Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 89-13-DR - BOEING #14-09 - DESIGN REVIEWPermit 89-13-DR - BOEING #14-09 - DESIGN REVIEW. 8701 E MARGINAL WAY S 89-7-SMP 89-07-SMP 89-3-V 89-03-V Neal Tunison Real Estate Division Boeing Military Airplanes P.O. Box 3707, MS 46 -87 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Dear Neal; Yours Truly, Rebecca Fox Associate Planner March 26, 1990 This letter will confirm that the 1409 Building will be on the May 24, 1990 Planning Commission agenda. Please submit all materials to our office in final format not later than April 25, 1990. Prior to April 25, 1990 Tukwila staff will meet with Boeing staff at a DRC meeting to discuss the application. Per our meeting last month, several issues need to be resolved including: 1) Swales Are you developing a swale system? If so, we need to review the plans. If not, please provide alternate plans and reasoning. 2) Seawall - Are you replacing the seawall? If so, plans must show the walls design. If not, please advise us in writing. We will also need the following architectural information: 1. Drawings for the covered walkways. 2. The entrance courtyard and dumpster screening at the cafeteria entrance. 3. Guardpost architectural drawings. 4. Color samples for the building, covered walkways, guardpost, chain -link fence coating. 5. Park furniture catalogue cuts ( if included in the shoreline park). Finally please give me the name and phone number of the Boeing contact person who will act as lead in coordinating discussions and actions from the various Boeing groups who are involved in this project. f. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Kirsop, Knudson and Gomez. Mr. Flesher was excused. CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22., 1990 Representing the staff were Vernon Umetsu, Molly Headley and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 25, 1990 MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89 -3 -DR & 89 -10 -DR - BECKER TRANSFER - (Second Hearing, due to procedural error.) Request for approval of design review applica- tion and conditional use permit to develop an improved parking facility for employees' automobiles and semi -truck trailers. Molly Headley, Assistant Planner, reviewed the request noting that, due to a procedural error, this request is being heard again by the Planning Commission. She stated that staff is recommending approval with conditions as stated in the staff report. Mr. Jeffrey Mann, PacTech Engineering, 6100 Southcenter Blvd, represented the applicant. He entered into the record as Exhibit I, a letter dated February 22, 1990, modifying staff's condi- tions. He reviewed the proposed landscaping, entering the landscape plan as Exhibit II. Exhibit III, a photograph of trees depicting a buffer along East Marginal Way, was also entered into the record. He concluded by requesting approval of design review and conditional use applications with modified conditions. A letter from Donna Meagher in support of the request, was read into the record. It was subsequently entered into the record as Exhibit IV. Kathy Stetson, 13258 - 40th Avenue S., presented a photograph board to the Commission in clarification of concerns posed by this proposal. It was subsequently entered into the record as Planning Commission February 22, 1990 Page 2 Exhibit V. She expressed concern with traffic impacts the proposal may have on E. Marginal Way as well as adequate land- scaping be provided and that they be required to provide wheel stops. She felt the operation should be entirely fenced, no on- street parking be permitted and a bond be required to ensure improvements are completed. For the record, she requested that no on -site storage of materials or debris be permitted, as well as no fuel storage be permitted. Beverly Nicholson, 3810 S. 130th St., concurred with comments made by Ms. Stetson. She favored a decision by the Board to implement all the conditions presented by staff, with no dele- tions. Shirley Robinson, 13422 40th Avenue S., also concurred with previous citizen testimony. She expressed concern with traffic impacts, as well as impaired site distance which contributes to potential traffic accidents. She felt the fence is an important issue as children are attracted to the site. She felt the site also poses a problem for potential for drug use activity. In response to a question posed to staff, it was determined that the conditions would follow the business rather than ownership of the property. Robert Bernhards, 3418 S. 126th, expressed a concern with surface water problems this site has had in the past. He also expressed a concern with the drainage of a white substance into a nearby creek which now does not have any fish in it. He felt measures should be taken to filter the stormwater runoff from the pavement proposed for the site. Phil Hemenway, 4036 S. 128th, spoke in support of the Becker operation. He supported the expansion of the facility and felt they are an asset to the community. Ed Becker responded to citizens concerns by stating that he would be supportive of using lighting to discourage vandalism or potential drug activity. He further stated that pipes have been cleaned out so storm water flooding should not be a problem now. Donna Meagher, 13242 - 40th Avenue S., felt the City discourages businesses in the City. Further, she pointed out that the City should be as concerned with the drug activity that takes place in a local park as they are with the Becker site. Sharon Bernhard, 3418 S.126th, felt that proper landscape screen- ing should be implemented to reduce noise impacts and lighting should be aimed in such a way as to reduce the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. She felt that flooding is a serious problem on 128th. She expressed a concern with the potential CONDITION #2: Planning Commission February 22, 1990 Page 3 liability issue that may occur with children playing on the Becker property, and felt that fencing the property was the answer. She felt everyone should work together for the common good. The public hearing was closed at 9:15 P.M. and discussion ensued on the proposal. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITION #1: MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE USE OF THE SITE WILL BE CONFINED TO PARKING OF EMPLOYEE AUTOMOBILES, TRUCKS, TRACTORS AND TRAILERS. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE HOURS OF OPERATION ON THE SITE SHOULD BE 6:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CONDITION #3: MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT AS A PREVIOUS CONDITION APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION STATED THAT THE APPLICANT MUST MAKE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF APPROVAL DATE (AUGUST 22, 1990). IF THE CONDITION IS NOT COM- PLIED WITH, THE PERMIT WILL BE RESCINDED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CONDITION #4: HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT A SITE DISTANCE TRAFFIC STUDY WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS REQUIRED TO RESOLVE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ENTERING AND EXITING THE FACILITY AT EAST MARGINAL WAY AND SOUTH S. 128TH STREET INTERSEC- TION. IF THE STUDY INDICATES THAT A RESTRICTION OF PARKING IN THAT AREA WOULD PRODUCE AN IMPROVEMENT IN SAFETY, THEN THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. DESIGN REVIEW CONDITION #1: KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE AP- PLICANT BE REQUIRED BY CODE TO PROVIDE AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS OR A MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THREE YEARS WHICH WILL ENSURE A GOOD START FOR THE VEGETATION. IN ADDITION, THE TMC STATES THAT ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS MUST BE MAINTAINED CONDITION #2: CONDITION #3: CONDITION #4: CONDITION #5: Planning Commission February 22, 1990 Page 4 FOR THE LIFE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS ORIGINALLY INSTALLED. MR KIRSOP WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH MR. HAMILTON APPROVAL AS THE SECOND. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT ALL LANDSCAPING AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED AS REQUIRED BY CODE. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT PUBLIC WORKS WILL APPROVE THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW ONE YEAR AFTER ESSENTIAL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT SO THAT A DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE WHETHER GATES OR FENCING OR BOTH MAY BE NEEDED TO CONTROL ILLEGAL ENTRY TO THE SITE. MOTION PASSED WITH KIRSOP, GOMEZ, HAGGERTON, HAMILTON AND KNUDSON VOTING YES; MR. CAGLE VOTED NO. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO DELETE CONDITION #4 -- STAFF RESPONSE -- AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AS LONG AS THE LANDSCAPING MEETS THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. GOMEZ SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE LAND- SCAPE PLAN SHOULD BE REVISED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER TO DECREASE EROSION THAT IS CURRENTLY OCCURRING, BY RETAINING THE ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH THE ADDITION OF EROSION - RESISTANT PLANTING ON SLOPE AND PUT IN A CURB TO PROTECT THE WALL AT THE EDGE OF THE HILLSIDE FROM DAMAGE FROM AUTOMOBILES. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVED THE CONDITIONS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO REGARDING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INCLUDING ITEMS A. AND B; AND A, B, AND C (AS AMENDED) OF THE DESIGN REVIEW TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Planning Commission February 22, 1990 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. Applicant will provide landscaping to include MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT: a 150% cash assurance for the cost of materials, labor and maintenance. improvements within six months of B. Applicant will install approval date. DESIGN REVIEW A. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way. B. Placement of wheel stops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas. C. Increase effective height of new landscaping /screening so that it will be a minimum of 10 -feet high at installation. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -3 -CUP AND DESIGN REVIEW 89 -10 -DR WITH CONDITIONS AS JUST PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF ARCH- ITECTURAL REVIEW. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89 -13 -DR - HOMEWOOD SUITES - Request for approval of a design review application and cooperative parking agreement for a 106 - unit extended stay hotel. Molly Headley, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report recommending approval with conditions. Mark Hanson, Dimension Development, Memphis, TN, the applicant for the project, further described the proposal for the Board. Discussion ensued on the proposal. MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. GOMEZ SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDI- TIONS: 1. Applicant agrees to provide a total of 119 parking spaces. This number constitutes a maximum 8.4% reduction in the required amount of parking for this site and its intended uses. 2. Applicant agrees to restrict use of meeting areas to regist- ered guests only after 5:00 p.m. Planning Commission February 22, 1990 Page 6 3. Applicant agrees to restrict use of facilities to registered guest only at all times if documented congestion occurs on the site. 4. Applicant agrees to restrict signage advertising the meeting areas to inside the building. 5. Applicant agrees to restrict the distribution of promotional material for the subject hotel in which the meeting areas are also promoted to targeted potential demand generators and not the general public. 6. Applicant agrees to provide a parking study if need arises in the future. 7. Conditions shall travel with the facility, shall be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections, and may be modified only with the written permission of the City of Tukwila. MOTION PASSED WITH GOMEZ, KNUDSON, HAGGERTON, CAGLE AND KIRSOP VOTING YES AND MR. HAMILTON VOTING NO. Mr. Knudson asked to be excused. A 10- minute recess was called.. The meeting resumed at 10:30 pm. DESIGN REVIEW Molly Headley reviewed the design review portion of the request recommending approval with conditions. She asked that the record show a correction in the staff report from 114 units to the correct amount of 106 units. She distributed an addendum to the staff report which reflected additional conditions, based on shoreline requirements. Mr. Mark Hanson, applicant, further clarified the proposal adding that Condition 1(a) be corrected to reflect the inclusion of trees along the north (not west) property line. