. W. 1229 Boone
Spokane, WA 99201-3333 Spokane, Washington 99201
. ~
NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES 52. Town of Millwood 53. City of Coeur d'Alene
E. 9103 Frederick Office of the Mayor
Millwood, Washington 99206 City Hall
8th & Mullan Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814
54. City of Post Falls 55. Kootenai County
Office of the Mayor Board of County Commissioners
408 Spokane 501 Government Way
Post Falls, Idaho 83854 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814
UTILITIES
56. Consolidated Irrig. Dist. #19 57. Inland Power and Light
N. 120 Greenacres Road Main Office Attn: Doug Leonetti
Greenacres, WA 99016 E. 320 - 2nd
Spokane, Washington 99202
58, Bonneville Power Administration 59. Washington Water Power
W. 920 Riverside, Room 600 P.O. Box 3727
U.S. Courthouse Spokane, Washington 99220
Spokane, Washington 99201
60. Pacific NW Bell 61. Valley Garbaqe Service
Attn: Environmental Review E. 11700 First Street
N. 124 Wall Spokane, Washington 99206
Spokane, Washington 99201
MEDIA
62. Spokane Daily Chronicle 63. The Spokesman Review
Attn: Spokane Ct. Gov't Attn: Spokane County Govt.
Reporter Reporter
W. 925 Riverside W. 925 Riverside
Spokane, Washington 99201 Spokane, Washington 99201
64. KHQ News 65. KXLY News
S. 4202 Regal W. 500 Boone
Spokane, Washington 99203 Spokane, Washington 99203
66. KREM News 67. RPBX News
S. 4103 Regal N. 2319 Monroe
P.O. Box 8037 Spokane, Washington 99205
Spokane, Washington 99203
68. The Valley Herald
E. 9618 First Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99206
~
OTHERS
69. Audubon Society 70. Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce
Attn: Mr. Morey Haggin E. 10303 Sprague
N. 15418 Little Spokane Dr. Spokane, Washington 99206
Spokane, Washington 99208 I
71. Spokane Area Chamber of Comm. 72. Spokane Area Development Council
W. 1020 Riverside W. 1020 Riverside
Spokane, Washington 99201 Spokane, Washington 99201
73. Council for Land Care & 74. Burlington Northern Railroad
Planning Attn: Jack Chervernell
Spokane City and County Seattle Depot
Rt. 1, Box 20A 303 King Street Station
Mead, Washington 99021 Seattle, Washington 98104
75. Burlington Northern Railroad 76. Hanson Properties, Inc.
Attn: Walter Farrell P.O. Box 7310
North 9507 Division Spokane, Washington 99207 I
Spokane, Washington 99218
1
~
. •
/
~ IJ
_ 1 HANSON . . . . . . , . ~ . s . - - . - , _ .
RAHCO
R. A. Hansun Cu., Inc
Fhnson Prnperties. Inc
~ 0 Vi- R
C
!_ETTED
DATE: June 21, 1985
TO : Spokane Coun ty- P lanning Depar tinen t
SUBJECT: Sullivan Park Center nSEIS I
PE-1504-85
ZE-180-78
In accordance with the provisions of rhapter 197-11-455 WAC (State
Environmental Policy Act Rules) and Chapter 11.10 Spokane County
Code (Spokane Environmental Ordinance), the Lead Agency, SpokanC,
'County Planning De?artm?nt, and its resnonsible official are
administering the issuance of the DSEIS and accordingly have
dirPCted that the enclosed twenty (20) copies of the DSEIS bF,
transmitted to your office via hand-delivery.
. • • •
' I
HANSON P O Box ;310 ■ SDOkane. :,'~ashinaton 49207 ■ U S A ■ (509)467-0770 ■ Telex326474
1
~
R:aHC;U. Inc.
KAHCO Gisc., Inc.
K A. Hanson Co.. Inc.
Eianson Properties. Inr.
K A. Hanson Mii,iny co S A M P L E C O V E R L E T T E R
DATE: June 21, 1985
T0: Washington State Department of Ecology
Eiivironmental Review Section
SUBJECT: Sullivan Park Center DSEIS
PE-1504-85
77-180-?8
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 197-11-455 WAC (State
Environmental Policy Act Rules) and Chapter 11.10 Spokane County Co:':,-
(Spokane Environmental Ordinance), the Lead Agency, Spokane Count~"
Planning Department, and its responsible official are administering
the issuance of the DSEIS and accordingly have directed that the
enclosed 2 copies of the DSEIS be transmitted to your office via first
class mail.
I
I
~
! I'
,
~ L
. '
'
. ~ ~s . .
r ti
~
.
~
~
,
,
i
.
~ r -
~
~ • ,
. ~
'
l
~
~
.
~
.
~
gamo
~
XC r [
. ~
444.,
- S ~,e-~ ~ ~r~~ -
7v
/ ~
.
r ~
3
. ~
.
~
► ~
•
.
Cm ~
-row
s o~
~
I
~ L
,
~ •
1
r-
l ~~~noj FILE NO.: PE-1504-85
ZE-180-78 I
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
I, Catherine L. Smith, Being first duly sworn on oath, deposes
and says:
That I am a citizen of the United States of America and a
resident of the State of Washington, and over the age of
eighteen years.
That pursuant to instructions provided by the SEPA Lead
Agency, Spokane County Planning Department in its administrative
capacity and in direct compliance with the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act and Rules (Chapter 43.21C RCW and
Chapter 197-11 WAC) and the Spokane Environmental Ordinance
(Chapter 11.10 Spokane County Code), on the 20th day of
September 1985, I personally accompanied and witnessed the
deposit, in the United States Mail at the USPS Hays Park
Station, Spokane, Washington, 99207, with sufficient first class
postage prepaid, of true and correct copies of the ADDENDUM TO
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for Sullivan
Park Center (file numbers noted hereinabove). Said mailings
were individually addressed to each and every agency and entity
listed on the Distribution and Address List, which directly
corresponds to FSEIS Distribution List, and further which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, excepting
therefrom the Spokane County Departments and Agencies, indicated
by asterisk, which copies were hand-delivered on September 19,
1985 by Michael T. Teramoto to the Spokane County Planning
Department for intra-county distribution.
DATED this 20th day of September, 1985.
. ~
~
Subscribed and sworn to me this
-day of September, 1985.
otar Pu ic in a d for Spokane
Coun , Washingto , residing at
Spokane, Washington.
, DISTRIBUTION AND ADDRESS LIST
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POGICY ACT
SPOKANE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CODE
SULLIVAN PARK CENTER
FINAG SUPPGEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PE-1504-85
ZE-180-78
UNITED STATES FEDERAL
1. U.S. Dept. of Transportation 2. U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration
Regional Administrator, Region X District Administrator
412 Mohawk Bldg, 222 SW Morrison 711 South Capitol Way, Suite 501
Portland, Oregon 97204 Olympia, Washington 98501
3. U.S. Environ. Protection Agency 4. U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Regional Administrator, Region X U.S. Department of Agriculture
1200 Sixth Avenue Federal Building
Seattle, Washington 98101 Spokane, Washington 99201
5. U.S. Postal Service
Administrative Offices
E. 703 Trent
Spokane, Washington 99202
WASHINGTON STATE
6. WA State Dept. of Ecology 7. WA State Dept. of Ecology
Environmental Review Section North 4601 Monroe Street
Mail Stop PV-11 Suite 100
Olympia, Washington 98504 Spokane, Washington 99205-1295
(2 copies)
8. WA State Dept. of Fisheries 9. WA State Dept. of Fisheries
115 Gen. Administration Bldg. Regional Office
Olympia, Washington 98504 N. 8702 Division
Spokane, Washington 99218
10. WA State Dept. of Game 11. WA State Dept. of Gam e
Environ. Affairs Program Regional Office
Habitat Management Division N. 8702 Division
600 N. Capitol Way Spokane, Washington 99218
Olympia, Washington 98504
12. WA State Dept. of Game 13. WA St. Dept. of Natural Resources
Nongame Program c/o Environmental Coordinator
3109 Seminar Bldg.(SE3109) Mail Stop EX-11
Evergreen State College Olympia, Washington 98504
Olympia, Washington 98505
- - - - - - ~
.
14. WA State Dept. of Natural Res. 15. WA State Social & Health Services
Northeast Regional Office Water Supply and Waste Section
Area Headquarters Mail Stop LD-11
P.O. Box 190 Olympia, Washington 98504
Colville, Washington 99111
16. WA State Dept. Social and 17. WA State Dept. of Transportation
Health Services Highway Administration Bldg.
Regional Office Olympia, Washington 98504
W. 924 Sinto/L-32/4
Spokane, Washington 99201
18. WA St.Dept. of Transportation 19. WA State Energy Office
N. 2714 Mayfair 400 E. Union - First Floor
Spokane, Washington 99207 Olympia, Washington 98504
20. WA St. Archaeology & Hist. 21. WA State Office of Financial
Preservation Management
111 West 21st Avenue 101 House Office Building
Olympia, Washington 98504 Olympia, Washington 98504
22. WA State Office of Governor 23. WA St. Dept. of Commerce and Econ.
ATTN: Environmental Affairs Development
Legislative Building 101 Gen. Adm. Bldg. AX-13
Olympia, Washington 98504 Olympia, Washington 98504
24. Dept. of Community Development 25. WA State Utilities and
9th N. Columbia Building Transportation Comm.
MS/GH51 Attn: Environmental Planning
Olympia, Washington 98504 1B-7
Highway Administration Bldg.
Olympia, Washington 98504
REGIONAL
26. Spokane Regional Council
4th Floor City Hall
W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, WA. 99201-3333
(2 copies)
SPOKANE COUNTY
27.* Spokane County 28.* Spokane County
Air Pollution Control Boundary Review Board
Authority Attn: Environmental Review
Attn: Fred Gray, Director
29.* Spokane Board of County 30.* Spokane County Engineer's
Commissioners Office
Spokane County Courthouse Attn: Bob Turner
(3 copies) (3 copies)
31.* Spokane County Health District 32.* Spokane County Parks & Rec.
Attn: Dennis Krol1 Attn: Sam Anqove
(2 copies)
33.* Spokane County Chief Civil 34. Spokane County Public Librarv
Deputy E. 12004 Main Avenue
Attn: Jim Emacio Spokane, Washington 99206
Civil Division (2 copies)
(2 copies)
35.* Spokane County Sheriff's 36. Spokane County Conservation Dist.
Office Attn: Jud Melton, Dist. Conserv.
Attn: Larry Erickson Agricultural Center Building
N. 222 Havana
Spokane, Washington 99206
37.* Spokane County Planning Dept. 38.* Spokane County 1208' Study
(20 copies) c/o Spokane County Engineers
39.* Spokane County Utility Dept. 40.* Hearing Examiner Committee
Attn: Bill Dobratz c/o County Planninq Dept.
(4 copies ` I
41. Fire District #1 42. Central Valley School llist.#351,
E. 10319 Sprague S. 123 Bowdish Road
Spokane, Washington 99206 Spokane, Washington 99206
43. E. Valley School Dist. #361
N. 3415 Pines Road
Spokane, jJashington 9921' -
CITY OF SPOKAi1E
44. Office of the Mayor 45. Planning Manager, City of Spokane
W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd. 4th Floor, City Hall
Spokane, WA 99201-3333 W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokaiie, WA 99201-3333 I
46. Spokane City Public Library 47. Spokane City Puhlic Works Dept.
Main Branch, W. 906 Main W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, Washington 99201 Spokane, Washin,=:, -
48. Spokane City Planning Dept. 49. Spokane City Zor;ing,
4th Floor, City Hall and Environmental Section
W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd. W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd..
Spokane, WA 99201-3333 Spokane, WA 99201-3333
50. Spokane City Manager 51. Spokane Transit Systen~
W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd. W. 1229 Boone
Spokane, WA 99201-3333 Spokane, Washinaton 9'~'Z2(;
~
NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES
52. Town of Millwood 53. City of Coeur d'Alene
E. 9103 Frederick Office of the Mayor
Millwood, Washington 99206 City Hall
8th & Mullan Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814
54. City of Post Falls 55. Kootenai County
Office of the Mayor Board of County Commissioners
408 Spokane 501 Government Way
Post Falls, Idaho 83854 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814
UTILITIES
56. Consolidated Irrig. Dist. #19 57. Inland Power and Light
N. 120 Greenacres Road Main Office Attn: Doug Leonetti
Greenacres, WA 99016 E. 320 - 2nd
Spokane, Washington 99202
58. Bonneville Power Administration 59. Washington Water Power
W. 920 Riverside, Room 600 P.O. Box 3727
U.S. Courthouse Spokane, Washington 99220
Spokane, Washington 99201
60. Pacific NW Bell 61. Valley Garbage Service
Attn: Environmental Review E. 11700 First Street
N. 124 Wall Spokane, Washington 99206
Spokane, Washington 99201
MEDIA ~
62. Spokane Daily Chronicle 63. The Spokesman Review
Attn: Spokane County Gov't Attn: Spokane County Govt.
