Fiorito: Honestly, the NHRA event is not a huge money-maker for the track. It’s something that we feel is necessary to maintain spectator interest and take care of our sponsors by having a nationally-televised event. And it makes the facility more attractive to local competitors because they get to run on the same strip that John Force just ran on last week. … The viability of the facility isn’t contingent on the NHRA Nationals. (It) is solely responsible for about 15 million dollars worth of local economic impact, and we feel like it is our responsibility to keep hosting the event. But certainly, if we don’t keep up with incremental upgrades to the facility, you’re are going to see the sanctioning body less and less interested in hosting an event here. So I believe without incremental upgrades, that event would be in jeopardy. Would it affect our ability to operate as a club-racing track? Not necessarily. Does it allow us to be a regional with economic impact and family-friendly spectator opportunities? It certainly detracts from our ability to do that.

Q: Why two drag strips? Will the new diagonal strip be used for pro events?

Fiorito: Why two drag strips? Because this drag strip here, the one we call the national event drag strip, shares real estate with the road course. So, I can either run a road-course event or a drag-racing event. Historically what’s gone on here is we run a road-course event during the day, and then we transition from a road course to a drag-strip event in the afternoon. There are downsides to that. Number 1, I have to get a majority of my road-course users out of here so I can get my drag racers in. The drag racers don’t get to start racing until almost 5 p.m., and they don’t get to quit until 11 p.m., Similarly, the community has to put up with noise from 9 a.m., when the road corps starts operating, until 11 p.m when the drag strip stops operating. If I separate the two, I can bring my drag racers in during the afternoon, have their test and tune until less late in the evening, get ’em a few runs down the track. Run my point series Saturday and Sunday, concurrently with the road-course operations. I lessen traffic impacts because more folks can just come in and stay for the weekend on both racing surfaces, so you eliminate some of that ingress and egress of competitors getting out of each others’ way, and I start the drag racing operations on Saturday and Sunday at 9 a.m. and I’m done at 5:30 or 6 p.m. in the afternoon. So, I would think, although the intensity of activity has been increased on the property, the duration has been decreased. If I were a neighbor, I’d rather have intermittent dragsters intermixed with road-course racers with noise mitigation and have everybody shut (down) at 6, 7 at night and have my evenings back. I haven’t been able to get much of a recognition that they will no longer have to hear unmuffled vehicles until 11 at night with the new configuration. It seems to fall on deaf ears, because they seem to be so irritated with the entire process and the project as a whole that my ability to download some of the inherent benefits has been a little bit restricted.

Q: Will the road course be brought up to the latest safety standards for professional international automobile and motorcycle competition?

Fiorito: Yes, We’ve done less research on FIM (International Motorcycle Sanctioning) certification, we’ve had more involvement in making sure our proposal adheres to FIA (Federazione Internazionale De Automobile). We’re after FIA 2 certification that would allow any event up to and including CART, American LeMans, any open-wheeled series, closed wheel series except for FI. We have a recognition that FIs only run on one place in the United States, and that’s at Indianapolis Motor speedway. If they come back, they are going to run there, they are not coming up to Seattle to run an FI event, so we are not even going to strive for that certification. FIA2 is adequate, but absolutely we’re looking for professional sanction. We hired one of only a handful of track designers that works closely with FIA and has been approved and recognized as an FIA approved track designer, Richard Lee, so we’re confident that this track design will suffice for FIA 2 certification.

Q: Is it the goal of Pacific Raceways to run National pro races on the road course such as ALMS, Grand-Am, IndyCar, NASCAR, AMA SuperBike & FIM races in the future?

Fiorito: Yes. I don’t want to speak for any of those sanctioning bodies, most notably NASCAR, but of course, when we’re done there will be the capability of hosting a NASCAR Cup event. Whether they are interested in running a third road course to their series and want to run in the Seattle area on a road course or not, my guess is probably not. But we would certainly be open to the (NASCAR) truck series race for any of the lower-tier series that could be promoted here probably pretty successfully. In terms of ALMS, I would think that would be a natural Grand American, they’re owned by NASCAR. I would think that in an effort to expand their series up regionally to the Northwest that would be a natural. And we would love to have an open-wheel (IndyCar) series here. In terms of the ability to host them, we would be able to provide a facility capable of it. Whether we would be able to provide a facility capable of it, whether or not we successfully negotiate a promotional deal with any of them, I am hopeful, but not certain.