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW PORTION OF THE APPLICATION 89- 12 -DR, SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF REPORT, DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1990. THE CONDITIONS READ AS FOLLOWS: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR APPROVAL: Planning Commission February 22, 1990 Page 7 1. A revised landscape /site plan indicating: a. The inclusion of trees along the north property line. b. The addition of trees to the landscape area on the east side of Building E -5. c. Stamped approval of landscape plan by a Washington State Landscape Architect. 2. Lighting plan for site to include placement and level of intensity produced by lights. 3. Prior to submittal of application for State Shoreline Permit the applicant will provide: a. A cross - section for every 75 feet of development along the shoreline showing: (i) Existing ground elevation (ii) Proposed ground elevations (iii) Height of proposed structures (iv) Elevations of trail /access road and dike configurations which clearly indicate eleva- tion of ground at beginning and end of development (i.e., trail /access road, paved parking area). b. Elevation prints of Buildings which show height of 35' as required by the Shoreline Program and dimensions of buildings and indicates scale of drawing. c. Statement of composition and volume of any extracted materials and proposed disposal area. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 88 - - DR EMBASSY SUITES - Request for approval of an amendment to the site plan to eliminate 2.5 -story garage and replace with expanded surface parking on 1.9 acres to the east. Molly Headley, associate planner, reviewed the staff report for the proposal, recommending approval with conditions. John Sloan, architect for the project, represented the applicant, further described the proposal. He stated that they generally agreed with staff's recommendations. Tim Lavin, represented owners of the parcel, described the history of obtaining the site. Planning Commission February 22, 1990 Page 8 1. Prior to issuance of Building Permit: Discussion ensued on the proposal Mr. Mike O'Donin, 1517 S.W. 16th Street, requested that permis- sion be granted for a shared directional sign (with Longacres). He was instructed to submit a sign application directly to Tukwila Department of Community Development. Robert Losey, owner of the adjacent property, Renton Auction, expressed a concern with the delay he is experiencing in obtain- ing a date of sale from the purchaser. Mr. O'Danin explained the purchase process and the legal process they must go through to obtain Mr. Losey's property and the time elements involved. MR HAMILTON MOVED AND CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT 88 -7 -DR EMBASSY SUITES, SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS FOLLOWS: A. Provide a revised site plan to be approved by Planning Director which will provide pedestrian access: 1. Between the new SE parking area and the tower structure. 2. Between both parking areas and Longacres Way and West Valley Highway. 2. Building tilework to be installed as a previously approved. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89 - 18 - DR - HARTUNG TIMPERLINE BUILDING - Request for approval of design review application to construct an 85,000 square foot retail /industrial building with 136 parking spaces on three acres of land. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the application, recommending approval with conditions. Al Croonquist, One Union Square Building, Seattle, WA 98101, architect for the project, represented the applicant. He further clarified the project. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION 89 -18 -DR - HARTUNG- TIMPERLINE, BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; THE BLUE COLOR SELECTED FOR THE GLASS Planning Commission February 22, 1990 Page 9 USED IN THE DESIGN NOT BE A DARK BLUE; THE BOARD RECONVENE FOR AN ON -SITE SELECTION OF COLOR TO BE USED IN THE DESIGN AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Large stature evergreen trees shall be placed at the western corners of each building which form the center truck loading and parking corridor along the southern boundary; with dense shrubs to approximately 4 -feet in height substituting for trees at the interior islands in this area. 2. A statement that automatic irrigation for all landscape areas shall be clearly printed on the landscape plan. 3. Glare diagrams to demonstrate no light spillover shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All roof -top equipment must be screened with architectural materials which are visually harmonious with building walls and proportions. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Umetsu stated that Mark Henshaw would be giving a slide presentation at the March 8, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. It was noted that Joanne Johnson, Secretary, would be leaving the City of Tukwila on February 28, 1990. She has accepted a position with the City of Federal Way. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary 14 -09 AND 9 -08 BUILDING SHORELINE PERMITS Meeting with Tukwila February 22, 1990 PRESENT Greg Mercier, B.E. & C. Engineers Ben Dunlap, B.E. & C. Engineers Dennis O'Hara, B.E. & C. Engineers Stan Cruse, B.E. & C. Engineers Rebecca Fox, City of Tukwila Moira Bradshaw, City of Tukwila Jim Duffy, Boeing Military Airplane I . PURPOSE OF MEETING Neal Tunison, Boeing Military Airplane Terry Bennett, Boeing Military Airplane Greg Krape, B.E. & C. Engineers Darlene Septelka, B.E. & C. Engineers Peter Hummel, Bruce Dees & Associates Bruce Dees, Bruce Dees & Associates Moira Bradshaw explained that the purpose of the meeting was to review Tukwila's staff comments on the 14 -09 and 9 -08 Building Shoreline permit applications prior to review by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). The following issues were raised by Tukwila: 14 -09 Building 1. Schedule and the status of construction of the building. 2. Drainage swale (for biofiltration). 3. Seawall. 4. Additional information. 5. Comments on design. 9 -08 Building 1. Cafeteria 2. Coordination with King County II. 14 -09 BUILDING A. Schedule Neal Tunison explained that the 14 -09 Building construction was being put on hold for approximately one year. Jim Duffy also explained that this building site is proposed to be used for parking in the interim. Moira Bradshaw explained that the shoreline permit will be good for two years, from issuance to substantial completion. However, a one -year extension can be issued. She also explained that several issues are affecting the completion of the permit process (these are covered below). B. Swale for Storm Water Moira explained that this swale is a condition of the shoreline variance for the parking. The swale is proposed as a method of filtering oils from the parking lot prior to discharge into the Duwamish River. She explained that the Department of Fisheries generally requires such swales for new storm water outfalls. She also stated that Tukwila is adopting new storm water standards that would have similar requirements. The engineering and cost of such a swale was discussed. Ben Dunlap explained that depending on how storm water is calculated, it may be possible to use the existing outfall. Moira explained that if the existing outfall is used, the requirement for swales could be reviewed for deletion. She will coordinate with Ben on getting Tukwila's storm water calculation standards. Meeting with Tukwila page 2 C. Seawall Moira stated that prior to processing the permit, a definite decision needs to be made on whether or not replacement of an existing seawall will be included in the permit application. If it is included, drawings are needed showing the design of the wall. If it is not included, Boeing can write a letter to Moira explaining that the wall is to be deleted from the current shoreline permit. She also explained that another permit could be issued in two or three years if the wall is built then. Greg Mercier explained that a study had been done for Boeing by Alpha Engineers to assess the condition of the existing sea wall and the cost of replacing it. Their conclusion is that the existing wall is structurally sound. However, tidal action will continue soil erosion behind the wall. D. Additional Information Rebecca Fox stated that several pieces of information are needed to adequately evaluate the design. The following items are needed: 1. Drawings for the covered walkways. 2. The entrance courtyard and dumpster screening at the cafeteria entrance. 3. Guardpost architectural drawings. 4. Color samples for the building, covered walkways, and guardpost. 5. Park furniture catalogue cuts (if included in the shoreline park). Specific sheet numbers were coordinated between Rebecca and Bruce Dees. E. Comments on the Design The following comments were made by staff on the site plan and building design: 1. The fence between the shoreline park is a concern in terms of both visual and physical separation from the river. Boeing representatives stated that the physical separation is needed to meet security requirements. Visual separation could be mitigated by coloring the c.h_ai.nlink (for example, black or green). Bruce Dees suggested that additional drawings (sectional views) showing the relationship between the fence to the river may be helpful. 2. Park furniture in the Linear Park was suggested by the Tukwila Parks Director. 3. The dumpster location and screening at the building entrance is a concern. Bruce and Greg Krape explained that this location is needed for the close proximity to the cafeteria and service access. Screening includes concrete walls and evergreen plant material. 4. Building colors: The staff suggested using more color accents for the building (as opposed to one color throughout). Other suggestions included painting stairways a different color (as an accent), and a mural on the building. Meeting with Tukwila page 3 E. Comments on the Design (Cont.). 5. A pedestrian connection between the rear (river side) entrance to the building and the shoreline park. The . question was raised as to whether or not these comments are requirements or suggestions and how Boeing should respond to them. Moira Bradshaw stated that they are suggestions and Boeing can respond in writing as well as verbally at future meetings with the BAR and staff. 111.9 -08 BUILDING A. Cafeteria Building Moira explained that the shoreline permit cannot be processed until there is a decision from Boeing on whether or not a cafeteria will be included in the permit application. She offered to look into the possibility of processing the permit with only a building "footprint" and cross section (showing the building's relationship to the river). However, the BAR would still review the building design at a later time. B. Coordinating with King County Greg Mercier stated that written verification of an agreement between Tukwila and King County on transfer of parking layout approval at the 9 -08 Building site is needed. Moira stated that she needs Herb Haines' (of King County) address and phone number before she writes a letter verifying the agreement. Bruce Dees will get her this information. IV. SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Moira stated that additional drawings, any revisions to the drawings, decisions on the seawall, and swale would be needed by March 5, 1990 for the BAR to review the project in March. If this information is not received by this time, the next BAR meeting is the fourth Thursday in April. The deadline to receive this information would be April 9, 1990. BMAC Developmental Center . Expansion Parks, Planning and Resources Department Division of Building and Land Development King County, Washington August .1987 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BOEING MILITARY AIRPLANE COMPANY DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER EXPANSION Prepared for KING COUNTY Parks, Planning, and Resources Department Division of Building and Land Development 431 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 Revised Code of Washington 43.21C and King County Code, Chapter 20.44 DATE OF ISSUE:. August 18, 1987 COST: $2.00 + .16 tax Responsible Official: Contact Person: FACT SHEET A. Nature