Reporter Reporter
W. 925 Riverside W. 925 Riverside
Spokane, Washington 99201 Spokane, Washington 99201
64. KHQ News 65. KXLY News
S. 4202 Regal W. 500 Boone
Spokane, Washington 99203 Spokane, Washington 99201
66. KREM News 67. KPBX News ~
S. 4103 Regal N. 2319 Monroe
P.O. Box 8037 Spokane, Washington 99205
Spokane, Washington 99203
68. The Valley Herald
E. 9618 First Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99206
- •
OTHERS
69. Audubon Society 70. Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce
Attn: Mr. Morey Haggin E. 10303 Sprague
N. 15418 Little Spokane Dr. Spokane, Washington 99206
Spokane, Washington 99208
71. Spokane Area Chamber of Comm. 72. Spokane Area Deve~ ~~?m-n1-
W. 1020 Riverside W. 1020 Riverside
S D O Ir a n,~, ~ ~,7a s 1 C; Q 'CO C', 9 n 2- n I Sn C Ii a*lo-,
i3. Courzeil Cor Lanc. :~are ~ 74. Burlillc; t~n ~11ort~;ern t?:io,-~~?
Planning Attn: Jack Chervernell
Spokane City and County Seattle Depot
Rt. l, Box 20A 303 King Street Station
Mead, Washington 99021 Seattle, Washington 98104
75. Burlington Northern Railroad 76. Hanson Properties, Inc.
Attn: Walter Farrell P.O. Box 7310
North 9507 Division Spokane, Washington 99207
Spokane, Washington 99218
~
~
c
~JAM ES M. FRAN K
ATT O R N CY AT LJ►W
N. 410 PINES
SPOKANE, WASH. 99206
PNOM[ 936-2140
April 13, 1981
Spokane County Planning Dept.
North 721 Jefferson
Spokane, WA 99260 ,
RE: ZE-180-78
Enclosed are copies of the Affidavit of Publication,
Notice of Action, Affidavit of Posting, Affidavit of
, Mailing, and receipt letter from the Department of Ecology
on the above referenced request for zone change.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
,
.
Jim Frank
JMF : j e s
enc.
,
Jim Frank Affidavit of Publication
Acct # 166323
Amount $ 106.01
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Spokeme.
L T rr i War r; n gt on do solemaly swear that I am the
Principal Clerk of the Daily Chronicle . Q newspaper establiahed amd regularly published, once eac~ aa,y
NOTICE OF ACTION Bv (Week)
~ in the English language, in ~d of general circulation in the
The Spokene County FNarlny ~yT)
E:amlMr Commiftee
Purswnt fo the prorislons
TICE I$fNe EBY GIVEN Aal City o! Spokane, Spokcaze Couaty, Washington; that scud aewspapez
tf+e Sookan• co„n►,, Nearlnp
Examiner Commiftee did on has been so established and regulazly published and hus had said
N►.►cn a, 1911, f,ke tfit Kt1011
destribe0 btlow general circulation continuously for more thcro six (6) months prior
.
Any actlon 1o Mt aside. .M
o+n, review, or otAerwlso ChaM to the 23rd daY of JulY, 1941; that said newspaper is printed in an of-
•"fl` +h'
prounef of non-complionciii fice maintained at its Place of Publication in the City of Spokcme,
wirh the provfsfons of chapter
43.41C RCW (Stste Environ- ~y~~yton: that said newspaper was approved and designated as a
cOm,mencedi wlth thsriy'(30) legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Wash-
°iyT~e bit ~;~';:k„, b,, "m' ington for Spokane County on the 23rd day of July, 1941, cmd that smd
Spoken@ County Heerinp Ea- ~~tt l
aminer Commfttee notlu of order has aot been revoked ~ld 18 lIl luu lOtC@ cmd effecti LiiQt tle
ro~~~Ii hereby yivfn. „a: as notice attached hereto and which is a pcrt of the proof of publication,
(1) Approved action: ZE-1W7I '
- zone rectassiflcation from A~r1rt- -
tulturN to Restrlcitd Indus was published lII SmCl II@WSQQper 2 t1ale8, the
aI
(2) PrOjRCt OtKflp}1011: 230
atre alfe tor propo std sAoDPiny publication having been made once each day
rrwll, ottlcts. Ilqht Indvsfrlal
U"S
L 14 f March A D 19 8~
lJl sucl+ .c,Iun ,ert.In.a to
property commonly known as liOm e Qy O . D.
ll
•nd/or destrlDed aa: Gtnerl
~,«.t.a nor,h of ln+e..t.,e 9d' aL 21 t March A. D. 19~.
vrlsl of Flor• Road, Z400 feet t0 ule' d~ OL
Nsf of Plnes Road snd wWA of
tAt S kant Rlver (NCtlprft 10, notice
11, I~°,,. 14 of TownshlD 2S. That said was published in the regular mzd entire issue
Ran e 44 in Spo k~ne County.
~.rtin.n 1 dxuments rt,.y of every number of the paper during the period of time of publica-
De examined durlny norrnal
County business Aovrs •t tM tion. cmd that the notice was published in the newspaper proper and
oHice or:
. a~~~~ n~ Pl•nnino not in a supplement. ~
' Loc~tion et: N.TtI Joflerfon -
~ Spokane. WA99'!i0
Phone: a56-2205
NOTICE GIVEN OY: Manson
Pro.nI.,.BY: IM. Jlm Frank, Aftor-
Spokane,
this
FIL~D Subscribed cmd sworn to before me at the City dfl
Ca
26th day of Marr}1 , 19 R1 .
Notcuy Public in and for the tate of Washing on,
Fotn, a-16 residing at Spokane, Wash.
NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 43.21C RCW, NOTICE IS
HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee
DID ON March 6, 1981 , TAKE THE ACTION DESCRIBED BELOW.
ANY ACTION TO SET ASIDE, ENJOIN, REVIEtJ, OR OTHERWISE ~
CHALLENGE SUCH ACTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 43.21C RCW (STATE ENVIRO:VMENTAL POLICY
ACT) SHA.LL BE COMMENCED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OR BE BARRED.
THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee
NOTICE OF WHICH IS HEREBY GIVEN, WAS AS FOLLOWS:
(1) APPROVED ACTION: ZE-180-78 zone reclassification from
Agricultural to Restricted Industrial
(2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 230 acre site for proposed shopping .
mall, off ices, light industrial uses
(3) SUCH ACTION PERTAINED TO PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
AND/OR DESCRIBED AS : Generally located north of Interstate 90,
west of Flora Road, 2,400 feet east of Pines Road and south of the
Spokane River (sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of Township 25, Range 44 in
(4) PERTINENT DOCLTMENTS MAY BE EXAMINED DURING NORMAL COUNTY Spokan
BUSINESS HOURS AT THE OFFICE OF: County
Spokane County Planning Department
LOCATED AT: N. 721 .Tefferson
Spokane, WA 99260
PHONE : 456-2205
NOTICE GIVEN BY: Hanson Properties, Znc.
FILED BY : NAME: Jim Frank TITLE : Attorney
,
✓ ~ . ~ ;
SIGNATURE:
~
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
~ ss
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
Jim Frank . , being first
duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:
That I am a citizen of the United States of America, and
a resi dent of the State of Washington over the age of 18 years.
That on the 16th day of March , 19 81,
I personally posted one (1) or more true copies of the hereto
attached and incorporated by reference NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE
Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee
in a conspicuous manner on the property which is the subject
of the above referenced NOTICE OF ACTION, to-wit, the following
locations:
Just north of I-90, on the west side of Sullivan
Road, facing Sullivan Road. (Between the railroad i
2, tracks and bridge)
3. -
4.
DATED this 16th day of March 19 81,
,
~
By :
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 16th day
.
of March , 1981
~ BY .
Notary Public in and for 61e State of
Washington, residing at Spoicane
,
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF jJASHINGTON )
~ ss
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
Jim Frank , being first duly
sworn on oath, deposes and says:
That I am a citizen of the United States of America
and a resident of the State of Washington over the age of 18 years.
That on the 16th day of March , 1981 ,
I personally deposited in the mail at U.S. Post Office
Opportunity Branch with sufficient postage prepaid,
a true and correct copy of the NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE
Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee ,
a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference- to the Washington State Department of Ecology and the
following recorded real property owners, as shown on the Spokane
Coumty Treasurer's records as of the day of
19 , addressed to those individuals and sent to those addresses
indicated below, to-wit :
1.
2.
3.
4.
Dated this 16th day of March , 1981 .
~
By : i+ 74'~ ,
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 16th day
of March , 19 81.
y ;
B '
Notary Public in and for tht State
of Washington, residing at Spokane
,
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
, • y : ' _ WASHINGTON Mal! scop Pv Z~,'7~.~
Dixy Lee Ray Otymp:a, bl'ashmgton 98504
Gouernor
~
ro.
FROM .
The Wash i ngton State Depa rtment of Ecol ogy headqua rters off i ce (Ol ymp i a)
has received and recorded the following "Notice of Action Taken" pursuant
to RCW 43.21C.080. This notice is now on file and available for review
upon request.
Act i ng agency : ~,~:~1 ~.,,c ( . :
TYPe of act i on ta ken .
i~ < << L ~C
,
Project.
,,1:~ f~r.~-~~. ~ t :•:l. ~ ,~c .
~ y f V,
Da t e rece i ved : 1-21,
'
~ r~
DOE file number: NAT- 1i.: ;
This letter indicates only filing of the notice of action with the Department
of Ecology. It does not i'ndicate concurrence with the format or contents of
the notice, or compliance with all provisions of RCW 43.21C.080.
tf you have any questions, please contact the Environmental Review Section,
(206)753-6892.•
ECY 010-4-50
Rev. 6/78
•
,
.
• JAM ES M. FRAN K
ATTO R N EY AT LI.W
N. 410 PINES
SPOKANE, WASH. 99206
PNONt 92e•1140
March 16, 1981
DPpartment of Ecology
Olympia,
Washington 98504
Attn: Notice of Action
RE: Zone Reclassification ZE-180-78
Spokane Mall Associates
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Action taken by
the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee for the
above referenced zone reclassification. lhis Notice of
Action will be published in the Spokane Daily Chronicle
on Mar c h 14 and Mar c h 21.
Sincerely,
Jim Frank
JMF: jes
enc. ~
_ ~
1
. .
.
F I LE NO.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS .
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
James M. Frank ~
Being first duly sworn on oath,.deposes and says: .
That I am a citizen of the United States of America
and over the age of eighteen years.
That on the ZOth day of February ~
19 81 , I personally deposited in the United States mail
at '
Opportunity Branch Post Office .
with sufficient postage prepaid, a true and correct copy
of the NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to the re-
corded real property owners and/or taxpayers, as shown on
the Spokane County Treasurer's records as of the 19th
day of 'February , 19 81 , who have been
found to own property within a four hundred (400) foot
periphery of the applicant's controlled property and did
notice adjacent property owners to the site by certified
mail. The notices were addressed to those individuals and
sent to those addresses as indicated on the attachment
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Signature of Applicaat or Agent
Subscribed and sworn to me this 20th day of
February , 19 81. ,
1
N4TARY~U ~_Xl_ IN AND OR SP(JKW COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Re at S okane Washin tonsiding p , g
~
,
a
JAM ES M. FRAN K
ATT O R N[Y AT I.AW
N. 410 PINES
SPOKANE. WASH. 99206
PNON[ 928-2I40
April 13, 1981
Spokane County Planning Dept.
North 721 Jefferson
Spokane, WA 99260
RE: ZE-180-78
Enclosed are copies of the Affidavit of Publication,
Notice of Action, Affidavit of Posting, Affidavit of
, Mailing, and receipt letter from the Department of Ecologv
on the above referenced request for zone change.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
J im Fr ank
JMF : j e s
enc.
Jim Frank Affidavit of Publication
Acct # 166323
Amount $ 106.01
STATE OF WASHINGTON ss_
County of Spokane.
j, Tp rr i W r; n g t nn do solemnly swear that I arm the
Priacipal Clerk of the Daily Chronicle , Q newspaper established cmd regularly published, once each rlav
~ NOTICE OF ACTION OY (Week)
n+. s~k.n. county Mearlnq Y~ ~ in the English language, in ~d of general circula~on in the
E:imin~r CommiHee (DQ
Pursuant to the proviaions jL
TICE ~StME EBV GIVEN hal Cl~ oi Spokane, Spok~e WUZltY• W~~OI1.' LuQt Sa1d new'Spaper
• rne Spokane co„n►r Ke.r+no
Examiner COmmltlee dftl on has been so established and reqularly published cmd has had said
March 6. 19111, t,k~ the ,ction
described Gelow. general cizculation continuously for more thcro six (6) moatbs prior
. ;
AnY sc,►on ,o ,.t .s,ee, en-
oin, rtview, ur ofherwise cAah to the 23rd dcry of 1uly, 1941; that said newspaper is printed "i cm of-
i
proundf of nontomDliancf fice maintmned at its Place of Publicatioa in the City of Sp°kane,
•"9°
wlth ihe Drovlslons of chapter
43.21C RCW (Stete Environ- Washington: that said newspaper wcs approved and designated as a
-
o'm'R,:~P~`wlth) Ihlrly shall legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Wash-
°i''T~::~~o~ °,:kH, DY ,ne ingtoa for Spokane County on the 23rd day of july, 1941, amd tLat smd
Spokan* County Hearfnp Ex- .mine. Commfnee noti« of order has aot been revoked cmd is in full force cmd effect; that e
b~~`awsI• Mraby fliven. ~s notice attached hereto amd which is a part of the pmof of pablication.
' (1) Approved &ctiOn: ZE-1W73
" tone reclsasiticatlon from Ayrl- `~e
.