Q: Will the new construction result in the loss of forest and vegetation, which will make noise compliance more difficult?

Fiorito: Short answer, no. If you look at the property, it is — aside from a few sparse trees that you see on your way in now — essentially cleared now. Any credible noise engineer will tell you that even heavily forested areas provide little or no noise mitigation whatever. You’ve heard if you are a golfer that trees are 90 percent air. Well, then why I do always hit the remaining 10 percent when I’m golfing is the question. Forests provide very little, if any, noise mitigation, number one, and number two, if you look at it from the air, the area is predominantly cleared. There are a few tress in this area that need to be moved to accommodate the pro pits for the road course, but the northern portion, the road course and all the pit areas including this 40-acre parcel are logged already. There’s very little clearing that the MP necessitates. Again, noise mitigation by forest is minimal if existing at all.

Q: What areas will be targeted for future mining operations? What effect will this have on the water quality of wells in the area? Have you had EIS studies done before you continue excavation?

Fiorito: Number one — it’s a subtlety, — but we don’t mine here. We excavate for noise mitigation. And if I’m lucky enough to be able to sell that material, great, it pays for infrastructure improvements. But a lot of tracks excavate material to sink racing surfaces into the ground and pay to get rid of it. So, we’re excavating as part of the SEPA process to mitigate noise emanating from the property, and it’s been shown through environmental checklists and extensive review by the county that sinking racing surfaces into the ground is a very efficient way of mitigating noise. Again, does it render us inaudible? Of course not. Does it mitigate the effects of the noise? Absolutely. Have we done extensive groundwater studies here? Yes, we have. We leave enough material by county regulation and restrictions above the hardpan layer. Essentially, there is enough of a sponge remaining above the hardpan layer, and everybody’s well is below the hardpan layer. There’s only a few, probably 40, 50 feet above the hardpan. Once you punch through that, you get into the aquifer under that hardpan, and that hardpan is a really efficient filter. It decelerates the water, and the gravel itself is a natural filter. Again, in our proposal, we’re not sending untreated water into the ground. It only enters the ground after it’s gone through vaults, water separators, filters and then is dosed into the groundwater system. So we are not removing enough material so that it affects the current filtration. There is enough water left above the hardpan that we maintain adequate holding capacity for storm water events, and all the wells are beneath that hardpan layer anyway, essentially barriered from any potential water flowing off the site. As part of the expanded SEPA checklist, we’ll be submitting for this project, more extensive groundwater tables, monitoring wells, hydrologic studies on the effects of where we dose and how often we dose and where those infiltration fields will be located will have to be done. There’s no way anybody on a project of this scope is going to buy off on it before there are exhaustive studies on the effects of our surface water management system on the groundwater system…

Q: What is the source of your construction revenue? Once the income from the gravel mining operation plays out, are there concrete plans to continue a revenue stream that can sustain your proposed operation?

Fiorito: Absolutely, the buildings. Once we excavate the material, that material goes essentially to pay off the debt that I have already incurred and provides enough money for the racing surface upgrades. At that point, I’m left with certified race courses that are paid for. That’s a huge leg up from most facilities that have to incur debt to finance the surface improvements or finance construction. At that point we put up the buildings. Folks, generally speaking, are willing to pay a little bit more per square foot for a building located next to a racing facility if they are in that industry. If I’m in the business of repairing wrecked race cars and I’m here as opposed to downtown Auburn, I’m going to have the first crack at the business, because the car doesn’t even have to leave the site to visit my establishment, as opposed to being loaded on a trailer and being taken somewhere else. The revenue off the buildings — assuming it’s even a little bit better than the revenue if I put a building down in an industrial park in Auburn or Kent — will both debt service the construction, the cost of the building, and kick in something to the ongoing maintenance and operation of the racing surfaces. That’s essentially the model. The racing surfaces provide tenants for the buildings, the tenants for the buildings provide the revenue to keep upgrading the racing surfaces.

Q: What sort of businesses are you hoping to attract in your industrial park? How many jobs do you project this will generate? Do you have firm commitments from potential tenants before construction begins?