and Location of Proposal: The proposed project is expansion of The Boeing Company's 203.6 -acre Developmental Center to accommodate projected business growth. The proposed project is just south of the Seattle city limits. The Developmental Center is bounded by the Duwamish Waterway on the west, East Marginal Way South and the King County International Airport on the east, South 102nd Street to the south, and the north boundary of the former Isaacson Steel plant on the north. In addition to the proposed project, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluated: (1) the no- action alter- native, which is defined as no expansion of uses or employ- ment at the Developmental Center; (2) two lesser development alternatives (minimum development and intermediate develop- ment), which represent a fraction of the development that would occur under the proposal; and (3) accommodation of expanded manufacturing uses proposed under the proposal at Boeing's Plant 2 complex, with all expanded office, labora- tory, and support uses proposed under the proposal to be developed within the Developmental Center. B. Proponent and Date of Implementation: The Boeing Military Airplane Company (BMAC), a wholly -owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company, is the project proponent. The proposal described in this EIS would be developed in phases from 1987 through 1991. C. Lead Agency, Responsible Official, and Contract Person: Mr. Ralph Colby King County Building and Land Development Division Mr. Gene Peterson Building and Land Development Division King County Department of Parks, Planning, and Resources 431 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 344 -5299 i D. Licenses Required: King County Building and Land Development Division Grading Permit Building Permit (including road adequacy determinations for developmental approval) Design approvals for storm drainage and traffic control plans E. Authors and Principal Contributors: Area of Name Contribution Landau Associates, Inc. Principal Author Water Quality and Quantity David I. Hamlin & Associates Traffic F. Date of Issue of Final EIS: August 18, 1987 G. Nature of Final Action: The final action is a decision by King County to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for various permits associated with proposed buildings and support facilities. H. Type and Timing of Subsequent Environmental Review: Agency and public review will commence on the date of EIS issue until the date specified in Item G above. I. Location of Background Data: The primary technical data used to prepare this EIS are included in the appendices bound into the document. Additional background traffic data and computer analyses are on file at Building and Land Development Division offices. J. Cost: $2.00 + $.16 tax. ii SUMMARY OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSAL The primary objectives of the proposal are to: o Allow the Boeing Military Airplane Company (BMAC - the proponent) to expand its aircraft development, testing, and manufacturing facilities in King County to respond to projected market conditions. o Relieve existing overcrowded office conditions at the Developmental Center and develop needed laboratory and testing uses for program development. o Consolidate activities at the Developmental Center, resulting in reduced production and employment costs. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSAL The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates four development alternatives (including the proposal) and the no- action alternative. The four development alternatives reflect varying levels of facilities expansion that may be undertaken under varying economic conditions. Alternatives selected include only those actions that meet the objectives of the proposal and the no- action alternative. No other sites were considered for the proposed development. Employment associated with the four development alternatives is expressed as "new" employment. In actuality, much of this employment will represent transfer employment, or employment currently at other Boeing activities scheduled for elimination or reduction in scale. Alternative 1: Full Development (The Proposal) BMAC, under the provisions of its 1986 Developmental Center Master Plan for Expansion, proposes to expand its existing facil- ities by developing 1,863,110 gross square feet (GSF) of mixed uses and supporting facilities (parking, internal roads, pedes- trian facilities, and utilities) within the 203.6 -acre Develop- mental Center planning area. Uses proposed for development under Alternative 1 include: o Office: 916,830 GSF o Manufacturing: 586,000 GSF (includes fabrication and assembly spaces) o Laboratory: 289,400 GSF o Support: 80,830 GSF (including facilities, mainten- ance, transportation, material distribution, medical, security, and fire protection services) An additional 30,500 GSF of support uses (material handling and storage) will be eliminated, resulting in a total of 1,832,610 GSF of new development. This represents a 70 percent increase in building area within the planning area and a doubling of total approximate employment from the current 6,000 to a total of 12,000 employees. The Developmental Center planning area is composed of four major planning subareas, or sites (Main, Terminal 128 [T -128], Thompson- Isaacson, and Oxbow) and three smaller sites (FAA, MFC, and PAMCO). The PAMCO site has been exempted by King County for analysis in this study. Most new development will occur within the four major planning sites, primarily at the T -128 and Thompson- Isaacson sites. Development will result in the addition of approximately 16,000 GSF of impermeable surface within the planning area as a result of new structures being constructed where no structures or paved surfaces currently exist. All other construction will occur in areas currently occupied by paved parking lots, paved or covered storage areas, and structures. Additional parking and internal circulation facilities will be developed to accommodate new employment. A pedestrian bridge will be constructed to link the Oxbow site with Main site. Proposed utility improvements include the expansion of electrical, natural gas, domestic water and sanitary sewer, and firemain service within the planning area. New storm sewer facilities with oil /water separators will be developed to accom- modate runoff at Main, T -128, and Oxbow sites. The existing storm sewer interceptor will be relocated at the Thompson - Isaacson site. Alternative 2: Minimum Development Less than optimal business conditions may result in the implementation of substantially reduced levels of development within the Developmental Center planning area. Alternative 2 assumes a sudden and major reduction in commercial and military aircraft production combined with a need to reduce new program development. Under Alternative 2, only that development already funded would be undertaken. Uses to be developed include 218,610 GSF of office, laboratory, and support uses at the Main and T -128 sites. Estimated new employment at the expanded facilities would be 1,033, representing a 20 percent increase over current employ- ment levels at the Developmental Center, as well as 20 percent of the new development and employment occurring under Alternative 1 (The Proposal). 2 Alternative 3: Intermediate Development Alternative 3 could be implemented if busine growth is less than that assumed for Alternative 1, but much better than Alternative 2 conditions. A total of 1,104,110 GSF of office, manufacturing, laboratory, and support uses would be developed under Alternative 3. Selected office and other support uses scheduled for development in 1989, 1990, and 1991 under Alterna- tive 1 (The Proposal) would not be constructed. New development under Alternative 3 would support 3,194 new employees. Alterna- tive 3 represents approximately 60 percent of the development and employment that would occur under Alternative 1 (The Proposal). Alternative 4: Plant 2 Manufacturing Use Under Alternative 4, all manufacturing and directly supporting use scheduled for development in the planning area would be consolidated and developed at Plant 2, located imme- diately to the north of the Jorgenson Steel site, which forms the northern boundary of the Developmental Center planning area. This alternative assumes that sufficient space (696,000 GSF) would become available at Plant 2 due to projected shifts of Boeing activities at Plant 2 to other sites. All other uses proposed under Alternative 1 would be developed at the Develop- mental Center. Alternative 5: No Action Under this alternative, no expansion of facilities, infra- structure, or new employment would be undertaken in the planning area. Response to market conditions would be limited to internal modification of existing structures and possible retraining and redistribution of existing employment within the Developmental Center. IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES During scoping, two major areas of impact associated with the proposed expansions were identified -- water quality /quantity and traffic. Only these impact areas are assessed within this document. A summary of impacts associated with each of the alternatives is presented in Table 1. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS No significant unavoidable adverse water quality /quantity impacts are associated with the proposed project or any of the alternatives. Unavoidable adverse traffic impacts include deter- iorating levels of service at selected major intersections near the Developmental Center during AM and PM peak hours under Alter- natives 1, 2, and 3. 3 Impact Area Surface Water Runoff Traffic(a) Runoff Volume Runoff Quality Trip Generation Trip Distribu- tion Parking Levels of Service 1. Full Development Incremental increase in runoff due to development of 16,000 GSF of impervious surface. Mitigated by infiltration pro- vided by creation of landscaping strips. Some increase in run- off constituents asso- ciated with vehicle operations due to development of new parking surfaces and conversion of paved storage areas to park- ing. Mitigated by installation of oil - water separators. Increase of 6,122 employees, resulting in 13,950 daily trips. Slight changes in trip distribution at access points to E. Marginal Way from Developmental Center. 5,175 new parking stalls developed. Deterioration of levels of service at seven nearby major intersections during AM peak and most intersections during PM peak. Level of service F at four majur intersections during AM peak and three during PM peak. Represents correction from Draft EIS. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BOEING MILITARY AIRPLANE COMPANY DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER EXPANSION 2. Minimum Development Virtually no increase in runoff due to con- struction of new uses in areas that are already paved. Same as Alternative 1, but increase in new parking will represent approximately 20 per- cent of that developed in AIternative 1. Increase of 1,033 employees, resulting in 2,848 daily trips. Same as Alternative 1. 861 new parking stalls developed. Deterioration of levels of service at four of seven inter- sections studied during AM peak and two of seven during AM peak. Levels of service F at two intersections during AM peak and at least one during PM peak. al Traffic impacts assume all additional employment at the Developmental ALTERNATIVE 3. Intermediate Development Same as for Alterna- tive 2. Same as Alternative 1, but increase in new parking will represent appcoxi; mutely 60 percent of that developed in Alternative 1. Increase of 3,194 employees, resulting in 8,889 daily trips. Same as Alternative 1. 2,662 new parking stalls developed Same as Alternative 1, except Level of service F is pro- jected at three major intersections during AM peak and two dur- ing PM peak. Center is new employment. 