. cultural to ReslrlcYeC Indutfrl- WQS published ]II SmCl newspaper 2 ~IIDeS, i++
•1
(2) Prolect descrlpflon: 130
acre slt* for proposed snoppiny publication having been made once earlk daV
nfall, olfltes, Iipht Industrtal
u"s
s„ch .c,ion ari.~ned to from thP 14 day of March A. D. 19 S 1
proparty Commonly known ss '
an0ior tlescribsd at: Generell
r,a.,.a nor,h o, ln,«.t.te 9d: ~i. 21 1 March A. A 19 81 .
west o1 Flor• Road, Z100 feet t0 l[1P dQy OI .
Ns1 of Pines Road and south of
iM S ksnt Rlver (~eCtlo+~s 10, notice
11, I~° u, 14 of TownaAlp 25. That saic4 was published in the regular cmd eatire issue
iinB:n 44 aka ` ~s<<*t.r of every number of the paper during the period of ti.me of publica-
DW t:amineC durlny normal
County Dusineu Aouri at the doa, mzd that the notice was published in the aewspaper jrOpet a1d
OfflG! 01:
,~~rt~~~ n~ P+•nning not in a supplemeat. ~
Lxaflon at! N.721 Jeffenon ~
' Spokane. WA9r2iG
a NOTICE GI~VEN OY: Msnson TG'~_
FIlEO sY: IJm
l Franlt, Attor-
ca Subscribed ~d sworn "to before me at the City Spoloame, this
26tb day of Marcla , 19 R1 _
/
Notary Public in cmd for the tate of Washing on.
lorni 0-16 residing at Spokane, Wash.
NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE
SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER COMMITTEE
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 43.21C RCW, NOTICE IS
HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee
DID ON March 6, 1981 , TAKE THE ACTION DESCRIBED BELOW.
ANY ACTION TO SET AS IDE , ENJOIN, REVIEtJ, OR OTHERIJISE
CHALLENGE SUCH ACTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 43.21C RCW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT) SHALL BE CONIlKENCED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OR BE BARRED.
THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee
NOTICE OF WHICH IS HEREBY GIVEN, WAS AS FOLLOWS:
(1) APPROVED ACTION: ZE-180-78 zone reclassification from
Agricultural to Restricted Industrial
(2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 230 acre site for proposed shoppinb
mall, offices, light industrial uses
(3) STJCH ACTION PERTAINED TO PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
AND/OR DESCRIBED AS : Generally located north of Interstate 90,
west of Flora Road, 2,400 feet east of Pines Road and south of the
Spokane River (sections 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of Township 25, Range 44 in
(4) PERTINENT DOCLTMENTS MAY BE EXAMINED DURING NORMAL COLTNTY Spokar
BUSINESS HOURS AT THE OFFICE OF : Countv
Spokane County Planning Department
LOCATED AT: N. 721 .Tefferson
Spokane, WA 99260
PHONE : 456-2205 I
NOTICE GIVEN BY : Hanson Properties, Znc.
FILED BY : NAME: Jim Frank TITLE : Attorney
✓ il~!/L--~-~ ~ . ~ ,f ~ ,
S I GNATURE. .
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
~ ss
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
Jim Frank . , being first
duly sworn on oath, deposes and says :
That I am a citizen of the United States of America, and
a resi dent of the State of Washington over the age of 18 years.
That on the 16th day of March , 19 81~
I personally posted one (1) or more true copies of the hereto
attached and incorporated by reference NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE
Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee
in a conspicuous manner on the property which is the subject
of the above referenced NOTICE OF ACTION, to-wit, the following
locations:
l. Just north of I-90, on the west side of Sullivan
Road, facing Sullivan Road. (Between the railroad
2, tracks and bridge)
3. -
4.
DATED this 16th day of March , 19 81,
~
Z1'
B y: . ~
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 16th day
of March , 1981 ,
BY : Notary Public in and for 61e State of
Washington, residing at Spokane
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF jJASHINGTON )
~ ss
)
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
Jim Frank , being first duly
sworn on oath, deposes and says:
That I am a citizen of the United States of America
an d a resident of the State of Washington over the age of 18 years.
That on the 16th day of March , 19 81 ,
I personally deposited in the mail at U.S. Post Office
Opportunity Branch with sufficient postage prepaid,
a true and correct copy of the NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE
Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee ,
a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference- to the Washington State Department of Ecology and -L-he
following recorded real property owners, as shown on the Spokane
Coumty Treasurer's records as of the day of
19 , addressed to those individuals and sent to those addresses
indicated below, to-wit:
l.
2.
3.
4.
Dated this 16th day of March , 1981 .
~
,000
By : 2i+~ ,
SUBSCRIBED an d SWORN to before me this 16th day
of March , 19 81.
B f
Y .
Notary Public in and for t4 State
of Washington, residing at Spok ane
_ ~
STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON Mail 5top PV 1; 206'753 2800
'r Dixy Lee Ray Ol;mpia. I~'ashington 9f350A
Go~ernor
i
~
T0:
.
i
FROM :
The Washington State Department of Ecology headquarters office (Olympia)
has received and recorded the following "Notice of Action Taken" pursuant
to RCW 43.21C.080. This notice is now on file and available for review
upon request.
,
Acting agency:
TYPe of act i on ta ken . ( . ; ' ~ - ' - `
~ ; , • t~-~r . ~ ~C 1~ ~I
Project. 4-~.
. i;~ ~ ~ ~t `i 3 ti ` ► F ,
i v
Da t e rece i ved :
DOE f i 1 e nt!mber : NAT-
This letter indicates only filing of the notice of action with the
of Ecology. It does not i"ndicate concurrence with the format or contents of
the notice, or compliance with all provisions of RCW 43.21C.080.
If you have any questions, please contact the Environmental Review Section,
(206) 753-6892.•
~
ECY Olo-4-50
Rev. 6/78
•
JAMES M. F'RANK
ATTO R N EY AT LI►W
N. 410 PINES
SPDKANE, WASH. 99206
PMONt 926•1140
March 16, 1981
Department of Ecology
Olympia,
Washington 98504
Attn: Notice of Action
RE: Zone Reclassificatio:~ 7E-180-78
Spc :;a;-: C'
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Action taken by
the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee for the
above referenced zone reclassification. lhis Notice of
Action will be published in t-he Spokane Daily Chronicle
on March 14 and March 21.
Sincerely,
Jim Frank
JMF : j e s
enc. -
.
. .
F I LE NO.
~
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) James M. Frank ~
Being first duly sworn on oath,-deposes and says:
That I am a citizen of the United States of America
and over the age of eighteen years.
That on the ZOth day of February ~
19 81 , I personally deposited in the United States mail
at .
Opportunity Branch Post Office .
with sufficient postage prepaid, a true and correct copy
of the NOTICE .OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to the re-
corded real property owners and/or taxpayers, as shown on
the Spokane County Treasurer's records as of the 19th
day of Februarv , 19 81 , who have been
found to own property within a four hundred (400) foot
periphery of the applicant's controlled property and did
notice adjacent property owners to the site by certified
mail. The notices were addressed to those individuals and
sent to those addresses as indicated on the attachment
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
!
<
Signature of ApplicaAt or Agent
,
Subscribed and sworn to me this 20th day of February , 19 81. ,
1
l ,
\ F . ~ ~a".Cy
NOTARY rUELI IN AND FOR SrOKA,~E COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Residing at Spokane, Washington
,
~ . ,
HANS~ P. O. Box 7310 ■ Spokane, Washington 99207 ■ U.S.A. ■ (509) 467-0770 ■ Telex 326474
,
H;1tiCO. ►t,c.
1iAHCU Uisc., lnc
R. A. Hanson Cu.. lnr
Hanson Properties, Inr
R A. Hanson Mining Co A p r i 1 10, 1986
Ec
APR 14 1g6t-'
Mr. Tom Mosher
Spokane County Planning Department caUiylY
North 721 Jefferson S~OKANE
pNNING DE.PARTM~N1
Spokane, Washington 99260 p~
Re: Sullivan Park Center
SEPA Notice of Action
Dear Tom:
The provisions of Chapter 43.21C.080 RCW have been complied with.
For your information and files, enclosed please find copies of:
l. SEPA Notice of Action
2. Affidavits of Publication
3. Title Company Certification
4. Affidavit of Mailing with Distribution List
5. Transmittal Letters to Department of Ecology and Property Owners.
Very truly yours,
HANSON PROPERTIES, INC.
Cathy th
cls
enclosures
G; ....li8Ir-) I, i3 UJi,
COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY TOOK THE ACTION DESCRIBED IN (2) BELOW
ON MARCH 25, 1986.
l. ANY ACTION TO SET ASIDE, FNJOIN, REVIEW, OR OTHERWISE CHALLENGE
SUCH ACTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF CHAPTER 43.21C RCW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT) SHALL BE
COMMENCED ON OR BEFORE MAY 3, 1986.
2. DESCRIPTION OF AGENCY ACTION: Executed the FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSION AND DECISION formalizing the BOARD'S decision of
February 18, 1986 wherein the BOARD unanimously DENIED an appeal
of the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee's decision dated
November 19, 1985, which had unanimously approved the subject
Proprosal and UPHELD said Committee's Decision of Approval;
thereby rendering Spokane County's final approval for a Site
Development Plan, a Preliminary Plat, and Zone Reclassifications
consistent with the adopted 1986 Spokane County Zoning Code for
Sullivan Park Center. Said Actions are incorporated under
Spokane County File Numbers PE-1504-85 And ZE-180-78.
3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Sullivan Park Center A Planned Mixed
Use Development which includes Regional Commercial, Community
Business, Motel, Business Park, Industrial Park and Riparian Park
Sites.
4. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: A 226 acre site situated in the Spokane
Valley, North of State Highway I-90, on both the East and West
sides of Sullivan Road and South of the Spokane River.
5. TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SEPA: Sullivan Park Center,
Draft EIS, Volumes 1 and 2(September 1980); Sullivan Park Center,
Final EIS (February 1981); Sullivan Park Center, Draft
Supplemental EIS (June 1985) and Sullivan Park Center, Final
Supplemental EIS (September 1985).
6. DOCUMENTS MAY BE EXAMINED DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS AT:
Spokane County Planning Department, Broadway Centre Building, 2nd
Floor, North 721 Jefferson Street, Spokane Washington 99260.
Phone: (509) 456-2205.
7. NAME OF APPLICANT GIVING NOTICE: Hanson Properties, Inc.
8. THIS NOTICE IS FILED BY: F. J. Dullanty Jr., Winston and Cashatt,
Attorneys for the Applicant.
WINSTON & CA TT DATE: March 25, 1986
. BY ~
F. J ULLA TY J
~ . I
Acct Affidavit of Publication
174043
•
Aat: 270.72
STATE OF WASHINGTON ss.
County of Spokane.
1, Jumdta Thuratm c!o solemnly swear that I am the
Pnncipal Clerk of the Soolmgmm Review a newspaper estabiished and
regulariy published, once each day in the Enplish language, in
NOT GET ISE GIVEN ACTIONUNDER and of peneral circulation in the City of Spokane County, WQSh•
SEPA, RCW 43.41C.0/0, THAT
THE SOARD OF COUNTY inQton; that said newspoper has been so established and regular•
COMMISSIONERS OF SPO-
~ KANE COUNTY TooK THE ly published and has had said qeneral circulation continuously ' ACTION OESCRIBED IN (4)
BELOW ON MARCN 23, 1"6.
1. ANY ACTION TO SET for more than six (6) months prior to the 23rd day ot July, 1941;
-
OROE6THE WISERECHAL- I ♦hOt said newspaper is printed in an offiCe maintained Qt i1.5
LENGE SUCH ACTION ON
THE GROUNDS OF NON- place of publication in the City ot Spokane, WQShin9tOn, IhCIf
♦
COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROYISIONS OF CHAPTER said newspaper was approved and designated as a leflal news-
4111C RCW (STATE ENVI-
RONMENTI►L POIIGY paper by ordet of the Superior Court of the State of Washington
ACT) SHALL BE COM-
MAY 3E ~ N OR BEFORE for Spokone County on the 23rd day of Jufy, 1941, and that said
Z OESCRIPTION OF AGENCY
ACTION: Exetuted the order has not been revoked and is in full force and effect; thot
CLUS ONS ANO DEC S ON the notice attached hereto and which is a part of the proof of
formalfzln the BOARD'S + .
eeds►on o~FeDrusry 1e, web ~ publication, '
whareIn fhe BOARD unanf-
mously DENIEO sn a peal
o .
of tha Spokane County ~w.r. was publlshed In sa(d newspaper tw times,
iny Examintr Commlttea'i ~
detliion dsted November 19,
19t5, whlch had unanlmoufly
•pprov&d tAe sublect Pro- the publlcat(on hoving been mode OnCe eoch tlme from the
'
posal •nd UPHELD sald ~
~7 s
ommiHN'i Decislon o( Ap- ~ 1,7t
proval; ther~by renderUp ( ddy o` M~b ~ A. D. I~,
Spokane CouMY•s 1lnal ap- ~ JZ~i
p►ovsl tor s S11e Develop- ' Am-iI, i
ment Plan, a Prelimfnary tO ` Ihe dcty of A. D. 19-
, Pta1, •nd iorte Rcclsssll{ce- !