Fiorito: Any business that survives because of the racing industry, parts sales, retail in terms of driving suits, helmets, gloves, go-kart salesmen, race car manufacturers, professional teams that come in and build their chassis here and have the racing surfaces to test them, dyno shops, restaurants to serve the folks participating and spectating. Basically, any business that survives because of the racing industry to make this the light, industrial cluster contemplated by the rural economic development plan put forth by Ron Sims. We use that as a model. We are the only industrially zoned piece of property in rural King County. So we think we are already zoned for it. Number one, it’s an industrial zone, and putting up a building in an industrial zone doesn’t seem to be a stretch in terms of zoning, and the P suffix restricts us to race-related activities, which we believe is in conformance with the businesses that we hope to house there. And of course, I’m never going to build a building on spec out here. It would be ridiculous. Number one, I would have trouble getting financing for it. And nobody wants 200,000 or 300,000 square feet of buildings that you’re making payments on without any revenues to support it. So, all this would be built after firm commitments from potential tenants. Look what we’ve seen in Vegas — one million square feet of buildings built up almost overnight. All the tracks that have employed this model and have built the square footage have filled it pretty quickly, because most tracks of this size need the parking for the NASCAR events, and the NASCAR events are more lucrative than the buildings. So, if their choice is to maintain all that space as open parking lots even if they are only used once or twice a year, or fill them up with buildings, they choose to run the NASCAR event and maintain that open space for parking. We don’t have that luxury, so we would like to use every square inch of the property we can and house tenants.

Q: Who will have access to the rooftop park areas indicated in your master plan?

Fiorito: The community to the east that’s negatively affected by current and ongoing operations. We feel like if we create some traffic areas, if we create some noise issues, and you are impacted by those noise issues, we would figure out how to open that area up to folks negatively impacted by the tracks so they had some benefit in terms of being able to see what was going on on the oval and having access to ball fields and sport courts and a place to walk their dog. The rooftop park, assuming we are allowed to excavate this 40-acre parcel, is at road level with them, so they would be able to walk in through a gate or two to the rooftop park.

Q: Will the proposed 5/16th-mile paved oval host a weekly NASCAR program to replace the now closed Spanaway Speedway? Do you hope to attract competitors from the Monroe area to your track?

Fiorito: Absolutely. We did a lot of research on what size was big enough to host the larger cars like the stock cars, but small enough that the Hornet series and some of the smaller cars could run on without maxing themselves out too much. The 5/16ths seemed to be a good balance with a banked oval. So do we hope to pull competitors from Monroe? Not necessarily, we hope to share them. It’s like having the only restaurant in town. If Monroe is up there all by themselves with fewer stock cars and fewer spectators, people will go and find other things to do. So, we would work with Monroe to build a series that folks could run at different racetracks and provide a greater car count for everybody involved and a greater spectator count. We are certainly not looking to steal anything from anybody, but we’d like to augment it.

Q: Has NASCAR made any commitments to participate in your future plans?

Fiorito: Aside from discussions on Grand American events and some of the lower-tiered series and the truck series, what used to be called the Busch Series, we don’t know who sponsors it now. Nothing concrete, but they certainly would be interested in a track that was capable of hosting their regional series. I don’t know that they have ever expressed a lot of interest in hosting a Cup event here, but they are certainly willing to talk about the lower-tier stuff happenings. And I think it would be a boon to the industry and the ability to provide spectator opportunities also.

Q: Will the facility install outdoor stadium lights to run events in the evenings?

Fiorito: Short version, yes. Long version, number one, the racing surfaces are significantly below grade, and the industry has done a great job of providing directional lighting, so that if the grade is 30 feet below the neighborhood, and they’re very directional in terms of shining down, you could really adequately mitigate the white glare leaving the property, and right now we light the property with some pretty decent stadium lights that are not directional and emanate a lot of light from the property. So what I can say is if we use what’s leaving the property now as a baseline, we hope to show through an objective environmental review that our proposed lighting will have either similar or less lighting to the community as what we have now.

Q: Will there be a new curfew for cutting off motorsport activities at any of your proposed facilities?