4. Plant 2 Manufacturing Use All growth would be accommodated within existing Plant 2 structures, resulting in no increase in impervious surfaces and no additional runoff. Virtually no change in runoff quality due to no increase in new parking sur- faces; existing park- ing at Plant 2 will be used to augment existing parking at Developmental Center. Same as Alternative 1. Some new trips generated at Plant 2 instead of Develop- mental Center. Same as Alternative 1 . Same as Alternative 1; some parking at Plant 2 converted to Developmental Center use. Same as Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts 5. No Action Runoff volumes remain the same as existing condition. are worst -case. No change in runoff quality. No additional trips generated by activi- ties at the Develop - mental Center. No changes in trip distribution. No new parking required. Level of service may improve or degrade due to traffic gener- ated by local activi- ties outside the Developmental Center. Traffic generated by Developmental Center activities will not affect levels of service. INTRODUCTION COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) presents comments from interested parties on the Boeing Military Airplane Company (BMAC) Developmental Center Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). dated April 21, 1987 and responses to these comments prepared by the King County Division of Building and Land Development (BALD). Interested parties that submitted written comments on the DEIS are: o Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) o Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency o City of Tukwila, Planning Department o State of Washington Department of Ecology o King County Department of Public Works The comments and responses are presented in the order indicated above. Paragraphs within each set of comments are numbered sequentially and responses are keyed numerically to specific comments to facilitate review. King County appreciates the interest demonstrated by commenting parties. 6 C` V 7 Gene Peterson May 19, 1987 Page Two O o Arterial HOV Treatments - Metro recommends that arterial HOV (cont) . treatments, such as, NOV lanes, signalization etc. be provided between South Michigan Street and the South Boeing Access Road on East Marginal Way South; on the South Boeing Access Road (East and West) between East Marginal Way and Martin Luther King Way; and on Pacific Highway South to SR -509 from the Boeing Access Road in both directions. This is justified since transit and ridesharing use at the expanded Development Center should exceed the current figure of 32.2 percent. o Access to Des Moines Way South - Examine the possibility of providing access to Des Moines Way South between 17th Place South and South 110th (possible extension of South 98th Street with a new bridge facility). o Transit and Ridesharing Pullouts and Access - The EIS recognizes that the proposed development will trigger the need for sidewalk and transit pullouts adjacent to the main entrance. Beyond the main entrance, the development should include improved employee access to transit and NOV parking. Pullouts at each bus zone on East Marginal Way should be provided in conjunction with the HOV lands. Buses should not be required to stop in the traveled portion of any HOV lane. o Parking Supply - The development contemplates the addition of 5,175 new parking stalls when fully completed. The potential for limiting the number of Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) parking stall should be identified and preferential parking for HOVs included in the plan. Additionally, the current mode split for SOVs is 66.7 percent. Metro would like to see a performance goal in the TSM which reduces SOV to 50 percent and increases ridesharing (carpool /vanpool) and transit use to 49 percent combined. Additionally, a comprehensive parking management program should be developed which includes monitoring and enforcement. o Adequate Bus Access The design for the proposed expansion should provide for adequate bus access through the facility for subscription routes or future route extensions. o Transportations Management Program Boeing should develop an appropriate Transportation Management Program which includes the following elements: Gene Peterson May 19, 1987 Page Three O 1. (cont.) 8 Performance Goals - Performance goals would establish annual targets for reducing the SOV split and increasing the transit and rideshare mode split as previously described. 2. Programmatic Actions - Specific activities which Boeing should consider are: a. Transportation Coordinators - Establish and identify staff who would act as transportation coordinators for the different buildings in the development. A recommended ratio of coordinators to employees is 1 to 1000. Boeing should allow 20 hours per month of staff . time per coordinator for transportation management activities. b. Pass Subsidies - Boeing should promote rideshare and transit pass subsidies for its employees at the development. c. Information and Ridematch Services - A regular, on- going program between Boeing and Metro for computer ridematch services and mailings to the 6,100 employees should be developed. Metro would like an annual listing of employees by shift and zip. This would allow Metro to adjust the routes to meet work shifts. d. Transportation Education Program - Include Commuter Information Centers at all major building sites; develop publications and mailings to employees which support rideshare and transit; conduct presentations on rideshare and transit on a quarterly basis; provide promotional materials about public transportation through information distributions such as pay check enclosures or desk top distributions; provide scheduled television advertisements promoting transit and rideshare. e. Evaluation - Conduct an annual survey of employees to determine their level of participation in rideshare and transit and how programs or activities might be made more effective in attracting them to ridesharing or transit. Gene Peterson May 19, 1987 Page Four Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB : j mg Bob Flor, Metro market For further 'information, contact development planner, 684- 1611. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. KING COUNTY BALD RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) Water Quality: Soils sampling and testing methods will be developed on a site -by -site basis in recognition of the history of contaminated soil in the lower Duwamish River area. These methods will be determined based on: (1) review of previous investigations at the Develop- mental Center planning area, and (2) additional studies that have been conducted to characterize contamination at specific sites scheduled for development within the planning area. For sites where past investigations show that contami- nation is likely to exist (e.g. Thompson - Isaacson), developmental plans of action can be prepared for review by Washington Department of Ecology and other agencies as appropriate. These plans would present methods for reducing the impacts of site development on ground water resources and water quality in the Duwamish River. Plan details may include: o Definition of attainable cleanup levels based on levels identified during earlier investigations or negotiations with responsible agencies. o A commitment to cover the property by buildings and pavement to reduce water infiltration through the soils. o A plan for placement of new fill to reduce the need for excavation into existing soil for utili- ties. o Precautions to avoid carrydown of materials during installation of pile foundations. o Continued monitoring of wells to detect changes in ground water conditions attributable to construc- tion. o Where excavation is required, an agreement to: develop a health and safety plan for workers. - test excavated soils and provide appropriate disposal. Excavations will be inspected by qualified personnel at those sites where no previous contamination investiga- tions have been conducted or where historic site use does not suggest presence of contaminated soil or ground water. Evidence of possible contamination that. 10 might require further investigation to determine nature, extent, and sources of the contamination will be noted during excavation (e.g. soil color, odor, consistency; oil staining of soil or sheen on ground or surface water). Specific methods, for preventing contaminants from entering surface waters will be defined and implemented as appropriate. These methods will be based on the results of contamination investi- gations undertaken at each site. Stormwater facilities will be inspected and maintained on a regular basis. Public Transportation: Please refer to paragraphs 9 through 29 of the King County Department of Public Works' comments (and the corresponding responses), which address roadway, signalization, and access improvements. Regarding programmatic actions, BMAC employees will continue to participate in the Boeing Company's (Boeing's) ridesharing, vanpooling, and other successful programs designed to reduce vehicle trips. In addition, Boeing will continue to consider addi- tional specific activities that will increase employee participation in these programs. 0 I , EAVING KING COUNT I :"/..104 M-'c." .t I . '• .,,gn`tg 39" 7(r; j34•73: 0'. ' f OUN` q 1 I. ( r,1 ;(.• 0 Mr. Ralph Colby Building and Land Development Division King County Department of Parks, Planning & Resources 431 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 1 nn HJI K.ny C'runt, I .t'I.utrrr JUr'.Ii.rinn I'.I'rl r' t. ty I .1•I ntrvr' 200 West Mercer Street, Room 205 Seattle, Washington 98119 -3958 Telephone: (206) 344 -7330 Facsimile: (206) 340 -4788 I (' May 20, 1987 Dear Mr. Colby: BMAC Developmental Center Expansion The following comments respond to the draft EIS for the BMAC Developmental Center Expansion which you circulated to us for review. The section titled "Affected Environment" on page II -1 states that only two issues of concern were identified by the scoping process; i.e. surface runoff and traffic /trans- portation. If we had been aware that the recommended alter- native would be adding 13,950 vehicle trips to the area we would have submitted a recommendation for including an air quality analysis of the carbon monoxide impacts that would indirectly result from the proposal. It would be helpful if this parameter (vehicle trip generation) could be used by lead agencies, including King County, during the scoping process, since it is the measure which best identifies the need for a follow -up air quality analysis of motor vehicle emission impacts. Since the Developmental Center Expansion will not affect any known carbon monoxide nonattainment areas the need for making a dispersion model analysis of CO impacts, while desirable, is not mandatory. We will mainly address our comments to the air quality impacts that will result from increased particulate matter emissions. This breaks down into tailpipe emissions (gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, especially the latter) and dust emissions from paved and unpaved areas over which these vehicles are driven (fugitive dust resus- pension from roads and parking areas). These emissions will add a suspended particulate problem to an area now classed as ' , Z VICI CHAIRMAN FL., Aar,al Commiss C.0.11C.0.1111% ,.,t, Grm' I MK. M rn Hlrn hn, N'.U.,nn f M • Maw. .a•r" I TO. 10'. Menit. It I.UII.• A R D,ntmhoehl,r An (`pllNluvn C ✓nh , �lH.. .•. Mr. Ralph Colby May 20, 1987 Page 2 nonattainment for total suspended particulate (TSP)and which will be classed as nonattainment for failing to meet another health standard expected to be promulgated soon, the inhalable particulate standard (PM10). This Agency will soon be commencing a planning process for meeting the PM10 standard in the Duwamish Valley, which is a federal requirement. We expect that the process will result in establishing additional requirements for paving and main - taining currently unpaved (or poorly surfaced and maintained) streets, roads, road shoulders, and parking areas. King County and the proponent can expect to budget for additional public works expenditures which are over and above those occurring at present due to the development of the area. For mitigation of the direct air quality impacts that will result from this development, no driven surfaces should be permitted to be unpaved, unswept, or otherwise in a state of disrepair. Some mitigation of the direct impacts from tail- ® pipe emissions can be expected to result from the planned 4 transportation improvements to upgrade service levels provided by the road network. The federal motor vehicle emission control program for non - diesels also is a mitigating factor (although it is becoming less effective as time goes on due to failure to implement any new standards, and natural growth in VMT). Diesel trucks are a particulate problem which may entail measures in excess of those provided through federal engine standards. Thank you for submitting the draft for our comments. Sincerely, JP Arthur P:, Dammkoehler 13 Air Pollution Control Officer KING COUNTY BALD RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency O The Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice issued by King County on October 28, 1986 (contained in File No. C -85 -031 at the King County Division of Building and Land Development) described the proposal as entailing the development of over 1.8 million square feet of mixed use to support approximately 6,100 employees. Therefore, it should have been apparent that the proposal had the potential for imposing signi- ficant increases in vehicle trips. Please note that the projection of 13,950 vehicle trips cited in the DEIS was developed during analysis subsequent to issu- ance of the notice. O Comment acknowledged; thank you for providing this information. O Please see response to King County Department of Public Works' comments. All driving surfaces will be paved, swept, and main- tained. 