`°"s's'°"' '""h ~
adopted 19i6 Spokanc Coun- That said notice was published in the regular and entire issue of
Yoniny Code for Suilivan R
Ca~fe~. ~.~a ~►~+~o~~ every number of the paper during the period of time of publica-
aro Intorporated under Spo- ~
IIOn, and that the notice was published in the newspaper proper
E~15-e5And2File E-1~7t~rs ♦
3. DEStRIPT10N OF PRO- and not in a supplement.
POSAL: Sulllvan Perk Con-
M► - A Pienned Mlxed Use
Oevelopment whlch Intludts
ReqionaI Commerciat, Com-
munlty Buslnets,. Motel,
9uslnoss Park, {ndustrisl ~
P.rk .ne Rlparlan P.rk
Sites Subscribe nd sworn to before me at the City of Spokane, this
.
4. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: ~ A 226 scrs slfe sltuatsd In p~
Ihe Spokene Vall~, oNorth n Do h ' day of 9_~t-
State Klyhway 1 - J 4~
the East snd West sldes of • ~
SulUven RoaC and SoWh ot { /
1ne Spokane R1ver. ~ 16~
5. TYPE
OF ENVIRONMEN- T~►~. REVI~► UNDER
SEPA: Sulllvsn Park G~nter, Notary Publicand for the Stashipqt
Drsff EIS, Volumes 1 snd 2 ~
(September t9~0); Sullivan re inq at Spokone, WQ$h.
Park C:ent*r, Flnsl EIS
(February 19t1): Sulllvan _
Park Cenfer, Dnff Supple• :
tnontsl EIS (Jun• 19lS)and
SuHlvan Park GMer, Ftnal
Supp1~rrwnfal Elf (S*pt*m-
ber 19~5).
6. DOCUMENTS AMY QE EX-
MAINED DURING REGU•
LAR BUSINESS HOURS AT:
Spokan* County Ptibnnlnq
DepaHmenf, Broadway Cen-
tr~ Bullding, 2nd Floor,
Norfh 72 1 .leHerwn Street,
Spokene Washln9 tort 99260.
Phone: (509) 456-2205.
7. NAME OF APPLICANT GIV-
ING NOTICE: Hanson Prop-
erfles, Inc.
IL THIS NOTICE IS FILED 9Y:
F. J. Dullant Jr., Wlnston
and Caahsff, Attorneys for
tAe Appllcant.
WINSTON 6 CIISHATT
DATE: Msrch 25, 1986
B,r F. J. OULLANT JR. 5RS5 ~
. , CERTIFICATION OF TITLE COMPANY
I do hereby certify that the following list of names and addresses
consisting of the attached pages represents the latest recorded
real property owners, as shown by the records of the County
Treasurer, who share a common boundary line with the property
upon which the project is proposed. Said list has bgen prepared.from
the 1 atest avai 1 abl e records bei ng "f i che" dated
and is to the best of my knowledge correct. r ~
TICOR TITLE COMPANY
,
~
6 Y . ~-I~~ C '~v C`C,_ •C~~(,,~~
J
DAT E : ~ ~ 1> ~ " ►
. I
i
FILE NO. • . PE-1504-85
ZE-180-78
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
i
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)
COUNTY OF SPOKANE
I, Catherine L. Smith, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes
and says :
That I am a citizen of the United States of America and a
resident of the State of Washington, and over the age of eighteen
years.
That pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.21C.080 RCW (State Environmental Policy Act), on the 26th day of March 1986,
I personally deposited in the United States Mail at the USPS Hays
Park Station, Spokane, Washington, 99207, with sufficient first
class postage prepaid, true and correct copies of the NOTICE OF
ACTION for Sullivan Park Center, a copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said mailings were
addressed to the Department of Ecology at Olympia, in compliance
with Chapter 43.21C.080(1)(b) RCW, and to each and every real ,
property owner sharing a common boundary with Sullivan Park I
Center, as set forth in Chapter 43.21C.080(1)(c)(i) RCW, whose ~
names and addresses were extracted from the Spokane County
Treasurer's records by Ticor Title Company and consolidated into
the Mailing List which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference.
Dated this 26th day of March, 1986.
.
.
.
Subscribed and sworn to me this
26th day of March, 1986. '
,
~ary Pu l ic in and for Spokane
County, Washington, residing>~,t~
. Spokane, Washington , .
~
I
w
MAILING LIST
NOTICE OF ACTION
17 • r r ; - , ~ r 7, r- - - -
_ . , .
i
,i
FILE N0. PE-1504-78
ZE-180-78
1. Department of Ecology
State of Washington
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
2. Real Property owners sharing a common boundary with Sullivan
Park Center:
Inland Empire Paper Company
N. 3320 Argonne Road
Spokane, Washington 99206
Estelle R. Miller
N. 1123 Flora Road
Greenacres, Washington 99016
Spokane Assembly of God
East 15618 Broadway
Veradale, Washington 99037
C. A. Dahl
N. 1215 Flora Road
Greenacres, Washington 99016
Mrs. C. A. Dahl
N. 305 Adams Road
Spokane, Washington 99216
Christopher Sevigney
N. 1229 Flora Road
Greenacres, Washington 99016
Holman & Austin
Box 71
Veradale, Washington 99037
Robert B. Austin
East 12609 - 21st
Spokane, Washington 99206
-1-
Northwest Wesleyan Church
D.O. Bacheller, Treasurer
East 16423 Broadway
Veradale, WA 99037
Duane L. Morin
East 16615 Broadway
Veradale, Washington 99037
State of Washington
Department of Transportation
North 2714 Mayfair
Spokane, Washington 99207
Kebob, Inc.
c/o Holman and Austin
Box 71
Veradale, Washington 99037
J. A. Pring, Jr.
c/o Appleway Ltd.
P.O. Box 14558
Spokane, Washington 99214
Spokane Valley Irrigation District
c/o Consolidated Irrigation District #19
North 120 Greenacres Road
Greenacres, Washington 99016
Robert D. Alcorn
Ry 2, Box 210S
Spokane, Washington 99207
Levi E. Postlewait
East 11508 Montgomery
Spokane, Washington 99206
James G. Pierce
Box 13274
Spokane, Washington 99213
Leo Kauppila*
East 13214 Indiana
Spokane, Washington 99216
A. Dale Schultz Etux
East 13615 Indiana
Spokane, Washington 99216
Olban & Co.
c/o Old National
Attn : Todd Edmonc ,
West 428 Riversid,-,
Spokane, Washin<;
,
-L-
1
C 0 •Y'lI. ~ 1 l.JL .r ~ , 1 . ♦
BOX Z1F)O
Spokane, Washin_-~
Justus Company
Box 98300
12 Lakewood-Tacoma Park
Tacoma, Washington 984 9'-,,
Jack Brace Company
East 4020 Main
Spokane, Washingtor~ 99202
Joseph G. 0'Connor
Box 4726
Medford, Oregon 9750:
0'Connor & Jackson
East 13110 Indiana Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99216
United States Government
Bonneville Power Administration
Area Office
West 920 Riverside
Spokane, Washington 99201
Mr. Walter D. Farrell
Property Development Specialist
Property Management Department
Burlington Northern Railroad
N. 9507 Division
Spokane, Washington 99218
Wolfland, Inc.
West 907 Riverside
Spokane, Washington 99201
Richard L. Morgan
N. 1014 Flora Road
Greenacres, Washington 99016
_ Mrs. Wilbert W. Mael
East 8304 Nora
Spokane, Washington 99212
Leatha Mael
North 1212 Flora Road
Greenacres, Washington 99016
• ~
/
~ .
~HANSON
►:aNCO r,
R A. Hansun l.u.. lnt.
fhnson Properties. Inc.
R. A. lhnson ~lininq Cu
March 26, 1986
Department of Ecology
State of Washington
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
Subject: SEPA Notice of Action
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.21C.080 RCW, transmitted
herewith is the Notice of Action for the Sullivan Park Center
project in Spokane County, Washington.
As further compliance to subject statute, please be advised the
said Notice of Action is scheduled for publication on Thursday,
March 27, 1986 and Thursday, April 3, 1986 in the Spokesman-Reviev-
and in addition, on this date, true copies of the Notice of Action
have been mailed to all abutting real property owners.
Very truly yours,
HANSON ROPERTIES, INC.
. ~
Mi k 4-- er_ o
Corporate Real Estate Director
MT:cls
Enclosures
Original and one copy Notice of Action
I
,
~7ANS~ P. O. Box 7310 ■ Spokane, Washington 99207 ■ U.S.A. ■ (509) 467-0770 ■ Telex 326474
fi: tFiC: O. Inc.
RnHCO Disc.. Inc
K A. Hanson Co., Inr.
f i,,nson Properties, Inc .
K A Hanson Mirnng Cc>
March 26, 1986
T0: "NOTICE OF ACTION" RECIPIENTS
Enclosed please find a copy of the "Notice of Action" for
Sullivan Park Center.
This Notice has been forwarded to you in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 43.21C.080 (1) (c) ( i) RCW (State
Environmental Pol icy Act), which in part states that said Notice
shall be mailed to real property owners "who share a common
boundary line with the property upon which the project is
proposed through United States Mail, first class postage
prepaid." In addition, this notice is forwarded in compliance
with the directive by the Board of County Commissioners of
Spokane County.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact
Spokane County's Subdivision Administrator, Mr. Doug Adams, or
its Environmental Programs Administrator, Mr. Tom Mosher, at
456-2205.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
HArISON PROPERTIES, INC.
Mi o
Ll*,)
Corporate Real Estate
Director .
MT:cls .
Enclosure
.
~ _ - - _ ,0
36264
CIAIMS FUND ~ RED/YOU(HERIPUR(HASE O~pEI
WARRANT NUMBER NON•EXP. (HARGED TO:
~ FUNDIDIST. MA DEPT, lIAME
i
vFNCOR c;:al anv "i iI~'ssoci ~tes C.►1rr~r t ^1 ar,ni ►ir
vAME i vrY^~SF nr '~r ~~1^r'~~
} VENDOR I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT SUFFICIENT FUNDS HAVE
ADDRF55 ~I~ rlar~~,inr ~ecar~~r11. INVOICENO.
- BEEN BUDGETED FOR THIS CLAIM.
I citr /
StAtE '-iP SIGNED ^ ' ~ ' •
. . BUDGET NUMBER 5t . ^ 11"C C 'O t'
PROG. ~ FUND ~ DEPT. ~ BASUB ~ ELE. ~ OB1 ~ SOBJ • ' tiTLE C,`~`(''res YIrW
~A j ,:71 I -Y; QUANTITY I
~ D E S C R I P T I 0 N . l~, ~ ~ ` • UNIT PRICE C051
ORDERED UNIT oArE 19.:1
MATERIAlS NOTED IN QUANTITY
fund for unvouciiere;i r:cries po1" lbtX~ pal"df,r1ph Cf COIUMN HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN GOOD
CONDITION OR CONTRACTED FOR.
~
i i
~~aaa 4 of the SEP1'~. E.~virontr~:ntal . Ir~na~~ Stater:~ent ; I SiGNED
. ;
~ ~
~kd';;. Expense ngl"eCmellt, p-ItLrtd, int-o tv thF dbQVe, . ~ i ntLE
i i
, , 1' 1: i i oArE 19
a~;l ~c dnt dllCl S'j 0~:a,'1? C o ~1Jeti) Jaf:uar',
DISTRIBUTION
o~~ ~
a. as ~;•~~~c~i c
t v.! a, approv~r w
~
ui,,t' i reas. sR ecu i;) 't' 7. . . . ! ~ .
,.rc-di t n~v~ru~ t,ccount (1-7i-,-;) . . ~ ~
;
i ~
}H~-4~
. `
I I
I I
I I
PURCHASING DEVARiMENT USE OP1lY (
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
~
I I
TOTAI
DAIA PRQCENQqy 0►dlY
ENC EXP ~
~
cORM i-d"F . ' .74
12-
,
. ' . . F~f . . ~,'`1~ 1~► •~►/~'I ~I • 1~S Y ~ •
• ' I
~EPARThEN"I
- i~ , ' r,► ,
&i+CAtiWA'f '~i.=c= 2'~iLoi1;: N .i".FFERSON ~;r=EET
• ~ _ '
PL.) KE 4:,
5f?'Jh hFlt. , 'i•-v F .i . iti . .1 9:3 26 C
mr"w
SPOKAVE COUnTrCOURTM0U5E
I - . - .
r!a
y. 19,
Spokane Mall
c/o Jim FrainK, Atu.~r-ey
North 41.0 Piri--r Road
Spokane, Wash~.r-:-.--,3n 13-9200 Gentlemen:
Please fin(f Er-c icszd Sro'.&anE C:-:1:.-L: aims Funt-~
Warrant No. 039607, in the G.::.our_ $ZOE 72. Also
find enclosed'the EIS Admi.i3str_ative Lx.?ens,-- Agree--iiient
accountin€ form, which indica-t-es abala-.c.e cff t3206.:''?
remains from *1~e '^500 deposi ted wi ~:h %-hF Cia:--fiy on
December 5, 1~-:78 . 't'his a.maunts t(i t~-,z i-: fu :d due -
Spokane Mall Associates as ,ociater:: wit.', admir.;s-c^y ing
and productio :o= -L-.-Le EnviY.Dnmen4d1 Imp:~cz Stat 4men~.
for the zone change con -~Su-,.:_iv.3n R~5a6. :-._-rth of .7 -90.
Please do r,ot he5-Lr.atF ,:o :•~or.LtacL if yoi: havQ
any questions.