Fiorito: Absolutely. I’ve heard that I will be able to run 24 hours a day with no restrictions. Anybody that assumes that the King County legislation is going to give me the opportunity to run unrestricted racing activities doesn’t know King County very well. What we are proposing to do is take an antiquated and admittedly ambiguously worded conditional use permit so that we can argue about what my hours of operation are, what days I’m allowed to run, what is quiet and what constitutes non-race testing, and what are all the things that we are arguing about now and nail it down. And say through negotiating on a development agreement that these kind of cars can run on this racing surface for these hours, and these kind of cars can run on this racing surface for these hours. And here are my limits at the property line during these hours of operation, so that everybody knows by looking at a very simple piece of paper what I’m allowed to do at what time with what kind of cars and what my noise limits are. I am going to try to show through the environmental review that because I’m not going to be running unmuffled racing cars until 11 p.m., and because I’m putting in noise mitigation measures in between the racing activities and the houses, and because I’ve got well defined hours of operations that the noise impact is going to be less than it is now to the community. And that will be the challenge of negotiating the development agreement. What we have in front of the King County Council now is legislation that sets out a process to negotiate a development agreement. It doesn’t give me the right to do anything, it just gives me a predictable path through which I need to get to get to the end of the road. Now, if I went down and applied for this with no proposed legislation, it would be an endless barrage of roadblocks and additional requests for information. It took me five years to relocate an existing racing surface on the property. That involved no relaxation on sensitive area restrictions. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not tying to abolish sensitive area restrictions. I’m just saying, this is a manufactured steep slope here, and I would like to be able to encroach on it. If I can enhance slope stability by providing more runoff area, please give me permission to do it. There’s a wetland here. If I can provide adequate mitigation and relocation of wetlands some on property and do wetland enhancement, please allow me to do it. If I can show that the green-topped roofs are a better use of this 150 feet than leaving the existing sparse trees, please allow me to encroach on the landscape buffer. If I can show that I am shedding away from Soos Creek and adequately mitigating the impacts to groundwater recharge, can I build up within the steep slope buffer at the top of this slope? Those are the four areas I am looking for to fit everything I need to fit to operate the facility efficiently. Right now, there is no mechanism through which I can ask those questions of the county. I think they are all reasonable questions. If I went into the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) now and applied for it now, they would say ‘You are in violation of the wetlands, you are in violation of the steep slopes, you are in violation of buffers.’ So I need a mechanism through which I can get an objective review of what the impact of those requests are and a mechanism through which I can propose adequate mitigation measures for all of them and get it approved.

Recently, the King County Council chose a different process than the original ordinance.

The ordinance originally proposed was a special district overlay. It was a tool through which you could get all this done. The special district overlay, after extensive negotiations with the county and the council staff, they felt like it wasn’t the perfect tool to accommodate public input and objective environmental review. And that’s something the Council needs to provide to insulate themselves from reproach. So they looked at a development agreement being a better tool to incorporate public input and objections. And knowing that we were never going to get away from public input, we said absolutely, we welcome public input, and we’re not afraid of environmental review. So, if a development agreement is a tool through which we want to have this discussion, we’re more than willing to. Now it’s called a “demonstration project,” which involves the incorporation of a development agreement. It’s a different tool that the Council staff and the prosecuting attorney thought more adequately incorporated environmental review and community input.

Q: What days, hours will be designated as non-use periods per week?

Fiorito: This is something I have gone to the community with and said, ‘Hey guys, right now, I need the income from Mondays and Tuesdays, I’m just kind of dead in the water. You can’t take away 30 percent of my road course days and expect me to survive when I’ve counted on that revenue to debt service and keep up with payroll.’ What I’ve very clearly stated is that if I get this plan approved, I will adhere to your interpretation of quiet days on Mondays and Tuesdays. I’ll cease all racing operations on Mondays and Tuesdays, not because I think I was out of conformity with the CUP, but as an olive branch in terms of trying to open up a reasonable conversation about either supporting or adamantly opposing my development plan. If I can replace that income with income from the buildings and income from professional racing events hosted on the race course, then I am not reliant on the income from Mondays and Tuesdays, and I can offer that up as a mitigation measure in terms of providing two days a week that have no noise emanating from the property. But I seem to have run into a brick wall, because people opposed to my plan come back and say, ‘Well, you’re required to do that anyway!’ I said I don’t think I am, I think I’m offering something, and we’ve kind of hit a brick wall in terms of whether that’s something I’m offering or something I’m required to do.