14 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 May 20, 1987 Mr. Gene Peterson Building and Land Development Division King County Department of Parks, Planning and Resources 431 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Boeing Military Airplane Company Development Center Expansion Dear Mr. Peterson: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. The analysis area borders our Planning Area and we are currently processing an annexation petition for a portion of the project area. On page I1 -25, Future Conditions, an assumption is made that development and therefore traffic volumes, are relatively stable. Our analysis is that the area south of the E. Marginal Way bridge is developing. A major access way for this area is through the S. Boeing Access Road /E. Marginal O Way intersection. We have conservatively projected approximately fifteen acres of vacant industrially zoned land located here. A 400,000 square foot industrial use would generate a traffic volume of 388 trips onto E. Marginal Way. If half the volume were to proceed north along E. Marginal Way, the traffic volumes with Alternative 1, Figure II 8, Page 1I -32 would be doubled at the Boeing Access intersection. The impact of future development should be incorporated into the analysis so that estimated future volumes, service levels, and impacts is considered. On page II -40, the improvement of all of E. Marginal Way S. prior to King County's expected construction date is suggested. What employment level would trigger these suggested mitigation measure? Building permit review time can be considered relatively quick in comparison to a public road Q project. An "as- needed" basis does not consider the critical time element of building occupancy and traffic improvement completion. We recommend that the specific development phases and associated employment levels be projected, and then determine adequate levels of service or improvements for each phase so that a sufficient time frame for coordina- tion between permit and public improvement can be anticipated. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. We hope these points provide you with information and a perspective that facilities review. If you have any questions, please call me at 433 -1848. Sincerely, /J Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner 15 KING COUNTY BALD RESPONSE TO COMMENTS City of Tukwila, Planning Department O Future development in the area will continue to result in compounding impacts on local transportation facili- ties. The development and traffic assumptions described in the comment would increase peak hour traffic along E. Marginal Way (between the proposed development and the Boeing Access /E. Marginal Way intersection) by 65 percent over existing AM peak hour volumes and 43 percent over existing PM peak hour volumes along the same segment. However, total traffic volumes through the intersection would increase by only 6 percent during AM peak hour and 4 percent during PM peak hour. It is not known how much, if any, this increase would affect critical turning movements within the intersection. In any case, proponents of new projects will be required to pay a fair (pro -rata) share of improvements to project- impacted King County arterials and intersections under existing County ordinances. Please see paragraphs 9 through 29 of the King County Department of Public Works' comments and corresponding responses. 4'�I)R! A 13f ITTI RINII,ER I)Irt(IUT Gene Peterson King County BALD 431 King County Admin. Bldg. Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Peterson: DJB: cc: Linda Rankin STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY".! PI?: 0 Mail Stop PV-1/ • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459 -6000 May 22, 1987 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Boeing Military Aircraft Company Developmental Center expansion. We reviewed the (DEIS) and have the following comments. There is insufficient information to determine the compliance of the project with the standards and goals of the King O County Shoreline Master Program (KCSMP), particularly in re- gards to parking facilities. The KCSMP requires that all parking areas be located under or landward of the buildings they serve. The bike lane may compensate, in part, for the continued in- () accessibility of much .of thee. x.iver..J ank.- ,_.....Extensive shoreline landscaping and other Lri. pa r _ian__ would also be appropriate in lieu of public access or setbacks of impervious surfaces. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Linda Rankin of the Shorelands Division at (206) 459 -6763. Sincerely, Donald J. Bales Environmental Review Section 17 State of Washington Department of Ecology . KING COUNTY BALD RESPONSE TO COMMENTS All development undertaken as part of this proposal will be reviewed by King County to determine the applicability of and compliance with the standards and goals of the King County Shoreline Master Program (KCSMP). If proposed development is subject to the KCSMP, appropriate shoreline and water quality protec- tion measures will be imposed as part of the Shorelines Management Permit process. Extensive shoreline landscaping of the Duwamish River bank has been completed by Boeing, with more planned. The focus of the improvements along the river bank are directed at increasing human access and use of the area. 18 This review responds to the uncertainty in growth rate expressed by BMAC by specifying improvements to area roads based on the following alternatives: King County Department of Public Works Uonald,J. L'iBc•11c, Director r .- i[�� + ( P 7 ! (� 9t)0 King County Administration 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98iO4 (206) 344-2517 June 11, 1987 :Li; DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT TO: Ralph C 1 , In eri� . nager, Technical Services Section FM: Louis . aff, Count,iRoad Engineer 0 %I 0►• • .•' y 1 . 7 JUN 1 1 i967 BLDG. & LAND RE: Boeing Military Airplane Company (BMAC) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Thank you for the opportunity to provide review and assessment of the DEIS for this major facility. The DEIS represents a complex facility expansion and has been prepared to pro- vide an accurate documentation of traffic conditions under existing and future development conditions. While the DEIS does not provide a commitment to construct major new road facilities to prevent severe congestion, the County has experience with previous road improvements provided by BMAC at their ini- tiative and expense, and two projects of this type are presently under design or construction on East Marginal Way South. Authority for Review and Developer Responsibilities King County Roads Division is charged with review of road adequacy under the O provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), through the County Road Adequacy Ordinance, and approvals of property access /frontage require- ments at the building permit stage which are subject to King County Road Standards. The SEPA process provides a mechanism to restore level of service on roadways O which are impacted by development added traffic. This restoration protects the quality of road service which contributes to the economic vitality of the area, and protects the interest of the public. Schedule of BMAC Expansion and Road Construction Mitigation BMAC has identified three principle alternative building construction programs which are contingent upon their need for new facilities. 19 The success of TSM measures will be dependent upon managing the program by BMAC. TSM is not expected to be a total solution to accommodate new employment traffic demand but is suggested as a method to give breathing space until adequate roads can be constructed. The cost of the program of TSM measures will be the responsibility of BMAC. Ralph Colby June 11, 1987 Page Two - Minimum Development - Intermediate Development - Full Development King County recognizes that BMAC may be unable to provide road improvements early enough to accommodate expansion in employment and to avoid low levels of service on public roads in the vicinity. In this regard it would be expected that BMAC would provide Transportation Systems Management (TSM) measures such as incentivies to use public transit modes, staggering of work shifts, van pooling and dedicated buses in conjunction with Metro to maintain traffic levels of service (LOS). King County Road Construction Program King County has a scheduled road construction project for East Marginal Way South from Seattle City Limits to South Boeing Access Road; however, this pro- ject is not scheduled for design until 1990 and construction in 1992. The BMAC DEIS identified building construction between 1987 and 1991. This County road improvement is needed to serve the "Intermediate Development: Alternative 3," proposal of the DEIS. The scope of work includes: Widen existing roadway with a 12 -foot lane, curb and gutter, 8 -foot sidewalks, modify and /or replace the system control for the existing 10 traffic signals, and overlay existing road. O The justification for this work as a public project without BMAC participation is as follows: Existing roadway has no sidewalks. The new sidewalks will provide for pedestrian safety and access control. The additional traffic lane will improve traffic flow. The roadway serves the Boeing Industrial tract on the west side of King County International Airport, and the improvements will reduce the traffic congestion caused by the large peak -hour traffic volume generated by the industries. O This project has a length of 1.93 miles and cost is estimated to be $3,399,000. O 8 This project does not include the reconstruction of the intersection of East Marginal Way with Boeing Access Road, and Pacific Highway South. King County has conducted a study of this intersection (Intersection Concept Analysis by: 20 Ralph Colby June 11, 1987 Page Three Tudor Engineering Company, February, 1987) and has selected alternative 1 (modified) as the preferred alternative. BMAC - Building /Employment Expansion Traffic Growth Mitigation O Roadway facilities to be provided by BMAC under the alternatives of this sec- tion shall include funding responsibility for the following: - Final engineering design and construction engineering services. - Engineering services design and construction shall meet the requirements of King County Road Standards. - Right -of -way dedication or acquisition if required from BMAC and tem- porary or permanent easements to accommodate public maintained works. BMAC shall acquire right -of -way from others needed to accommodate the road improvements under each alternative. ALTERNATIVE 2 - MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT 6 The following scope of work is required to be provided by BMAC to mitigate traffic growth on local roads: 1. Reconstruction of the intersection of East Marginal Way South with Boeing Access Road and Pacific Highway South to the preferred configuration indicated above and shown in the Tudor Engineering Company, Analysis. This work includes new channelization, islands, road widening, tapers to existing width, pavement overlay, pavement marking, mast arm mounted signal heads and illumination, overhead sign bridges with illuminated lane use signs on each approach street. 