, -
. yo ,
_ ~rel~%
f. ~ , 1
J
'i'hu-nas C. Mo~.;,..-_ , r'1i,:;F
Adm :nis c.-:.tor , SLecial Programs
1'GM/v r
Encls.: a/s
~
%J
uss
Bddge Structural RePort
Grade Separation Structure
US19 over SRbO
Pinellas County, Florida
Shalow-depth, Steel Box Girders are
Economical as well as Attractive
~ r i4 ~r ~ ~ ' l' e
" t.~ 4 ~ •ti. J il~~ ~ . , ~ ~t?!~ t4~ '~i~ I -a.
~,.S4V- t ~ c ' _q ~ t'. '1r a~ ~ t . ...t . "Yt,~~. th} .4., hk~-• . • L ' i .
. y~' },5~~ . t ~I i • -+k ~ . ~ i ~ }j' ~ 1
. ~~p S . tt 1'6~ . ~i' - 4,. ~ r . ~i. ~ y -tl~''`~ ~Y~, c y 4 .
; ~i ~ -~..5~`' r . ~ i ' .~Y~YA•'~. . ti
`~i"~-.
' 7 .r~~.~• ' y t1' ~ `A'1 'i.•`,T~ .4+• Mt'~ r~, ,j,~, y,. ,Y'~ 3~ ~ ~l5 ~?..~.y.-.
, S-. 'frsl;-' . . ♦+~.y.,S_ .~v. . t, +t.+
~
",~;v 1 rt t•.,
i ~ ~ ~ ~'jj _ ~~'i}`i ♦t
74'
~ ~ # ~ ~ n i: ;f , ~ •
r t A ~ ? •,j 1~. ~ c~~ i't i ..l ~ ~ '
, p'~i~ y ~7!`~". i.'~ ~ ~ ~ , tT , t, f . . • ~ , ~ . . ~ • ~ f•. ~
♦ . . ' , l . . i"~S. _ . .
r~ 1~ ~ .k~ • `.y . ~ . K ~ ~ , ~KV~
" I . ^ , • ~
' .i. -.y ~
'riil.'C.,I 1 . . _ . . ~ ~ . I . ,'A
1 ` y
. 1 . ' ~ , , . ' ~ . • ~1~
. ' . . . .'.Y, y
~ ,
~ ~11,51
60
1 ` w~.~~ _ ~ . ° ' S
r:• ;1 'r? . , y.~;:,c.. ~r'~:C• ,
• . .
. '
. . . ~ a.. _ ~
.j~ J -Y ~.l " .'r~~ ~ • • Y
. •
~Iltrl)d UCtIOIl tivtilCni cl0vi,0tl lur tlh-W lWc, mM h- ~ untaiiiec1 Shuppin}; c~nlcr,, nmtclti,
travelled roadti in f'inellas ('uunty. restaurarits, aparlrliunt builclinbs and
US 19 i5 the princ.ipal nortli-suuth ruute a bank. Lancl acyuisitiOn sutficiently
in the county and linkti l allahassee Ic, Iarge to permit an expanded inter-
the north with St. I'eter5burb to ttie (hange was highly impractical.
,uuth-il is alsu the unly major roult, A lull cloverlea( inlerchange (f ig. 1)
l)L'tween S1. I'etersburg ancl (:Iearwater. permils trafiic flow withuut signal
SK 60 is the priricipal east-wesl route controls, but extensive righi-of-way
through Clearwaler and connects it is needed. A Simpler, and, in this
with Tampa tu tlie east. instance, mure practical solution is the
By the late 196U's,muunting tra(fic loads };radc separation intcrchange known
made eliminalion of the inicrsection as the diamund type (Fib. 1). While this
brade crossinb imperative. l)uring pcak cunfiguratiun cntails far less land
traffic hours, back-ups two tc, three accluisition than Ihe ctc,verlcaf, vehicular
miles long became commonplace. The movement mu5t be signal conire,lled
Not far from the center of Cle.~arwater, Florida Department of Transportation wticn traffic volume is high.
Florida, two majc,r highways-State retained Greiner Engineering Sciences, In the conventiunal diamund inter-
Road 60 and US 19-iiitersect. Because Inc.-Tampa consulting engineers- change (t=ig. 2a), when weslhound
of site conditions at this junction, an to design an interchange that would vehicles are permitted to turn left, they
unusually lang span (more than 200 ft) remove the bottleneck. interfere wilh easthound through trai11(
was callc.~d for in the bridge structure Development of a viable acheme was aiid with a lane of eastbound vefiii I(•,,
that was designed to eliminate the complicated, however, by the fact that that wish to tum (eft. In the sanw
grade crossing. a large number of buildinbs were manner, castbound, left-turnin~;
A single-span, box-girder bridge is the located along the highways close by the vehicles create opposite 6ut ryuivalf-1
key element in the unique interchange intersection. The peripheral areas interference with both types of west
= \
i t
-7 '
1 T /
. I
f N
Figure 1/Flow pattern of full cloverleai interchange.
~
a v a P
N
~
(Figure 2a) (Figure 2b)
figure 2/The diamond type interchange and typical traffic flow
I
~
~
r - - - ---r --r - ~ . ~ - - ,
I 48'
, I s H j _ y 1~ !
- - - • ~ ~ N
Q
~ ~ ' . _ r I t.
I ~
7
MEOIAN STHiP
I - L - _ - ~ - - t ~
- - + 1 - - - 1
I i 1 I I f~ U. $ I 9 1 1
t,~~
-r- - - - - - - - - - - - - N - - -
_ ,
~ t ~ d/ 11 ~ I
1 I :i%~ ( I , O ~
- t-- ~
r
W
/ p
O
_
N~
o e'
• .y~y ~ _ _ 1 ~~~,~W,-R/"r I
PLAN
(Figure 3a)
zoa'-o"
~ T~ ,
' t
RETAINING FIXEO 16~-4- MIN EXP RETAININC,
WAI.L WALL
. ,
4
j AT 12'= 36'
ELEvATiUN
(Figure 3f).
~
Figtue 3/Plan and elevation of the "Urban Interchange" design
2
~ . ►
l1lfl'OdUClIU11 lic~rl period; an impc>rtant consideratio,n cenlcr waho~w mulual iracrlcrcm r.
~c ~,nt~nu~cli because traffir had Io he inainfained. (f ig. 4b). Moreover, the arrangement
Traf(ic flows in the folle,wiiig paltern: uf the ramps nermils easy U turns tui
buund vchicles. Similarly (I-ig. 21)), As in the dianio~nd interchange, veliic Ics vehicleti exiting and re-entering US 19
vehicles on the se~uthbuund exit road ort US 19 deslined for SR 60 Iirs1 enler and affords accessihility to pruperly
c annot make a Ic-ft turn withc,ut con- the exit road to approach Ihe inler- alonb hoth sides af this hibhway.
siclerable cliffirully. They must rope tiection. Again, as in the di.,mond All Iurn r7iovements are afforded si};nal
wiih vehiclc~s exiting from ancl turning ciesign, vehic Ie, ran turn right c,nto prc>lectic>n. Under some condition,,
left r,(f the northhound exit rt►ad. SR 60 whenever safe, i.e., wlien Ihrc>ugh traffic capacily oi this interchangr i.
Because mutual interference of Ieft- traffic perniits safe entry. However, in cakulated to be greater than Ihe
turning vchicles is inhcrent in the usual the case uf vehitles lhat must mtikc left cloverlcaf. In all instances, capa( ity i,
diamond interrhanbe, traffic capacity turns, Ihc siinilarity ends. VVieh (he cunsiderably greater than the simpli•
is relatively low. Thus, the normal "Urban Interihange" scheme, lelt- diamond. Yet the right-of-way requiro-
configuralion of this type of interchange turning vehicles are channeled to ments are less than wc,uld IW n~~~-dCd
was unacceptable. As a result, the holding purnls under the bridge and with the simple diarnonci.
corisulting enbineers adopted a con- near the cenler ul ihe inlersection The substantial caplrity inc Wd"(,
cept, called the "Urban Interchange" (Fib. 4). Wheri thraugh traffic is halted allowed by the "Urhan Interch~m,.;,
(Fig. 3), in tivhich US 19 is carried over on SR 60, the Ieit-turning, two-abreast attrilautable to the channelizatie~i i i
SR 60 on a 20f3-ft Ionb bridge. vehicles can pass to the left of the turns under the bridge. The twiii
The design proved out for two reasons: center of the intersection withocie benefits of high traffic capacity &!t ! !i,,.%
-l ) it could be constructed within the mutual interference (Fig. 4a). right-of-way requirements more than
existing right-of-way (100-ft width for The start of the entrance ramps to US 19 uffset the cost uf the Ionger-span h'
SR 60 and a 200-ft width for US 19), are located close to the center of the -an obvious necessity for the sp&
and 2) it has a high traffic capacity. This intersection. Left-turning traf(ic on SR GO and sight distance needed fc>r the t,
last was even true during the cc>nstruc- can pass to the left of thc.~ inter;ection's abreast turning lanes underneath.
,
~
kLI
C_
~v
_ • ol _
U. S. 19
/
N
(Figure 4a)
~
~
~ 1 U.S.19 ~
/
~
~ ~ N
w~
! f 1;.; I! I't_' ~ f 1 I
Figure 4/Ii,ittii II()» intci-rcl,iti()nshiF» in tlie han Inlerchange" tichumc
. ~ . ti. .'L. .v . `.i
♦
• ~ .
` I • . - i
.
~ .
fI~ SrOKwNf
1.iF'••
Ali-4',1E?,ICACITY
-~•~,~Y December 5, 1980
aon E
May
Nir. William B. Johnston
Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs
Department of Transportation
-100 - 7th Street
;Vashington, D. C. 20590 .
Dear Mr. Johns ton: .
RE: THE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AT SULLIVAN AND I-90 AND a
"COti24UNITY IrIPACT ANALYSIS" ON THE PROPOSED SULLIVAiN PARK SHOPPING CENTER
Pursuant to the proposed I-90 Sullivan Avenue interchange wllich is
planned to help serve the above proposed Shopping Center in the Spokane
Nletropolitan area, we would resectfullv reauest ~a "Cq mmu~itti• Impact
r'~nalysis" be re areTas descri ecMin the Community Conservation Guidelines
and genera y ln the President's Urban Policy, to study the impact of this
center on Spokane City's Central Business District (CBD).
FEDEItAL ACTION INVOLVED
It is our understanding that one of the primary justifications given
by the County of Spokane in their application for federal funds for the
above Sullivan Interchanoe is the development of the Sullivan Park Shopping
Cen ter .
jVe quote from the Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.) for the
proposed shopping center in "Chapter VI Estimated Site Area Traffic," where
it is indicated that this center will create traffic demands for major road
improvements. The EIS on page 27 further summarizes the "Access and Road-
ivay Requirements Clzapter VII," by stating as folloti~rs :
"'Ihe implementation of the recormnded 3ccess additions and roadway improve-
ments together ivith the completion of programmed constniction pro . ects ot the
local and state aQencies wi.ll provide excellent access to the Sul~ivan Center
zn 1983 and 1955.
"TIie aclditional traffic aenerated by the 1985 et-pansion of the (shoppin~)
mall will necessitate additional roadway improvements beyond those required
b`r the 1983 development."
AM
,
.
. '
.
The following listing from that E.I.S. on-Page H-2 summarizes th~~
most significant traffic projects insofar as they appear to --~lato -o
vehicular access and to the Sullivan Park Shopping Center.
"Sullivan Road/ Interstate 90 Interchanae - The j'lashincrton Departinent o-l" _
Transportation lias funds prograrcmed to widen Sullivan Road and the exist-
ing undercrossing to four lanes, constructing left-turn channelization
and actuated traffic signals at the ramp teYminals on Sullivan Road.*
Estima.ted cost is $1,918,00.0.
"It should be noted that the tVashinaton Department of Transportation is cwrrently considering constniction of a six-lane, divided 'Urban Inter-
change-' at Sullivan Road in lieu of the above construction. lhis proposal
will be submitted to the Federal Highivay Adm.inistration (FHtIA) for fundino
later this year. Discussions with representatives of the Department of I
Transportation indicate this is a favored proposal. "Sullivan Road - Spokane Countyis currently widening Sullivan Road to a
four-lane divided section from Interstate 90 south to Fourth Avenue. Estimated cost is approximatelY $715,000. In 1982, the County plans to extend this section south to 'lwenty-Fourth Avenue. This is estimated to
cost an additional $600,000. ~
"pines Road - The jVashington Department of Transportation proposed construc-
tion ot secondary ramps extendino .from the Interstate westbound on and off-
rainps to Indiana Avenue to iMrove the efficiency of tne Pines Road inter-
change. Althougn there are no funds cominitted for this project, discussion
with representatives of the DOT indicate this project will be submitted to
the FHVA for approval. '
"For the purposes of this analysis this construction is asswmed to be com-
pleted by the openi.ng of the ma11." "Sullivan Road/Interstate 90 Interchange - An 'Urban Interchange' is recN.ired
to provide an acceptable level of service at this intersection. It should
be constructed as a six-lane divided section with dual-left turnino lanes in
alI quandrants of the intersectian.
"T11e Urban Interchange' concept has substantially greater traffic carrying
capacity than a conventional diamond interchange and requires substantially
less right-of-way. Both of these features are crucial in the development
of Sullivan Park Center. It should be noted that without tlle ' Urban Inter-
change' ttiis intersection could not acconunodate the mall and peripileral
densitites proposed."