2. Replace existing controller and cabinets at 10 intersections along East Marginal Way. Replace with new, 8 phase, full actuated controllers (Traconex 390) capable of time base coordination, coordination from an arterial master, and count capability. Provide arterial master capable of time of day coordination, and traffic responsive coordination. Upgrade existing computer shed to house new master controller. Provide interconnect cable from master to all local controllers, either aerially or underground. Provide interconnect interface with modems. Provide phone modem access at master for phone hook up from remote PC. Provide interconnect and communications interface to coordinate County system with the new City of Seattle system on East Marginal Way. 21 Ralph Colby June 11, 1987 Page Four Provide local phone system from master controller shed to all local controllers in system. Install any detector loops necessary to operate traffic responsive coor- Reconstruct and signalize the intersection of West Marginal Place South with South 102nd Street and 14th Avenue South to the satisfaction of the County and 14 WSDOT to restore the existing level of service under the new traffic load. The controller for these locations shall have count capability and phone modem access for hook up from remote PC. Ralph Colby June 11, 1987 Page Five Operational improvements are recommended on East Marginal Way South between Norfolk Street and South Boeing Access Road. While the PAMCO parking lot was excluded from this SEPA review of BMAC the facility must be considered as a component providing expanded acess to East Marginal Way to the benefit of BMAC. Access control is needed to improve progressive flow of platoons of vehicles and reduce random vehicle injection into the thru stream by aggressive driver behavior. These improvements can be accomplished by the construction of curbs for driveway entrances and reconfiguration of street access as follows: (a) Closure of South 104th Street (Miller Road) at East Marginal Way South. BMAC will be responsible to design and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along the east side of South 104th Street to effect closure of this street at East Marginal Way South. (b) Access to South 104th Street shall be provided via a new public roadway to match with Norfolk Street at East Marginal Way South. This street shall be constructed by BMAC to an urban standard with sidewalks. Parking lot connections to this extension of Norfolk Street shall be set back from Each Marginal Way to provide unbroken platoon storage length for that signal phase. Six lanes are required to provide exclusive right and left turn lanes, choice right /thru, left /thru lanes and two lanes entering. East Marginal Way shall be stripped for three thru lanes in each direction, dual left turn lanes into BMAC site and single left turn lane to Norfolk Street from southbound East Marginal Way South. (c) South 102nd Street which is a private road shall be closed from South 104th Street to East Marginal Way South. Implementation of Improvements to East Marginal Way South BMAC would have the option of providing the frontage improvements identified g in the scope of work or funding these improvements as part of the County Road Construction Program if Alternative 3 (intermediate development) occurs after the County road project goes to construction. If Alternative 3 improvements are needed due to BMAC growth before the County can provide construction, then BMAC would be responsible to provide interim improvements including restripping and minor widening of East Marginal Way together with their frontage improvements to allow operation of East Marginal Way South with the ultimate lane configuration. 23 Ralph Colby June 11, 1987 Page Six ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 4 - FULL DEVELOPMENT 18 Mitigation of-traffic impact for this alternative_wil_1_ include those works required for alternatives 2 and 3 plus improved access to SR The following facility is required to mitigate this capacity constraint: 19 Complete the interchange at SR 99 and South 102nd Street which includes the southbound off and on ramps. The Sabey Corporation which is developing Oxbow Corporate Park has been issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance with the provision that they pay a pro -rata share of the cost of providing a southbound on ramp from South 20 102nd Street to SR 99 if constructed prior to December 31, 1989;-or provide full funding after that date, if the remaining share has not been acquired. The traffic generated by "full development" in BMAC expansion requires the full completion of this interchange. ' 21 Access improvements to SR 99 are direct impact and the cost of providing these improvements are the developer's burden. If BMAC is unable to have this facility operational by the time needed for the 22 Full Development, BMAC would need to provide TSM as discussed in the section "Schedule of BMAC Expansion and Road Construction Mitigation." BMAC is responsible to provide a pro -rata share of development added traffic impact on 1st Avenue South Bridge and interchange construction at Duwamish Waterway. WSDOT have tenatively scheduled construction of this improvement to begin construction in 1992. This project has an estimated cost of $110 23 million year 1992 dollars. Pro -rata share contribution would be based on calculated daily traffic using the bridge as a percentage of ADT for the year of permit issue for each phase of BMAC development. This contribution shall be applied to engineering design and construction services, right -of -way acquisition and construction. The security of a pro -rata share shall be pro- vided at building permit stage. Future Traffic Analysis and Contingent Construction BMAC will be required to provide traffic analysis and resolution of off -site 24 congestion which is attributed to BMAC additional peak hour trips. This supplemental traffic analysis will be required prior to permit issue for each or the next alternative. If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact Chuck Shields, Senior Engineer, at 344 -4381. LJH:CS:kw cc: John J. Logan, Traffic and Planning Engineer ATTN: Chuck Shields, Senior Engineer Bill — Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning ATTN: Lisa Grote, Transportation Planner 24 KING COUNTY BALD RESPONSE TO COMMENTS King County Department of Public Works Boeing will continue to make ridesharing and vanpooling . opportunities and resources available to BMAC employees. Further, BMAC will continue to promote other TSM measures such as flexible working hours, staggering of work shifts, and use of transit to main- tain traffic levels of service. All comments and information p resented are :appreciated and,. .ack nowledged. ;::These comments, be, considered `,by ands D of ,Public Works): d uring review of ;;permit a pplicat ions submitted by Boeing `.tor ,,. ;ind : vi,dua`.l projects 'under, proposed expansion. Specific miti- gating measures will be established at the time of application submittal to King County in coordination with the proponent, based on the additional traffic generated by the expanded BMAC Developmental Center facilities. PROTECTIVE COATING SYSTEMS The Versacor coating system enables you to select the "protection package" that is right for a particular build- ing and its environment. You can choose the correct fin- ish coat on a 3 -mil -thick flexibilized epoxy base coat over either a galvanized steel or aluminum substrate. Versa- cor protection easily withstands temperature extremes and resists abrasion and corrosive attack. VERSACOR HF The state -of- the -art Versacor coating. Three mils of a unique, specially - formulated, high -build urethane finish coating over the three -mil epoxy base coat. VERSACOR PF Combines the protection of the Versacor epoxy °�•.••"` base coat with the beauty of PPG Industries' Duranar fluoropolymer finish (with its stable Kynar 500 resin) which resists color change and chalking caused by ultraviolet radiation. VERSACOR OF A tightly embossed finish of commercial polyure- thane over the epoxy base coat. Nominal finish coat is one mil. VERSACOR DF A nominal one mil finish coat of silicone modified polyester (SMP). A lightly embossed, slightly higher gloss finish. VERSACOR ON ALUMINUM — All of the Versacor coatings listed above are available on an aluminum substrate for use in extremely corrosive areas where plastic panels were generally used. The Versa- cor protective coating system on aluminum substrate provides out- standing corrosion resistance without sacrificing the structural advantages of metal. I y 10400 . - A V Y :c Y a Y 8 Y X V s Y g V t y s y - -� 10]00 -- 1 -� - - -- p d 0 0 1 Mai 3 0 0 0 sla 1.10111 ICAO �N 1 0200 r 1° N 1020500 , y U ■.m , uD1t].�J H 0 DI 0 1 �� 1 PAP AE! I?TAMO KING LOT CATAL001/ LIGHTING 0{M (TYP. 0 I O O taw 14-0E BLDG. O 0 O • 1 1 1 MI ( O O O O C 7 4. N 1 I � 1 0 !l 2i241 ]] Oi • e - 7700 ols" 1 1O O ;1 I + / / M f7g00 � 7J7'�' N !611300 • , EI{•TgD 111.01 WM. v T ._ '` SARA 9000 It ^` \ r lS00 tv) I I � 1 . - 1* � • �� 1004....... - - - • • 8 r 8 • OMNI K 8 0 AUBURN, WA 98002 O BELLEVUE, WA. 98007 41OE/AV 6 O EvERET7, WA.95201 TAC11.111LS OCIVAMbR 0 KENT, WA. 95031 O PORTLA/0,OR.97220 0 RENTON WA. 95055 • SEATTLE. WA.95120 =Mall I IT NII IMO M INT•KU_ II PRELIMINARY 114C pepa ns sr D.SEMIELEA am MU! NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I " 11 PIG USIII•M ELECTRICAL MASTER •N 1,45 OQ 1 -072.11-n D.C. Lek OM .I E02 00000107010 006x01 1w/1I»4S I i 1 1 • • IMENIMP"' -"nificor.c.• Catalog Member (1) . Pole Wind Loading Rating (2) H Anchor Molt Size (3) molt CNol (2) r Plate (4! R M 110 MPH 100 MPH , Efa. kilo. EPA I WE EMI WE _ GROUP 1(5) SSP•416X-XX EMI WE 12.1 305 175 i4'x30' x3' 8.0' 9.0 6.0 5.0 - SSP- 418X -XX ao Ir ri 10.3 255 m Ili 135 b b4'x30rx3' 8.0' P. N m SSP- 420XXX 18 20 25 5.5 6.1 - 7.6 8.7 215 7.0 5.0 2.0 105 5.0' 5.0' - 5.0' Wx30'x3' 8.0' 119 130 158 54.0 59.0 71.7 SSP- 425X -XX 6.0 150 130 19.1 6.0 I 150 1 2.0 100 I 6.75' 1 1' x 36' x4' I 14.5' I 197 I 69.4 81 Y. x 30' x 3' 8.0" GROUP N (5) SSP 518X -XX 28.3 16.9 Vex 30'x3' 11.0' 108.4 SSP- 520X -XX R e- m 24.8 S 14.5 A b ri Y.' x 30'x 3' 11.0' I 119.3 SSP 525X -XX 19.2 10.7 Wx 30'x3' 11.0' 146.1 SSP- 530X -XX _ 6.0 4.0 W x 30'x 3' 11.0' 171.4 GROUP NI (5) SSP- 630X -)0( 9.1 21.0 525 11.1 88R N � � 6.0' 1"x364" 12.0' 458 207.7 SSP-635X-XX s 10.7 15.8 395 7.3 6.0' 1• x 36'x 4• 12.0' 530 240.4 SSP 640X•XX 12.2 12.4 310 4.9 6.0' 1'x 36'x 1' 12.0' 602 273.1 Pole is a one -piece steel tubing and is with either a 2W QQ tenon or machined to accepts de mounted k minaires AN poles are shipped with four 'L shaped anchor bolts, and each bolt hes two nuts and wasters. To ensure correct installation a template is also included Grounding lug is included standard on ail poles Standard finish is lust preventive Gray Lektroccte prl men Two-piece base cover included. Square Straight Steel Poles (Duds Information) Ceiba nutter. as listed does not Include tenons or midi- rang to ae: mourw+o Desired fixture rmsalk o newt be spee+A.aer subsatuang br ell XS In eablop number MesinuxnaNOtwbia EPA is based on steady vends oleo and 10G MPH wKh owls ace to4a 130MP14tMpeCtivetsANcaklMtlo. are based onamYkrrium yield 0140.000PS. wppeedlwplNr mesa lie used Melt satins maw bells Heine Ughtln. wog weUNn MYnon piecemeal UMW, eupplial (4) b olt asipOft not Included ' (5) Group( end U poles have 3'x4'.lydotadMinable Kama Group Meese Me exa'ttarrdlwN lama Both include cam Square Straight Aluminum Poles (Ordering Information) Pole is a one -piece aluminum tubing construction and is available with either a 2W QQ tenon or machined to accept side mounted luminaires All poles have a decorative cast aluminum base with fair :L.' shaped anchor bolts, each having two nuts and washers To insure correct installation a template is also included. Grounding lug is included standard on all poles Standard finish for this pole is longitudinally sanded satin aluminum • based on ueady rends d 50 and • taPH n with tom ' .• c • a nww ti n • K Feeders LIMMYtg de wnyanysYYNParin eentillaiefeaN Wing er a Catalog rurtnbar. (4)Mw1art5 *eights not included . Ri Gawp 1 and U poles have 3' x **nod *nod hardrole hems Otoup W poles here 4'a a'hrdwN lama Bin inel+decover. Options Suffix -M18 -M50 thru -M53 Description Weatherproof receptacle t.ektrocote• finish . Catalog Logic Series SSP -Square straight steel SAP - Square straight aluminum Morena! Shaft Skis 4.4.0" to 4.9 5- 5.0"to 5.9" lo 6.9' Hominid Pole Haight (See ordering information) 'Verify loading requirement based on allowable E.P.A. "For proper mounting clearance use MAA-10 arm SSP- 5- 25- d- C -2 -M51 Need Iatute rnourfip Rust be specified M M� ~ YMaetMrproaf receptacle M50 -81ack LektroC is finish M51- bronze leldroctlle finish M52 -White L.ekhocOM finish M53 -Gray Laldrocols finish Rxlwe Arm Sin (holes) 0- None, tenon only 2- ArdMtecturel Nxdnai e Mounting Suringemenr C-Tito luminaires at 180' 0 -Two luminaires at 90" F -Three luminaires at 90•• G -Four lininaires at 90"' P -Tenon only 1-244 CM tenon 6-Side mou irrtON \.1 a Catalog Number (1) Pale WindRalM g (2) H Annetta Solt . a0oe(3) bolt Circle (3) Pole (4) R M 80 MPH 100 MPH Noe icga EM I WT. EMI WE GROUP 1(5) SAP-416X-X( SAP- 418X -XX SAP- 420X -XX (4eR 4.9 5.5 , 6.1 9.0 6.0 5.0 225 150 - 125 4.0 3.0 2.0 888 4.0' 4.0' 4.0' 4'i x 30' x 3' 4'.' x 30'x 3' Y. x 30' x 3' 9.0' 9.0' 9.0' 86 95 104 39.0 43.1 47.2 GROUP II (5) _ SAP- 518X -XX SAP- 520X -XX SAP- 525X -XX 18 20 25 5.5 6.1 - 7.6 15.0 12.0 5.0 375 300 125 7.0 5.0 2.0 175 125 100 5.0' 5.0' - 5.0' Vi x 30' x 3' Y.' x 30' x 3' Y: x 30' x 3' 11.0' 11.0' - 11.0' 119 130 158 54.0 59.0 71.7 • SAP-630X-)0( 130 19.1 6.0 I 150 1 2.0 100 I 6.75' 1 1' x 36' x4' I 14.5' I 197 I 69.4 Pole is a one -piece steel tubing and is with either a 2W QQ tenon or machined to accepts de mounted k minaires AN poles are shipped with four 'L shaped anchor bolts, and each bolt hes two nuts and wasters. To ensure correct installation a template is also included Grounding lug is included standard on ail poles Standard finish is lust preventive Gray Lektroccte prl men Two-piece base cover included. Square Straight Steel Poles (Duds Information) Ceiba nutter. as listed does not Include tenons or midi- rang to ae: mourw+o Desired fixture rmsalk o newt be spee+A.aer subsatuang br ell XS In eablop number MesinuxnaNOtwbia EPA is based on steady vends oleo and 10G MPH wKh owls ace to4a 130MP14tMpeCtivetsANcaklMtlo. are based onamYkrrium yield 0140.000PS. wppeedlwplNr mesa lie used Melt satins maw bells Heine Ughtln. wog weUNn MYnon piecemeal UMW, eupplial (4) b olt asipOft not Included ' (5) Group( end U poles have 3'x4'.lydotadMinable Kama Group Meese Me exa'ttarrdlwN lama Both include cam Square Straight Aluminum Poles (Ordering Information) Pole is a one -piece aluminum tubing construction and is available with either a 2W QQ tenon or machined to accept side mounted luminaires All poles have a decorative cast aluminum base with fair :L.' shaped anchor bolts, each having two nuts and washers To insure correct installation a template is also included. Grounding lug is included standard on all poles Standard finish for this pole is longitudinally sanded satin aluminum • based on ueady rends d 50 and • taPH n with tom ' .• c • a nww ti n • K Feeders LIMMYtg de wnyanysYYNParin eentillaiefeaN Wing er a Catalog rurtnbar. (4)Mw1art5 *eights not included . Ri Gawp 1 and U poles have 3' x **nod *nod hardrole hems Otoup W poles here 4'a a'hrdwN lama Bin inel+decover. Options Suffix -M18 -M50 thru -M53 Description Weatherproof receptacle t.ektrocote• finish . Catalog Logic Series SSP -Square straight steel SAP - Square straight aluminum Morena! Shaft Skis 4.4.0" to 4.9 5- 5.0"to 5.9" lo 6.9' Hominid Pole Haight (See ordering information) 'Verify loading requirement based on allowable E.P.A. "For proper mounting clearance use MAA-10 arm SSP- 5- 25- d- C -2 -M51 Need Iatute rnourfip Rust be specified M M� ~ YMaetMrproaf receptacle M50 -81ack LektroC is finish M51- bronze leldroctlle finish M52 -White L.ekhocOM finish M53 -Gray Laldrocols finish Rxlwe Arm Sin (holes) 0- None, tenon only 2- ArdMtecturel Nxdnai e Mounting Suringemenr C-Tito luminaires at 180' 0 -Two luminaires at 90" F -Three luminaires at 90•• G -Four lininaires at 90"' P -Tenon only 1-244 CM tenon 6-Side mou irrtON \.1 a Lamp Wattage - Forward TMw Distribution /* R table Distrbution by Reid Adjustment (✓I EPA EPA Lamp I Ms Standard type U Type N �Medium l 170:: type IN Hype Y I 1 Typ p e IV .16 1 Wattage Catalog Number Distribution Short 128.1 12.7 • 'I 400 Square _ b•. MO•. R P Metal Halide' 400 400 RCM-0400H-2P8-1 RCM-0400H -2W8.1 I T pe V III Medium Square I so - 40 I so 1 - I std 1 ( 20.7 2.7 I kirql High Pressure Sodium 14.0 RCM-0250S -2P8.1 Type Ill Medium RCJ,0400S -1T8-1 Type IV 16.2 - 51 ' 2.7 Ikq 44.411 RCM-0250S -2W8.1 Type V Square .16 RCS-0150S-1P8-la Type ill Medium T ye std 51 • 2.7 RCM-0400S -2P8.1 Type III Medium .16 RCS-0400S-1P8-1 V . - 56' 2.7 RCM-0400S -2W8 -1 Tyree V Square .1 std 56 2.7 Lamp Wattage Catalog Number Forward TMw Distribution MIW EPA bs kga, Rs I Ms Metal Halide' 175 RCJ -0175H- 1T8-1" Type IV 400 1000 12.2 1 Typ p e IV .16 250 RCJ- 025OH -1T8-1 Type IV 1 Type IV 13.6 128.1 12.7 .16 400 RCJ-0400H- 1T8.1'" Type IV Type Ill Medium 14.9 ✓ .16 High Pressure Sodium 150 RCJ -0150S- 1111-1A Type IV 12.7 RCS-0400H- 1P8 -1 *" nv. -1l 250 RCJ-0250S -1T8.1 Type IV std 14.0 14.9 400 RCJ,0400S -1T8-1 Type IV 16.2 Type 111 Medium p Wattage Catalog Number FT r ard Distribution MIW E it IM bIMe. Fta I Ms Metal Halide' 1 22.2 12.71 I IRv41 400 1000 1 RCT-1000H-1T8-1 1 Typ p e IV 1 49 High Pressure Sodium 1000 1 RCT 1000S -1 T8-1 1 Type IV ( 62 128.1 12.7 I ncJ MCT IICL 16W bE SS Ss -4 22W 413 413 mm 23W . 4 591 mm r 30W 203 mm I IICS IICM IICL 16V. 22W 22W 413 mm 572 mm 572 mm 23W 30W 30W 591 trim 768 mm 768 mm 2 mm 25 m m 254 mm Lamp Wattage • _ Catalog Number - Standard Distribution - Annals DlahaAlon by Reid A�upewnt EM type N Short I TYPO N Medium I type. ,yps. Short Medium _ ire. I a nit I Ma Metal Halide' 175 RCS-0175H- 1P8-1" Type Ill Medium ✓ ✓ ✓ etd 11.6 250 RCS-0250H -1P8 -1 Type Ill Medium ✓ ✓ ✓ std 12.7 400 RCS-0400H- 1P8 -1 *" Type III Medium ✓ ✓ ✓ std 14.9 High Pressure Sodium RCS-0100S-1P8-1 Type 111 Medium 11.3 1.7 .16 RCS-0150S-1P8-la Type ill Medium T ye 12.7 1.7 .16 RCS-0400S-1P8-1 III :: ium 1 8.9 1.7 .1 - - C Specifying information RCS RCL RCJ RCT Lu moire finish is bronze For alternate finish substitute cored kW digit 01 catalog n umber: black -2. -3, ehNs -4. aaHaWi -von t f ) wbsdas' a5 brIMe in catsbgmnmbst (60hz.220240V "M V ab nN �Y y be operated on maw hafds balm. A Must use ANSI S55 dill lamp "'Shipped nwith lamp Lamp Wattage Catalog Number Standard Distribution Asellable Distribution by , Field Adjustment (✓) 1 1p 6 N I type N 11ype.I lyp.IN hype Y Short Medium Short Medium Square Metal Halide' - 1000 RCL-1000H-1G8-1 1000 RCL- 1000H -1P8.1 1 Type III Medium 1 - 1 ad I - 1 std I - 1 58 126.312.7 L.25 High Pressure Sodium 1000 1000 1 RCL-1000S-1P8-1 1 Type I II Medium - II Medium 1 1- 1- 1 std. 1- 162 128.1 12.71.25 Luminaire finish is bronze For sltenrts finish substitute comsat final 110 of catalog member: black- , 2. Orsy -3. wits -4. To specify 480 volt ballast. substitutes 5 for the a in catalog number. (50hz. 220240V Milabls -consult Iscbry) .. Vapor w tm nag - ated on halide ballast Must use univer boning temp �i d Lamp volt lamp • •S• DIMENSIONAL DATA DIMENSIONAL DATA a J oce J=X•Torop Cie�14Jc- Itt-� i 'P 'Wt4YY '-k ry t-HC>4+wat UNE (Am) 1p4.3 I�- 11 r7* X. FE JC- . 727fesv -✓ �� t✓jc. of WR6 Ex. 4t.oF7e- II. {n1/T. VE67ErAlloki 3(. KlalW v1/41/pit.t EXKin IJC> rogf--IIJCve SECTION A 2001 • vuw Ex.¢oror l NK- f 4E Nth O- we R 10c/_l -4 oRvu.IY Ht!>H w64042. LpWE (I,IWO ICSIX 14-09 BLDG. 1✓K. Sl -t TP1L LUau-&- t i I✓x- Pt V( W/ovt L4Y riSECTION B >reV47 L ay.RSAiliJeoe New v1-tmorPlt-e 1.414A. EX. MVP' Butor-W W I TOPS c-ouP 4N-4ATE Plw EXEC &PAPE SHORELINE SECTIONS VERTICALSCALE o11uM2ot:INo SECTION C L01/10 -I I-81 IQ;B 10.3 10 1 978 9.3 91 878 873 8.1 7,8 7.1 678 I 3 571 4.$ 4 3 4 I • s-.) Y Y Y Y • Y Y Y 1 Y Y Y 'T I Y Y ev s e 3 �- 1 �. 6 e., s' -e-' �---F—'E6 -e ) ) I I I I I I iro I E. 15- i I I I i 1 I 3'-4 �� U . 2' '0• I I 2'-10• I 6• 1 • I 1 1 I rr�J•-a-t I TrF •i I I I I I I I �A1 I PISAFETY Lit SA Ett Gn A, ,D SATEry [AP h5 I • I �RAII I i i I I I `!' / PAIL I 6• GAP I I _ TrP I '• 1 I I I I I i / tl .5oi Azro // SO�pFpRFIOM 6PInl +' I I /' ;'iEi i I 1 I, --�..�� I — •- -- _ 111.1.-- 1 11I� :,•, , i I I I i I I i ems S1ACV I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I J0:14T I I I I I I I I - I ) I I I 10-1111 —I -.A I 1 I 1 I I I I I f I 4 P00‘. Asq�29S CAGED rM. /- I I i I i I 1 6)421 1 - - t f I r O _4_�, I���_ t I ACCESS 141:E.,01.,,,,. (AOL£P (�"��» li I A TIO i 1 _! r i i 1 I I i I I I I A P: I 1 ( I A D TIP A I I CP i I I I, I TIP I I 1 i I 1 f 111 p I'I I ..- I �� I L I, I = I I I I I I 5 i ! 1 1 t F,T I ! I lib. 1 I i i I AyO� T i i A501. 1 I I I I i i i I j I I I I I i I I I PP NORTH ELEVATION (-7.-- MATERIALS LEGEND. 1/.6•.I"-0- A6,91,.,0 4 AA CC Y 5 EE s -e 6•-0' E' -0j 5 .SEs A '-' I'-0• 9'-6.6•-2i 1 I 1 6'-,' ! I! SPACES a T'_E•-1:1'-6• 6'-_`� • 1'-.-+)T'6• ' - -5• T6 ..• 2: 9,,CES 0 T' -E•4.65'-0• FF I 01YIS101 3 METE 03.50 A PPECAST CO4CPE:E PANEL DiV131011 TNM JOp W013111C wOEcaloJl a 07U_1.a (p POOTEC' MEM BUILOIw vANEL I -6 I I a, I $�] 11 c�.-H,y-3.-0. 1 -0• II � -1Ar 6• I ~v A SAfEIr (—__ AAP AS00 I 01Y2' 0 000/5 MO WINOS Os80.A 41013.0 WI1no1 FAA.( 1151EY 9 TEMPERED IwA1UTI AG GLASS ---—_--_.. ,m.... —_ ., 1 1 SAFEn RA1l mel __ ___ _� .�_ I GRII'IDD AA I444903 I _ I I i I I 'II I. E%PUKl05 NS 6. IdP AI (41.1 VAC. I JOINT .. .. - EXISTING I I BUILDING ', 1 I r I I I i n i A. A20301421 f } • o L 14-0I I - ©I = yL'IIf;0dg7b ' 1 �o 'I I Aso Ago A AP IPI I i c50 A Ape 4:03 PP l .-.� �� ,roT C 0 • .1.01 IIx I I 1 I I l I I 7064 117 i i . 6 ; I, J i TTP J J - I — 03450.8 (BEHIND STAIR TOAER) 03410 A IAR010 1 SERVICEn ENTRANCE WALLS) EAST E_ LEVAT I ON T o - ./. •',z �'/.:' I/16•el'-0 460 •EC �L •••••... .'% 4 44 EIIST• i WILD a 1 10, IL -04-* 1 420 !1 PRELIMINARY _ - eu1L011w 1.-ce ow wawa 10 0 SFPTE18* DAT! 10 24 e9 CI NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MAC • 01110111.00 - .10,10. . d. >. „..,,P . .I..v . ❑ AUBURN, WA. 98002 A FPFAe :1 .:sr' �T �, NORTH AND EAST BUILDING ELEVATIONS .n. t +..a n3. O BELLEVUE. WA. 98007 M•T as.o- .ch. „�1- . 0 WA. 98001 ,,,, , •* A60 KENT. ►ACIDITIES OEVARIILNf 0 PENT, WA. 0RENTLANO, OR.9805o ARCHITECTURAL MASTER -°.;:„„/„„„ O RENTON WA.98055 • I.. ' IN SEATTLE, WA. 98124 1 A MO 100 00. 041/3.1.11 O.C. 114-09-1000-Ae0 L01/10 -I I-81 ...•••■••=ma. r77:7727::_ • . I ". 1 , _ ._ ... .. • i I . r \ .,,A., I I i ".1.---1 r.,,,,, 1 , , ,. ' 1 .2 S. ... s,. .. • 1 ... * , ... I II /".. ,.. ; ._ , • - S I • • , . , -- - 1 „2., 717 ; ; TIP r EY BLOC 14-01 :: 1 , ?, ,C i . J742 ..4 1 ; I .. i . '. r ..sdA2, 1 f i I 7 1 - • I Es 371 37.3 378 4 4 . 3 4Th 5 I 5 (6) RUAr tAri4A,' lac y SAFE 77 CA IL r ■5 SPACES I 7' -e-■ ,z SOUTH ELEVATION 1/W. -0' 22 SPACES 0 7 C.AC,ED ROOI 10 ■ ACCESS LAME. ,. ARCS r A6 020. 2 ' Ad WEST ELEVATION (PARTIAL) Bll:LO/NG 14-09 5 50A4fi 0 2 RE 1!A6 BUILDING -01 - 5 . I WEST ELEVATION (PARTIAL) J61 14 SPACES 0 7 SUET, RAIL 0 AUBURN, WA. 98002 0 BELLEVUE , WA . 98007 411111111EINC 0 EVERETT, WA. 9820 i FACILITIES DEPARTIENT 0 KENT , WA. 9803 i 0 PORTLAND, OR . 97220 0 RENTON, WA 98055 • SEATTLE, WA. 98124 .7 SPACES 0 7 I27 10.8 SOUTH ELEVATION — STAIR 6 (F\ AI I (a) 61 so r 111 16; ACCIP7A2 it I AAA irt/t1 ••••■■74117 Of.r CATE 7 MATERIALS LEGEND. DIVIS1CM 3 COIVIETE cs■so A PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL DIVIV011 7 Mimi MAD IOISTIE PICKICIKAi 07 A COPOSITE .1TAL BLI11.0■NC PAPAL ' PRELIMINARY MSC &JOINERS Er 0 SEPTELAA DATE 0.2. 89 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DIV 06 MUM 14-01 i KEY PL* - ou LOING 14-09 0 ENNIMIIS !mac SOUTH AND WEST WRONG ELEVATIONS ARCHITECTURAL MASTER sus I4- COL C4112.1-Ir D.C. LAS •re.5.1. 1,1111 - A61 68063/887079 I 71.-009- 6i 861N Sft/10-5-89 a • • • • • • • • • 1 1 ! • RAILROAD -SPUR • I 11 ifEOE3TRIAN WALK • II \ 11 PARKING ORDINARY - HIGH WATER UNE (EXISTING BULKHEADS) s 1 i 1 7 _ • _ACC IS • L/2 INIONAEORtrlifussiKsymOssOznollENNNiNitienimmosNon PARKING ARKING NEW 14-09 BLDG. ‘„ WATERFRONT PARK ••••• 1 ' , GIAMPSTER W/ CONC. SCREEN WA PI) OUSSTOP rilliMP•AP111 PARKING 4., \ • 00.1.• •••• 14-09 BLDG. PARKING/LANDSCAPE PLAN EXISTING BLDG. 14-01 PROPERTY LINE BRUCE AL DEES& or' ASSOCIATES `PROPOSED LANDSCAPING 14 -09 BUILDING PARKING & ROADSIDE AREAS NOTE: All landscaped areas shall have automatic irrigation systems. Planting Schedule Plant Name Titia cordata 'Degroot' Turtgrass Sod Size 2 1/2" caliper As shown. SHRUBS (SEE WATERFRONT PARK PLANT SCHEDULE) 'PROPOSED LANDSCAPING 14 -09 BUILDING WATERFRONT PARK NOTE: All landscaped areas shall have automatic irrigation systems. Planting . 