The 1983 and 1985 road projects on page H3 and H4 of the quoted E.I.S.
we find the major development of an "Urban Interchange" at Suliivan and
I-90; widening Sullivan; developing an intersection at Sullivan and Indiana;
~
1Villiam B. Johnston - 3- Decenber S, 1980
development of Sullivan and various intersection accesses to the center
all have a relationship to the Sullivan Center.
There may also be other federal funds to be utilized elsejvhere sucn
as utilities, but we have no information on this. We conclude, however,
Ihat there are mainr federa flin involyg,d with the votential dewvel_on
of this center.
LOCAL CONCERN A.BOUT THE FEDERAL ACTION ' The road and access improvements appear to basically be justified
jl-_,_:ause of the increased traffic and access needs createa by the new
Sulliva n Park Shopping Center as described in the E.I.S. The primary con-
cern of the City, of course, is that these funds will assist the Center and
we anticipate the ShoUing Center will have a negative iFunds act on t e Citv's
~entra?~i~si n ss D3stri ct. We therefore ask fhat ~e be witheld
pen~`ing the preparation of a" ommunity Impact Analysis,. rr
CITY POLICY OiV CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CB'J) :
CITY LAiND USE PI.AN 1968 -
The Cit 's ado ted Comrehensive Plan establishes~ACouncil T s policy on
land use including the Doivntown. This Plan, agreed to by the Regional Plan-
ing Conference, includinj City-and County elected and appointed officials,
does not show any commercial center at Sullivan and I-90 let alone a
regional center. This Plan states on page 40: "The Central Business District in Spokane should consist of stores, offices,
services esta.blishments, hotels, governmental, cultural and amusement centers
at the central focal point of the City where it can conveniently serve
the population of the metropolitan area and the Inland Fmpire with a varie and specialized.selection of aoods a.rvd services. it is intended that the GBD
be strono and not decentralized among larQe outlying corr~nunitv and regional
shopping centers." ~
This CBD Element lays out a plan and policy for downtown growtli and
e:cpansion to maintain its vitality and dominance.
CITY'S CBD PLAN
The City has had great concern aliout its dotvntotivn and has therefore
adopted a Central Business District Plan as an element of the Compre}lensive
Plan.
"Limited Regional Shopping Centers. The Central Business District is ancl
should remain the regional shopping center of tlle Inland Empire. Because
the metropolitan area extends farther nortli and east of the CBD than it does
Lo the south and west, a modest re;ional shopping center conim.lernenting the
CBD and serving a major segment of the metropolitan area is conceivabie to
ttie nor"Ch and one to the east. Northtottin to the north and Unitirersity to
the east in the center of the Spokane Valley are considered to be reQiona?
shoppina centers." (P, 40)
Joi:nstcn -4 - Dece;nber S, 1930
Tne laelfare of the Citv's CBD reflects on tne wQ1 arP of t-1112" Cir, anA `h
Zoun y. is an advantage to both to keep it healthy. It states:
"Spokane is, moreover, the capital of a laroe Inland Flnpire which includes approx'irlately 1.2 million people in an area covering about 50,000 square
miles. It functions as a retail service and financial center for portior:~
of three states, tivelve counties and a part of Canada. Spokane's Central Business District (CBD)~sometimes called the downtown,is the heart of this
City. Unlike many downtvw-n.s Spokane's is a healthy, viable one for-the whole _
ccimminity. It houses the retail, financial, entertairunent and service func-
tions that make Spokane the dominant and leading reaional capital that it is
today. Yet, it cannot be asstuned that Spokane's core will continue to be as
strong and healthy as it is 'now without continued plai-uling and cooperation -
on the part ot bottL public and private sectors. Future girstrict oti~rth and prospects
tor the [:ity and its ReQion atfect the C;entral ~3usiness and con-
versely the (.:f3U's vitality retlects directly on the tuture of the City and
its ReQion."
LAVD USE POLICY - 1979 ' -
The City has adopted a Land Use Polic 1979 as a part of its update
of the Land Use Plan. This ~olicy is clear~y supportive of the CBD.
"The Spokane Ceatral Business District is the major shopping, business, office, banking, hotel, entertainment, and cultural center of Spokane _
and the Inland Fmpire. The Spokane CBD, because of its size and
features functions as the super regional shopping center of the Inland
Empire." (P.23)
"Super regional shopping centers in many metrapolitan areas have been -
developed in outlying ?ocations or suburban areas. In many such areas the
retail shoppin~ function of the central business district of the central
clty has dlmuu.shed otten because the older retail districts could.not
corripete with the more modern convenient facilities ot the shopping centers.
tn ,)pokane the retail core ot the central business district has contuiued to
retain its share of the retail sales of its trade area as it has modernized
and expanded its stores, provided for off-street parking, skywal:cs, and the
public conveniences and amenities. A super regional shopping center has not
yet developed in the Spokane area. lyhile it certainly is not a function
of those policies to curtail corripetition, both city and county planning
agencies should conslder the overall available retail sales dollar volume in relation to eYistina centers and dzstr3cts as part ot their evaluation
ot need tor any proposed super regional centers." (P. ly)
FRINGE PLAN CITY AND COUNTY - 1979 .
This study produced this policy with strono City support:
"Preference should be given to maintainind the Spokane Central Business
District. Retail and business services for our e,cpanding population
. ~
:'1`illiam B. Johnston - 5- December 5, 19S0
should be provided in part by nei~hborhood and com~ninity shopping centers.
The nunber and location of future rejional shopping centers should be care-
fully plannecl with the City and the County prvviding strono leadership.
Ultinately economics and future growth will detennine the need for and
possible location of regional shopping centers." (P. 5, The Countylhoweverrlater provided this comment to tne abuti-e sugge5~e-,
Fringe Policy:
"Eliminate the concept of maintaining the Central Business District as the
_ nat the City has had a long, on-
consistent history of'CBD growth, protection, and revitalization,
:1rhich has made our CBD a national model for its success across the Country.
The City had an active program to preserve and strengthen commercial areas
and has followed it for many years.
CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT OF CONCERN ABOUT CENTER The City Council on October 20, 1980, requested that a public hearing
be held on the environmental impact of the Sullivan Park Shopping Center
and approved the attached Ietter sent in objection to the Sullivan Park
Shoppinj Center. (Exhibit A)
They also approved a letter directed to the County from the City Plan-
ninj Director expressing concern about the Center's impact on the City and
its CBD. (Exhibit B) On 4ctober 27, I980,-the Council unanimously authar-
ized the Mayor and City Nlanager to prepare a suitable letter to be sent to
the appropriate agency requesting the preparation of a"Community Impact
Analysis" on the impact of the proposed Sullivan Park Shopping Center on
the City's business areas. (Exhibit C) Again on November 17, 1980, the
Council, after hearing a report from the Shopping Center developer, unani-
mously moved to request a"Community Impact Analysis." (Exhibit D)
COA1MUNICATION jVITH DEVELOPER
The City Zoning Director has ivritten to the County expressing concern
and suggesting the County not approve all regional shopping center proposals
(Exhibit B) Council also asked for a public hearing to discuss the proposal
(Exhibit A)
I directly co ntacted the developer of the Slioppin-a Center, R. A. Hanson
of Hanson Properties, and met with him in my office to determine if this
Center had to be built or if it could be reduced in size. AIr. Hanson re-
quested an opportunity to speak before the entire Council and his General
Counsel Frank B. Carr then appeared on vovember 17, 1980 and spoke to the
Council. He did not state that the Center would be reduced in size over
time but he expected it ivould reach t}le proposed maximum size over time.
1%`1111am D). Johnston - 6- Decemb°r S, 1930
He also suggested the City not object. Mr. Carr as well wrote to our
City attorney and stated he would take whatever action is necessary to
terminate any further interference by the City. The Ci.ty Council hoilever
was still unanimous in their concern and therefore ordered again.the_
prep aration of this letter. An Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for this Shopping
Center b ut it did not sufficiently discuss the possible impac ts on the
City's Central Business District, or any alternative actions and sites
to the one proposed. In this State we have had cases such as Barrie
versus Kitsap County where an Environmental Impact Statement was consiu12 T`:d
deficient because the shopping center's impact, leading to the possible
demise of the CBD, was not discussed. Ne believe, similarly, this E.I.S.
on the Sullivan Center to be insufficient because it too did not consider
the impact of the Center on the CBD. It is therefore imperative in our
opinion that a"Community Impact Analysis" be prepared since theiz E.I.S.
certainly did not do the job. COVCLUSION :
Spokane' s Downtown is one of this City' s proudes t accomp L
we believe it is tilreatened by the Sullivan Park Shopping Center tlhich i~
Lhe latest in a series of recent County shopping center zonings. Our CED
has some 140 acres with some 900,000 sq. ft. at ground floor level areas
(GFLA) of shopping area and four_department stores.. This core area is in-
tended to be the major shopping center for the whole County. Ho«ever in
the last two years the County has approved massive commercial expansion
(Ethibit E) along Spraoue Avenue outside the City. They then approved a
significant expansion to the University Shopping Center which is a re9ional
center in the valley outside the City. They then approved a 21 acre shop-
pino center at Homestead. Then a new Valley Niall Regional Center of
70 acres and 800,000 sq. ft. of GFLA with three to five department stores.
Then the new Sullivan Park Center with 110 acres, four to five depart:nent
stores, and 1,000,000 sq. ft. of GFLA of shopping. Growth in the County
in the last two years has not been such as would demand this massive com-
me rcial increase. In effect these zonings created "equivalent" or even
bigger "CBD's" in the County to the detriment of all. It is simply over-
zoning. The end result wil'l be a greater competition for the same retail
dollars in a market and tributary area that has not and will not increase
proportianately in the next few years to the new commercial development noiv
being approved by the County.
Such competition can only lead to the demise of some businesses in the
Coiinty and in the City, including our CBD. There could be a closure of many
businesses and a loss of municipal revenue from them as tirell as an increase
in unemployment. The overall impact could be a loss of tax base, jobs,
and general business activity in this City and «e are opposed to this. iVe woulci therefore uroe t}iat at least one of the regions centers not
be approved by the County or scaled down to the size of a community
. ~
Willian B. Jcllnston - 7- Decemver 5, 1901"10
shopping center. :tiTe jvould ask that you not fund federal proj ects tilat aide
this neiv Center such as the interchan~e gran- unless County polic}• imposes
some limitation on the super-regional commercial cente.r as we sugaest above.
:.'e zYould therefore ask for a"Community Impact Analys i s" so t he true e~-IFec t
of this Center on our CBD can be analyzed. .
jVe hope th15 letter pTOV1deS y0l.Z wlth the
require the analysis. We have limited information on your procedures ill
these matters under the Community Conservation Guidelines and t1e have struc-
tured this letter according to ~~rhat we understand is the information you ~eed. If you wish anythirtg further, please call me or the City M3rager ~5-2665 Spokane.
,~ie thank you for your assistance in this important matter. Sincerely,
.Mayor cc : Marshall Kaplan, DeputyAsst. Sec. for Urban Policy '
Dept. of Housing F~ Urban Dev. . 451-7th St. SjV, Washington, D.C. 20410 Donald F. Mazziotti, Deputy Asst. Sec..for Policy & International
Affairs, Dept. of Transportation, 400 - 7th St., Vdashington, D.C.
20590
lVilliam J. Beckham, DeputySec. of Transportation,
Dept. of Transportation, 400-7th St., jYashington, D.C. 20590
Terry L. Novak, City Nlanager
City Council
~ . - • ~
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Spokane, Washington, do?s hereby reauest that the Sookane County
_ Planning DepartT-.,ent hold a publ ic hearing, pursuant to t"e
provisions of Section 197-10-480 0-17 the Wasnington administrative
Code, conce rning the environmental impact of the proposed zone
reclassification for the development of Sull ivan Park Center,
SpGk3ne Count-y, ',lash i r:n~~n .P?--mnni ng D~ p-art,T~~nt- Fi 1 e"10 . 7F-1 QO-?U hDOPi tD by the Spokane Ci cy Counc ii tn i s L'Jay o T Cc ~u'~cr,
1980. ' • -
• ~
,
-y✓ :
Marilyn . Mon omery
City Clerk
App4ed as to f ~
ounsel
C/C-o-rporartion'
i.. 309 City e-+atl
SroKA w JE Ati 3_SCHcl. ?,e.:.~.nt
E_::: 0 CT 21 1984
VAUGHv p. CALL. A.I.P.
Msnaqer - ?lanninq
,LLA:~E.t1C,C;n ~ COUNTY COMMISSIONERS E. T. CL_GG. A.I.P.
?tanninq Oirec-or
~ : ~ • Octoner 20, 1980
Sc:VT 11 VI?'ci r "I~t U; - -
yir, wallv Aubbard
Spokane County Plannl.ng Lo~~~ ss~on
North 721 Jefferson
Spokane, Washington 99260 . ti • . .
`.::NTER DRAFT ErS, SeDt. 16, 1980
Tha:zk you fvr sendiag us a copy of the above EIS. This cepar t_-
ent has reviewed it and has `ne Lollowing commen `s : -This proposal zpDears to us to be in cor_f I.ict wi t...h the Gzne= aI.-
ized Conprehensive Plan MaD anoroved-by the Seokane Regional Planning
Conference October 22, 1968, and the currently proposed County
Comprenensive Lznd Use Plan, bo `h of which, appezr to us to ir.dicata
this site is for futu.re industzia1 develoDment not a saopping cen t-Sr .