'Schedule TREES SHRUBS KEY BOTANICAL NAME SIZE REMARKS Acer palmatum 2 1/2" cal. B & B Ligustrum japonica (tree form) 1 1/2' cal. Container Magnolia kobus 2" cal. B & B Magnolia soulangiana 2" cal. B & B Magnolia steilata 2" cal. B & B Photinia fraseri (tree form) 1 1/2" cal. B & B Prunus serrulata 'Shirofugen' 3" cal. B & B Prunus serrulata 'Shirotae' (Mt. Fugi) 3" cal. B & B Prunus yedoensis 'Akebono' 3" cal. B & B Styrax japonica 2" cal. B & B Abelia grandifiora 'Edward toucher' 15 " -18" Container Azalea Ami Gasa 12 " -15" Container Azalea Rosebud 10 " -12" Container Arbutus undo 3'-4' B & B Cotinus coggygrin 3' -4' B & B Cornus mas ' 3' -4' B & B Dam odors 12 "-15" Container Escallonia exoniensis 'Fradesii' 15 " -18" Container C. C; 'PROPOSED LANDSCAPING 14 -09 BUILDING WATERFRONT PARK CONTINUED NOTE: All landscaped areas shall have automatic irrigation systems. KEY BOTANICAL NAME SIZE SHRUBS (CONTINUED) Hemerocallis fulva Ilex crenata GROUND COVER (UNDER SHRUBS) 2 Gal. 15 " -18" REMARKS Container Container Pieris japonicum 'Flame of Forest' 15 " -18" Container Prunus laurocerasus 'Schipkanensis' 1 Gal. Container Rhododendron A. Bedford 18 " -21" B &13 Rhododendron Blue Diamond 12 " -15" B & B Rhododendron Blue Tit 15 " -18" B & B Rhododendron Cotton Candy 18 " -21" B & B Rhododendron Mrs. Furnival's Daughter 15 " -18" B & B Rhododendron Mrs. G.W. Leak 18 " -21" B & B Raphiolepis indices 'Springtime' 18"-21" Container Rhododendron Ram Violet 18"-21" B & B Rhododendron Purple Splendor 12"-15" Container Skimmia japonica 12 "-15" Container Syringes vull aril Purple 2' -3' Container Viburnum thus 2' -3' Container Wiegela florida 2' -3' Container Arctostaphyllos uva -ursi 4" pot 18" O.C. Hedera helix 'Hahn' 4" pot 18" O.C. Hypericum os cinum 4" pot 18" O.C. Vines minor - Blue 4" pot 18" O.C. RAIL EXISTING BUILDING TOP NORTH ELEVATION EAST €LEVATION fACILITIES OVAI 0 AUBURN. WA. 98002 E] BELLEVUE. WA. 98007 EvERETT, WA.9E1201 D KENT, WA.98031 O PORTLAND, OR. 97220 O RENTON WA 98055 • SEATTLE. WA. 98124 22 SPACES PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS LEGEND• A PRECAST PAWL BALDING PAWL NORTH AND EAST BUL000 ELEVATIONS ARCHITECTURAL. MASTER RIO SOUTH ELEVATION 1/16'.1.-0' oVERrLO► SOPPER EXISTING BLDG 14-D1 5E1911C 80187 I lcj5 !7 YI inmamata F UMY RAIL • 22 SPACES • 7'4' . 165' -0' ++u 4. 4.! T 67.) 673 ROY Lil svE7r 13403.0 RAIL • BUILDING 14 -09 -3 7' -4' S SPKES • a1. BUILDING 14 -01 WEST ELEVATION LPART IAL) 0 AUBURN, WA . 98002 O BELLEVUE. WA 98007 8 EVERETT, WA.98201 KENT, WA. 98031 ❑ PORTLAND, OR. 97220 It SEATTLE. WA. 98124 17 SPACES • 7'4'.127'-6' 6' -0' 11 S TH ELEVATION - STAIR 6 PRELIMINARY ow stems h 0 SE•RL•■ we 10 24 69 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION *IPIW.IR irw.cALSFI I. .O•s vLLn uls .hOm 4•0104:11 Win 7■,. -0' MATERIALS LEGEND. SWIM 3 C MTE 03450 0 PRECAST CU[RC7E Putt. SI•ISKST 7 11 WOVE 07427 A mFOSItE 1[!94. 81114DiK PAIL ! 80Ufl1 AND WEST SILDMO ELEVATE/6 ARCHITECTURAL MASTER 11111 140 CO. (47/2.1-1.1 D.C. 1 1 ley U'- - WILDING 14-99 O urr• t111•0. A61 66063/557079 714-009-100 146 MUM Sw/ 10 - 529 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AO 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: See Atachment A 2. PROJECT LOCATIOYI: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Quarter: SW Signature: 8701 East Marginal Way South , (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: Terry Neal Tunison, Boeing Advanced Systems Address: P.O. Box 3707 Mail Stop 46 -87 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Phone: (206) 544 —AA.... ' icant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. 4. PROPERTY Name: Ralmond L. Rutkowski, Boeing Advanced Systems OWNER Address: Phone: n .:......,,.. .. ..:::..:.: A 'f, 0: JY''G.4i Oi'ii(vy' : AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP • Section: 33 Township: 24 Range: 04 Date: //-/ 3 -6(1 P.O. Box 3707 Mail Stop 46 -89, Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 (206) 544 -2900 I /WE,[signature(s)] Alb- . ` . An -41 • swear that '''e are t •wner s or con rac purc aser s o the property nvolved i his application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: 11- 9 .87 . DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 2 The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision- making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each cri- terion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, use extra space on last page or use blank paper to complete response and attach to this form. 5. 'RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: The new building will be set back at least 500 ft. from E. Marginal Way South. Parking and the building will be screened from E. Marginal Way S. by landscaped buffers, which vary from 25 to 75 ft. wide. Pedestrian movement is facilitated by covered walkways between a new bus stop on E. Marginal Way S., the parking area and the main entrance. The new 14 -09 building is slightly higher than the existing 14 -01 building and set back 500 ft. further from East Marginal Way South. 6. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the estab- lished neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: The neighborhood character in the project vicinity is industrial. The new building is industrial and is of comparable height and scale to the existing building which it adjoins and other buildings in the vicinity. The circulation pattern separates vehicles and pedestrians. A new bus stop has a 125' long x 20' deep pullout off E. Marginal Way S. Automobile and service access to the parking and building is directed to a central entry /exit, which connects to East Marginal Way S. This main entry is located in the center of the site for safety (over 400 ft. from any other driveways, roads, etc. on East Marginal Way South). 7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 3 A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be un- . sightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: Existing topography is flat and paved (former steel mill & existing parking). Variety in topography and revgetation of the site will be introduced through grass= covered berms with tree planting. The berms will parallel both sides of the entry road, as well as E. Marginal Way S. On the Duwamish Waterway, there will be a water- front park for Boeing employees the entire length of tiie: property. It will include a paved path (which ties to a pedestrian path from the 14 -09 bldg.), trees, shrubs, &' lawn areas. Walks and parking areas throughout the site will be sloped minimally to provide drainage_(approx. 2 %). All landscaped areas adjacent to parking or roads will be defined with paving to separate them from landscaped areas. Landscaped areas alonf E. Marginal Way S., the internal roadway, and at the new building entrance will provide shade and give a more human scale to the building and site. Exterior lighting will consist of High Pressure Sodium (HPS), pole- mounted HPS parking lot lights, & landscape lighting of the entry courtyard (uplighting trees). Glare from the parking lot lights will be minimized by the fixture themselves, which will be oriented downward and provide shielding of the lighting element. See attached plans and catalog cuts for parking lot lighting. Additional lighting in other structures is described under Item #9. c J ; 8. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with per - ma ent neighboring developments. C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. • DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware• on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view.' F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fix- tures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: The 14 -09 Building will be of a comparable size and scale to the existing 14 -01 Building, which it will adjoin. The siding, color,.and light fixtures on the= two' buildings will be the same. The color, "Sea Foam ", is a cream color with a slight hint of green. Mechanical equipment will be t` mounted on the and set back 20 feet from the edge for screening. The addition of the 14 -09 Building to the 14 -01 Building will add visual variety by changing the rectangular form into an "L" shape. A landscaped entry at the inside corner of the "L" also will enhance visual quality. 9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 5 A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and pro -. portions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furni- ture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: New structures other than the 14 -09 Bldg. include a guardhouse, walkway canopies, and raised planters /seatwalls. These structures are intended to be oriented toward a human scale. Materials will be durable and complimentary to the 14 -09 Bldg. and other site developments utilizing mainly metal & concrete. Thy guardhouse is attractively designed and includes a hipped roof, skylight, & metal siding. Recessed lighting is incorporated into the guaiahuube buff it cuid concret seatwalls. Exterior lights are also included in the underside of the vaulted INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT walkway canopies. The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appear- ance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people- oriented use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necessary. 10. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. N / A 11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for•the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. N / A ATTACHMENT A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION 1. Develop 14-09 Building to adjoin existing 14 -01 Building. Improve existing parking area with total of 1,325 stalls, a waterfront park (for employees), and relocate existing railroad spur. A new sheet. pike_bulkhead.to_be.constructed adjacent to the existing seawall. The decision on which side of the existing seawall to place the new bulkhead should be made after geotechnical and permitting requirements are determined by the design consultant. A.ITIONAL PLAN NOTES: 14- 091:JILDING (From Design Review Application Checklist) Item C: Existing lot size: 1,330,250 S.F. Percent covered with impermeable surfaces: 100 %. (concrete, asphalt, and existing 14 -01, 14- 02/14 -03 Bldg.) Proposed Development Percent covered with impermeable surfaces: 91% Percent landscaped areas: 9% (126,275 S.F.) 2. Item N: Color samples are not included because the proposed building will match the existing 14 -01 building which is visible from East Marginal Way South. dub ANL`:':Aft. .Q®'4011b, /01111► 411b6 i : t .- f.' " .rn► " ' Moo pA :.M. .wn.. t. ., yea,v. ,4014 ,Glri.s ;104,, �... a •, t R $+ vi. Aft. 41111b. ,.�► ' .�M, d4!®. � :. srxtz.�.,a�:�. �, ti'.v�'. �a�.u::.�. r ;'~ f. � " .� ., ..�e..�..'; �. r" item �iif Mtn :WWI it�C�' NOMXCMiIn(,.'-40t(.".1..ra 1 N. ,'.:a"Sirm: N W,,iilTlf ;iti..� 1...1.1; crtz...1, c="} `1h1-: , aliOrtfi' �V/. .�" M qtr. FPd'VF'Ib'. }Vy *+fir` tkZAP - 4ZISP ' VEIV % W v NS" ti . 'F 1 PARKING 'F \ III %$r *«•.:..�t:r..yy. �� .rr,�R'y�" ri, �'..i'.'..%S�.,Rys4t.. ..�-•^-Yi' •.ii}t'••r[..:.� • IIIIIIII111111111111.11111111111111111111111111011Vilpitillill 0.:., 1mrtn}CH 1 �. 3-; . r 7 g• : Lio 1 1 1! 1� r ES, CLEAR:'TIIAN'kTHIS,NOTICE ,IT IS`DIUE l 1z TH .1 ITYs�OF•� ' ORIGINAL. DOCUM Effi1I11 lltiftmtliflltiDflirll nattlEMif rats i uI~iwuAiitiriiiig 1i 3' '," • ." " .. • - 3". 40.4."7c- . 4i'''''34141: • , . • ., WATER . „ . . . . . • HOT WATER • I RE .WATER • " • ' G • NATURAL GAS " G COMPRESSED:AIR WASTE LINE" P80 ABANDON UTILITY gp OIL/WATER SEPARATOR ,"•••• • . : " • ,„ •• .."" • ....„ ,,•" WAST PAIN ENCL lE=111.2 . REPLACE ABOVE GROUND SECT ION 'OF FIRE :HYDRANT WI TR, UN IT SIMILAR TO MH E-4 SEE DWG • I 14-009-1000-CI5 4" STS IE 104.50 —H- ----if • 0 0 1 . 0 0 0 . . . — cr) 0 c0 c0 . 0 C73 03 C73 .2 ii'L-5,47.1:i! ....::_, :. UTILITIES PLAN (WEST) 1* § • • AUBURN'i •• • • • z.•z .•o BELLEVUEH,VA:-.::::9800.7- • - • • •• Arjeriel'AK0.:"., • EVERETT,..:•Wk...':982.01:.• • FACi ES:'1:)EF'AFTMENT: 0 -KENT • :WA. 98031 ••• •• 0. PORTLAND.:,•' 97220 • • • • •• • • ^". z••'•••4'z "'''' " ACCEPTABILITY '•• -,THIS.DESIGN'AND CHEcKEO• -."..SPECIF.ICATI�flSAPPROVED ' APPROVED BY DEPT: ,DATE CHECKED . • 08063\887079 „ ;;.• , 44)0000004., 04 SOB 920 89 t: '1 ' - C,LE TItttoktitittOt „ItA Gi .7'1 ‘,4', „ 111.:!,,0a1,9,t utilities plan REPLACE ABOVE GROUND SECTION OF F I R E HYDRANT W I TH UN IT SIMI LAR TO ADJUST CB 0.17' TO NEW GRADE EXIST CB 6. FOR CATCH .CA1J_OV SEE :SHEET C14 elevations (AROUND' SERV I CE ENTRANCE WALLS) : 'A60 A60 A208 ' TYP. ANONTO* 03450.A 'TYP. - 1 /I 6"=I ,SAFETY . RAIL' TYP ' A60 Al 10 SAFETY EXPANSION A60 A200 ' • ' R A I L ' 6" 'GAP A60 A203 TYP JOINT 03450.A A208 TYP. , A A6 - , AUBURN , L " 0 BELLEVUIWA;980.07 SP IZEFAIW DEVERETT, WA982O1 : FACI LITIES ' cDEPARTMENT - KENT', 'WA ..98031 0 PORTLAND , 0 RENTON ;‘ •WA .98055 7'-5'----6-4 ' 22 SPACES @ 7 ' "= I 65 ' . ACCEPTABILITY THIS DESIGN AND/OR SPECIFICAT ION '1 S 'APPROVED: APPROVED,BY 41541 A60 A203 ' A60 A20 A60 ..t.'„ . . • • $.. 4 • NOR BUILDING' ELEVATIONS,' LEGEND' LAST s A203 TYP D . COL E ';';',144 DO04607; • elevations