The text portion of the Count-y Comprehensive, Plan as anencea 'Co
Ni3rch 1970, and the text of the proposed County Comprenensive Plan
contain designations for commercial areas and shomping centers which
could have been used at this Iocation if sucn usea were intezded.
Many locations are round in the County fitting thp, text description
of "Community". and/or "Regional" commercial areas. Such commercial
areas are also shown vn the 1968 General.ized Comnrehensive Plan uap
as "Major Camrrtercial Areas". vet -no such designation is snown on
this site at the Freeway-Sullivan interchange.
Trvhatever the merits of this procosal :night be, it represen t-s a
dezinite deoarture from Conprehensive Plans existing and oroposzd
wt-Lich clearly do not contemplate a major reqional shooping centzr or
major general commercial area on this sit-e. Such a major char.ge in
pla.nning should h.ave- more supnortive studv ar.d research to j us `ify
it.
Mors in~ormation on the economic inpact of this center on ct:~4L-
centers ShOlllr? be Dr?S2Z1ted lIl tne S==c-y 2.P.d -teXt oi VOlllSR2 1.
It is s tated in the EIS (Vol. 1 p. 101) tna t: s low declir`
in Spokane County's total shopper g.cods ~zr~ets nere mav be 2Xn2C~°d
to continue until the opening of major new cvnmercial racilities. " _
what =s the prediction based on? An assunation seems to be mzde
tha-t a new shopping Lacili`y must then have a greater canture rate
of existing markets in order to surv? ve. Surely tn i-s arEater c?D ~uY~
rate will indeed adversely af~ect existing and oroDOSec cc=-<<eYcizl
faci? ities in the Citv and Countv.
\ \
. '~r. Wa11y ::ubnard -2- Octo~eT 20, 19 S 0
The 'IS also s~.ztzs, (~ro~ . II Tn 160) "Sales ~ otentia? for ~n2
netw mall is 4-iec to ov2ral? Tm-yionzl sa? zs, potentia1 growth, ar_d
possible sa? es transr_ers zrom soLme e:cisting facilities." This s 4Cate-
ment and 129 page 9 cf Volume I, cer`ainl.v suggest cut-;Cizg into
-
existizg centers including the CBD.
T:ie economic analysis in the EIS does not include aaequatm- dis-
cussion of what will happen to the C3D if the proposed center is not-
built in order to comnarethe ful.l e=fect of its being built.
Neither does the sli-l-atement cover adequately the impact on other
comrzercial arzas serving the valley, such as University City Center,
Sprague Avenue Comrr.ercial, Homestead, and the Vailey Mall.
With four major stores in Sullivan Center, t,.he EIS predicts a
decline in CBD departraent ' store sales of 3t between 1980 and 1985.
(Vol II TA222) . The impact of a possible fifth store is not even
'mentioned. Such a 3$ decline in sales would not seem ta agree with
your statement of not seriously damaging the market position of the
downtown as follows:. .CVol. II. TA 169 the extent of future new
sales opportunities does suggest'that a major mall could be developed
in Spokane County between now and 1985 but with nor.aal sales transfer
impact for existing stores including dcwntown. This sales transfer
would resul` in initial sales declines in comDetitive facilities, but
wouZd not be sufficient to ch.ange the overall structure of the
3arket rnThat was this la tt-ter statement based on? • If the proposed zoninq is granted, what steps-will be taken to
insure that only one regional mall will be built in the valley? In"
the case of the Valley Mall, the EIS (.Vol. I page 'iii} merely
assumes the Valley Mall will not be built.
The stat2raent does not cover the question of : Should any number
of regional centers be approved? The EIS did not suggest that a
recommendation should be made to the County to liruit additional
reqional centers if they should app ly . The EIS CVol. I page iii l
says there is market for only one regional center at this time.
What will happen if both the Valley Mall and Sullivan Cenlf.:er are
constructed? Free enterprise is the basis of our system but unbridled
overzoning can destroy it.
Given the projected market it does not seem reasonable that
the downtown depart'nent stores probably cannot be economically
expanded at present locations and new depart.'nent store construction
is not likely, at least in the foreseeable future." (Vol. II TA 226)
Niajor construction is currently taking place now in the Central
Business District. As the older areas are recieveloped, it. is en-
tirely possible that a new depart:nznt store and other co..*nercial uses
could move into the CBD, but it will be harder if unlimited numbers
oz regional centers are approved in the County.
A comparison between data presented by Research 'conamics
Report (Valley Mall EIS ) adj us ted f or ir_s lation to 1980 and the EIS
present.: quite different total county sales which will make signifi-
cant difierence in the ability of the area to support z3ditional
shopDing facilities. The EIS states for example, $470,720,000 and
\ ' \
, rir, lti'ally Hubbard -3- October 20, 1980
RER states $315,366,030. Which is correct7
The EIS analysis presented for the impact to the CBD stops at
1985 and does not contain anv substantial data on the long terrn-i
impact of it. f ~
The EIS on Pa9e TA 207 Vol. II states 20% of the centers sa1es I
volume is expected from outside the trade area. At the same time
the EIS does not address wh.at the anticipated impact on the Sulli%,°~ ,n
Center would be if additional retail sales facilities develop in the
outlying communities.
We note the reguested rezoning is for "restricted industrial".
We do not see any discussion of industrial impact on the environment
should the shopping center not be developed.
The City throughout its planning process has gone to consider-
able lengths to maintain the CBD as the major shopping center in
Spokane County, and the Inland Empire. It would appear to us that
the approval of multiple regional centers in the valley, in addition
to other commercial areas, weakens the whole commercial structure in
the County and imposes a threat to the CBD. The approval of the
Sullivan Center in the wake of approving the Valley Mall, Hanestead,
and University City Center expansion, suggests that the County may
be overzoning for regional centers in the valley to the detriment of
commercial owners and the general public. Very truly yours,
. U
kr7
. Terry /C l~egg
Zoning Subdivision &
Environmental Services Director
ETC:DLC:ajb _
cc: City Manager
City Cler]c
County Zoning Hearing Examiner Committee
Board of County Commissioners
County Planning Commissian
P ECEIVED
. CC T 21 1960
SPOKANE COt1NTY
PCANNING DEPARTMENT
City of Spokane Land L'se Plan Fo l-icies anc r•tetropolitan -Plzn
The City's Land Use Plan policies state the following on page 40
-
regarding Comme rci al Land Use :
"Strong Ceritral Business District. The Central Business District
in Spokane should consist oi stores, of fices, service esta.blishments,
hotels, governmental, cultural and amusement centers at the central
focal point of the City's arterial and. transportation system where it
can conveniently serve the population of the metropolitan area and the
Inland Empire wi th a varied a.nd specialized selection of goods and
services. It is intended that the Central Business District be strong
and not decentralized among large outlying community and regional
shopping centers. The C. B. fl. should be modernized-, low i ee parking
competitive with curb parking provided, and an attractive landscape
deve loped. " ,
"Limited Reqional Shocoing Centers. 'T'he Centr.al Business Distric
is and shou? d remain the regional shopping center of the Inland Empire.
Because the metropolitan area extends farther north and east of the
Central Business District than it does to the south and west, a modest
regional shopping center complementing the C. B. D. and serving a maj or
segment of the metropolitan area is conceivable to the north and one
to the east. Northtown to the north and University City to the east
in the center of the Spokane Valley are considered to be regional shop-
ping centers. " • -
The Draft EIS should include and recognize the above policies
wh i ch impact the Spok ane Val ley as we 11 as the In 1 and Emp i re Trade
Area. THE NETROPOLITAN PLAN (Page 65)
"Comrcercial Areas. The Central Business District of Spokane is
the heart of comme-rcial -development in the metropolitan area. The
major shopping areas at Northtown and at University City provide a
"regional" service to the north and the east portions of the metropolita
area. The Plan shows "community" business district locations which
provide shopping facilities for a substantial portion of the metropolit,
area. Other major concentrations of business or heavy commercial activ_
. are also shown - on the Plan. Minor neighborhood business distr~cts
and other minor business areas are not shown on this Generalized rsetro-
politan Plan. "
"The planning for business recognizes that the trade areas which
support contmercial activities are not limited by political juris- di ct ions. "
. t
, . .
~
. .
EXNIBIT C
~
' . . ~
~ lt seek. ing
,
~
, on ~~a
study
S~okane city officials are seeking a federal ;
tuc~y to determine whether the proposed 120-acre .
ullivan Park regional shopping center will have
la detrimental effect on Spokane's downtowa busi-
ness district
The City Council has icistructed City Manager
Terry L. Novak to request a community impact I .
statement, which apparently can be conducted un-
der the Carter administration's littie-known '
"community conservation guidance policy." ~
The request for the community impact study
follows council action earlier this month request• .
ing that Spokane County planners call a public
hearing on. whether the shopping center cenflicts i
wi!h comprehensive plans approved by the county
and by the Spokane Regional Planning Coafer-
ence.
Councilwoman Martha T. Shannoa, in asking ,
the council to pursue the federal study, said the administzation believes it is critically imgortant ~
that "federai grants, policies and decisiocs" not i
~ have the unintended effect of eroding existing
commercial centers, regardless of whether they
n re located in city centers, svhurbs or rural areas.
"Thzy're trying not to spend federal funds onI
oje*:ts that m:ght destroy a city's center," said: ~
Shannon. Whea asked what federal funds were involved'
in the Sultivan Park project. Novak-said the only ,
federal connection he is aware of involves im- ~
provement of the Sullivan Road interchange at In-
terstate Highway 90. The shoppino center is +
planned south of 1-90 and east of Sullivan. ~
' - • - _
~ • . ,
~ - •
SPORA HE 7 -
il T 1 ~
. . . .
~LL•~MERlUUTY ~ffi~~
•t''~
I
CFr- 1CE CF THc C1T'Y CLERK CLE'r=tK'S r= iL: NO.
I40-40-1980- :
3100-4935
620-P1-1
OC+Ol-A!" 29, 1920
COUPaCIL ACTION MEMORAtJOU'X;
RE: COMMUtIITY IMPACT ANALYSIS - SULLIVAN PARK SHOPPIPIG CENTER At its Special Session held Monday, October 27, 1980 at 5:30 p.m.,
Councilwoman Shannon requested Council's general concurrence that the
Mayor and City Manager be authorized to prepare a suitable letter, to
be sent to the appropriate agency and to be endorsed by the Mayor,
requesting preparation of a"community impact anal'ysis" on the impact-
of the proposed Sullivan Park Shopping Center on the City's business
areas. This impact analysis is requested in conjunction with the federally enacted Community Conservation Act.
a11 Council members present at this Special Session expressed their
concurrence that this be d0 0
one. Mari lyn , Vtgomery
Ci ty C1 erk
MJM/es
c c : Mayo r Manager-Plannirg
.Planning Director
Corporation Counsel
Councilwoman Shannon
Room. 651 - C:ty Hall Spakcne, W-i 10113201 7'eL: 456-43-50
. , - -
~
~jlr ~ t.`~ ! s:•1~ .c•;' y, ~ \ L'4: C • ; .hcj`9cT~s~=7 :r-.~- :
~ • . ~ (.~•:"Y}:
~ = . : f • ~~.''f : Hi.~_;Y .r' ..,,e.'r1~ f'Sr'za r.
t. ~ `r~' ounci ers. st~
..~1~,~ ~
~ : - , e « • . . . . ;~-tt~„~•~.~1...-.i-F-,+ .tiI'~ ~ ~"~-,r-'
•rw- ~~+►i:7i'~j:J_~- r{~~v. 1.L!
i .t'~'~ 1 • Z ~ ry. ~ :~i r - ' ~ .r . vr•
~ L ='1;'~•. s' .i. ' ~ :s'~."'vT • 3'~.~b: !i~:.~'~+ -~-.`~~,~.?Y•+~-_
•i.. ~ ~L^~
a
o n-_,~. , ma
. V
a
' . : - 1 . ' . . . ' - . ;i. •
~ , ~ ~ ' ~ ~~,:~r-r • - ~%i.•ti:.." .,F<
' • ~ , F:-_ . ~ • `i ~ , 1 a+r t~ t~, .ac4..e Lo-
1.l~ ~~:l. ~ . :~l. • .~Iy..~L (''T ~t/. ~~7,-♦ J~.'~T~`~L ~~..L~r1..~~I .
.~Fea ~ rful .of an a . dverse ~ffect-; on -town business area _;;'r•-.
Spokane's downtown. business area,:: ; MayoF Ron Bair questioned Cacrj:~
Ihe City Council has ordereda "cotn- fie asked verification as to whether a.:.
munity impact.analysis" on,-. Ehe ~i-o-;..'regional type center is pIarined:~ ='3
Qosed 120-acre Sullivan Park ~reg.ioa Tw•o major . stores are' planned,'=:
al shopping center in the ValIey::.•- _ said Carr,. "It would, take about-15
T-_ The center . is planned. *for a sile . years. before. it, became a'regional
north of . the Inteistate..90-Sullivan". ~center. In the meaatime, it would be
Road interchanger:: ~ : ~ • a commun.i.ty center: 71A
~ In early. October Jhe council asked;} ~•."What "assurarice . wouId ..~ve have
Spokane County planners to call a. that it wouId not develop sooner into
public, hearing. on : the question. of a regional shopping center., thereby _
Whether the, center. -would conflict:'', affecting tihe downtown? i'.; asked -
with comprehensive plans approved'":~ !16*~~
by the county and by the Spokane ;"Only the economy of. the times,"• •
Regional PIanning Conference.:.:°~-'•1 ~answei-ed Carr.. "The high .~nterest._
Frank Carrt general counsel_andrates._W~iat's going to happen in the.:
vice . president oE Hanson Properties next four years Ls anybody's guess.'8;;-
Inc., _toid ; the council earlier this~>_'I stil2 have trouble.v~rith the whole,
~veek that: R.A. Hanson who, along . thin~.'~said Baii: ":'',i;:1::-= r~
with Edv~ard J. DeBartolo Corp:,"~~';"I m corivinced'this.LS.intended
Youngstown,; plan * to develop, : be aregional shopping center sooner:
the project; is out of the cit y:" ~-:i• or later;''., said Councilwoman Ma.r ;
Carr, speaking on bchal.f of Han-t6a T. Shannon: y~"• =f..~~
son, ar ued:~, the, proposed center-,'~': The council yote to call for.impact•
~vould have no, impact on the down- ~analysis was unani.inous:=%::•`-~~
V i'.• t• .1,.: ,i .j!• i - 1t": - , - . . [A'
.~f
s ~ :~~1~! .Z ~ • ~ j~fi f~.i ~-S'T~"~: T~
.'t~ , ~~.t-. ~-r tS .c-~,;, i t ' -l` 4?'d
''~r• : • 1 ~ s.. • .
• • Y ~ ".ili. jI :t
. ~ kK-;~='~:';~: ``°.r,""~,,,-'~ g; .
1
~ ~v .r . 7 .-l; '►'a _Z,s^-~-~-:~rsh'7~ :.c~.~~ri~ L...
' xfT;
•'~f'""~"'J It y~• Accept Cj rseport
~ i
O Deny ❑ ContracL -
~ .
0 S e t H,
_ a r i n g D a t e O R e s o l u t i o n
" I L E D For: _ ❑ Annexation Oate: Nov em b e r 12, 1980 ~~v 1 2 19~o O Continue To: O Ordinance:
Emergency
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CiTY CURKtS OFFICE 1st & 2nd
11 Foc Action -950KAK wA$H: 0 Staff Report
O For lnformation
' Budget Account ~
- 31oo-S/93
AGENDA WORDING
REPORTS
Further consideration of the proposed Sullivan Park Shopping Center.
eacxcROUrvo The Council by Resolution on October 20th asked the County to hold a public
hearing on the Sullivan Center EIS which is proposed by the County in
January and by general cnncurrence on October.l7th authorized the Mayor
and Manager to request by letter (in draft form now) a"Co.mmunity Impact
Analysis" (this is not an EIS) on the impact 'of the center on the City's
business areas pursuant to the Federal Community Conservation Guidelines;
Following the guidelines the Mayor has contacted the developer R.A. Hanson
to determine if the center could be reduced in size to reduce the 'impact o.-
nthe CBD and Nlr. Hanson has requested an opportunity to address the Council.
. . , . . .
F1SCAL 11APACT The development of a super regional center as originally envisioned could have great
fiscal impact on the City by corripeting directly w-ith City businesses.. - -
Notification necessary to Spokane Vailey Advisory Council? Yes No .
ATTACHP/IENTS: (list) Council Resolution, Letter from County re EIS Hearing, letter author' ~
unpact analysis, letter of comment o EIS, map ~
Zoning, Subdiv, Env. Services .
Submittinq Deaartmrnt Legal I'I'y wlIlIleZ' E. Terry C ego
Y
P~lanay,er (Finan_!, Aomin., r-ngin#:rrlhg, or Finance Ciry Managzr
Planiung)
Flti'AL DISPOSITION DISTRIBUTION DESIRED AFTER COUNCIL ACT10I
at its Legislative Session held November 17, 1980, 1•layor
The Spokane City Council moved to continue in the Ci.ty Manager
above process and again authorize the Mayor and the Manager-planning & Development
(Ci ty) Manager to request by letter a Communi ty E-Di rector- Zoning/Plat/EIS
Impact Analysis. Corporation Counsel • Counci l~voman Shannon Q
~ ~ DEPUTY C ITY CLERK
- O
FoRnn fi568 a.v. a.ao -
II
~ . .
t ~
a~l! ' a..,,~t~► r •
1 W E Mll t MUD _j
Gd~w ~y ~
~ ~ ~ •
lIUSANI t1A111E
SULLIVAN
. SN N MIII ~
. As
C E INIA' T E R
K
. , .
~
AL1f~ wnr. ~ 61TE
I ~
.
~ ~a ! I
L I ~
i IIIItYAAO PASAOENA )AI
K
~..."OAc~n1 N E ~~f~' >D
OI IS OACIIAADS
P
~ ,
r. iuwooo
~ - - -
. - ~
r,~ ~',•,y~ ' br11 ~ ~ lwld f.
5 ~ p Q K
OICNARb I~1
, • ~ %UUl
~ i~ _ ..~,r r~~ ~ , ►
~ ~ ~ ~ i
L: do J ~ ~ r 1
~~."'dp~ 4 ' v
~ ~ ~ ' ►r 1 - _ ~ ~ -
G~(IN)ClIS ~
i M.r , ry ~
ROPOSED
OISIIMAN +.r
~~~L~
,1 , , . 011011UNIV
f..M t`$AOAtVALLEY MALL STE
~ NU
.
~ ( ~ ~ • y
UNIVERSITY CITY
L ,M,~,.,. • } M~/
-r----~w..... .
~ni~~ ►w~6.Ml~am~ r~~~r~~~~ F~. C.B.D. i, ~ CIJ P~~~~~~voi`~ . x
1
111, ~ ,.f ~ B. NORTMTOWN . H
FRANKLIN PARK H
~ MORAN '
5. SHADLE CENTER
6. MANITO rn
~ . . ,7, aRGoNNE viLLaGE , • wA,N,--- , '6, HOMESTEAD (Proposed)
SPRAGUE AVE COMMEfiCiA'
STRIP '
.l ~ . . . , . , _ '
t . : . , . • ~ ~ ioooi-TRENT- ARGONNE ei P NES
r.nmMlrRmAl_ SYRIPS.
Q. Q. 1A a;~~c .v C o.
I -1~;4-3-902r-: :1 I fiaL . FAFER ~ E:OX 686
'=~'~~~~'.At•JF 4JA 9921;=' 011477
rl1F"=, TTHL C. F I F'E. WFFt.-> i_:F.R.T Th<; 1J. F I F`F 1_1 WFF .r:~ I._►NF'D. TR;<: F.;:-; i=:i
:=:1_i . :~..4~_1
240 r,l•:1 N~i 1. :t
.-'~F_i►w,1-_1 , Cil_i l-,1 ~~1 I~_iG~i G~1~_i 1_4 4_i
~J. F I F'F I_1. WEED IJFJFC?. TA'X EX i"t:tCE YR T 1J F IRE I_I. WF:F.C- E` : CCiDE ,T'Ft, ST
I N1.._~'iNCi EMF' F'AF'ER 1190 11 25 4 4 F'Tt-a 1~~F= =.W4 D
~
~ .','i:a OF F-I RP R;-'W haL'T OF P SH S1_IR _T TO ESh1T
•:i_:~~4--902r'; BL_H~-~k. 4-~~•1 Ac~i t' 1_~~ l' NLAND EMF' F'RF`EF' ;1 ,-'-4 TAX ►JNRG~
-
F IRF i M RRO':,'F C:- 1_1 r-4 I t-1 F R 0 V ED TFI-f F=1(._. l_ H Fa D I r-1 P R. TI-IT H l--
Ht~:~:'F' HL.i_ IF HF'F'=; I_IF. HI=~:F►'F Hl...I_1P Al_~_1E 'r'R. E'X
2. A 0 ;-24 f~ir.Li 4~L~1 i' 4I_i
72.00 24060 .00 72.00 24060 2409-0 140
00 5400~"~ .00 54000 54000
--1.. 44 PTM OF SWI/4
i _.'T G nF '-:;Z PR P;' W NL_Y OF P'rH SI_IE:.T TO E ;MT 25-190
~
.115,444-929 1 I t•aL.Ht-aC? . PEP, Cf, T:6,86,
."►P 0 k. Fi N F l'.{ H L-111Y i' 7
I__Ht-4f) I M F"= Ti_iTH!__ F l'F;'F C:. t•.lFEG~ E.F'T TA; FT R F WEEC~ I._INF`D. TH,:-: E:; ;C:i=~1=-~
: : R_i ~ ~ ,,:l71 . ~ . . :1 _ i~ . . ~ r' :1 . . ~ . ~ 1. 4 ~.i
i: 17l 0 1 _14.1 E:11~~1 G _11~~1 1,1 G_i Fic-i
F T F'F 1_t. 4~FEC.) 1_1 t~lF'C:~. THE;•; i~:i-I~~E~ 'TR '=:T 1_I. F T~'E I._I. I~aEEC:~ IJ~~aF'C.}. TH:; E:;•; ~=:~=It~E ~T F'
t
INLAND EP1F' PAPER 1190 ii tC 44 F'TN OF i3r1V C 78
t
L. TS 6-10 11 L'T GSLY nF SIRR R,fW A. hll...'-? OF FSH #2 Si iF.J 7O E,MT
~1. ~1~t4 4 -'~i~~'72' 9 .t'4 -~_i-i.. R 5 ~:1 I ~aLf~r~IG EF~1F PAFER ►3~~ TH;~ti ~ ►t•'G~
F" )'F' f= 1: r~1 F' i-l',, E G~ I_~t-a T t~11' ~'+Wi':~ F l" ~ 7~ C~ ~T H L. L At~~G~ T ~1F' T i~'~ T H L.
NC:F'F' : H►u:F'E's ';I'Nl.l1F A ►:~:i=,F,= ► IF 'v'HI._.I.IF L ►_i E VHl._I._!E. 'T'F;*' F::,:
1~1r_, 41 i_~w' 14fri
`Y 1- . Y ~ ~ . '
4 1. 4 r' r ` = ~ ~ ,c~~ Li i=, r=. E_i i=~ ~ l_i r-, r_ 140
1.`..-'.
. 4 -1 4 r7 4:1.4r' 0
'11. 25 4 4 E"'TN 1JF G! !V
I__T c; 6-10 1:1 LY13 Sl_Y OF SIRR F~/W NL',' nF PS-H #t 51_1E:.r Tn ESMT 25-190
~ ~ . ~ . F-\Iaroso"0 ~v
'.1.454:1-91r0 1 I NLAhIQ --'Mf--f?- F'AFER CO E;OX 6--86
.Fnk'AfdE WR 99212 061777
HND I h1P5 T4TRl. C. F I RE r. WEEC CER.T. TflX U. F I RF_ U. WEED UhiPD. TRX EX C4C,
-1_ ~o 1760 .00 .56 41. 21 .00 .28 20.60 140
1.760 1760 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 140
I_.1. F TR.F 1-1. WFEC> IJhIPD TAX FX CnDE YR. ST IJ. F IRE U. WEED UhlPD. TAX EX CODE YP ST
T N1... HND Er1F' F'FtF' I11 14 25 44 P T N i=IF t•aE l: 4 t-4 C I:~
i-iF F' = H #
:1..4541--~.=~170 BLHCk: 71-rt►~~ 3 05071`H INLHND Eh1F' F'AF' THX ►_►t-aF'C:►
F tRE I MPROVED iJhl i MFROVEQ TnTAL LANQ I P1PR. TOTAL
ACRE'=, ArRE S VRI I_IF aCRF'=~ VRl.. I.1F A17F'E'= VRIJJE VAl...I.1F Vfi!_.UE 'T'R EX CODE
43 1_ 40ki 1:1. m~ . 54 :1 40
r; _ c 54 1. 4 k-3
4. r. 1400 .1. _ .
;?20t_~ 11. '1_;51*71oc
14 ::~c 44 RTN OF NE1.-4 r-a
+JF F' S H ~5 -
M.
. ~ _ ~ . . r..~ . .w..,....~
u"'IS AD~ ~:'I'4E ~$E A~ ACCO~'IHG FOR -U '
"~I~IS'F r
De i t o f made aa . A ent si
e ~ e~ ed by C
Iaitia~l po gr gu ommiaaioners on .
~
~
STA" STXFF EFFQATS AMf)UNT CIIAAENT
,
DITE INIT. NAKE / POSITIdN HOURS RATE' DEDUCTIBLE DEPOSITS 81lIANCE GOKKEN'TS
~
T L
`-J-
7
7 7 G~J& w ~
~
~
/
r 7 G r l er
1 . ~ f
(
99 i
/,?/I/~ ~ ,
t f , I
.
~ q ~
(ry 7. / r "i
f . C
y ~ .
- ii 1'(
~
~
.:?5aa. aa ,7 4 0, 6'
5 04730
i
L)
~ ~ . 7 ,
M t
y~
. ~'~S~/~ ~c,•~
~ ; • L- ~-,r c t.. , ~ ~
~ ~~c -
l
~
. l~
i ~
1
,
. ~ ~
.
, ~
.
. ~ .
f
~
,
• -RaTE TNuL~D&; 3AsAv%.' :9u.Y a►N!T.> :ND. -Ns.> sac. SR; .
~ ~:Ar Tur:, !-TE 1 .N,5, AND y.Fr ~~EFNT.
~ ,