HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0052 - MCLEOD STUART - MCLEOD EXHIBITION FACILITY SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENTl92-0052 epic 26-90 l92-0050
mcleod exhibition facility
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: FILE NO. 92 056 CrjZ.
FROM: DENNI SHEFRIN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1992
SUBJECT: SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STATUS
The proposed exhibition facility has been redesigned and reduced in
scale. The redesign excludes the use of the area north of I -405
and adjacent to the shoreline. Therefore, the Shoreline Permit is
no longer required for this project. As of this date, the file is
closed.
WAC 197 -11 -970
MODIFIED MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (gqs)
Description of Proposal 1) Change Comprehensive P1•an Designation from Open Space and
. Public Facility to Llght Industrial. 2) Rezone from RA to M -1. 3) Develop a 230,000
square foot exhibition facility for uses described in Transportation Analysis on a 23
acre site with attendant accesory improvements.
Proponent
- -- Stuart McLeod & Don Miles
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any* Generally bounded on the north
by I -405, on the east by Burlington Northern Railroad (BN) tracks, on the west by Union
Pacific R.R. (UP) tracks & on the south by a lot line 600' S. of an extension of Strander
Blvd. A portion of tha Puget Power '-0 -W be p.enWW_9Valley Hwy., & UPRR 158th St. & Strander.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. 2 V
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
(El There is no comment period for this DNS issued under WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f).
0 This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title
Address
Planning Director Phone 433 -1846
6200 Southcenter Boulevard,
Date —27/2W'
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written.
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for-an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
FM.DNS * (1) & (2) are proposed for two tax parcels located in the southern section of
the site described above.
Signature
Tukwila._
r
98188
C
CITY OF TUKWILA
• 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA.
Uti WILA., WASHINGTON 98188
PHONE II (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATED DETERMINATION
OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE
MODIFIED
(Modifications are shown in bold)
PROJECT: McLeod Exhibition Facility
DATE: October 1991
PROPOSAL: For two parcels, tax lots 000580 -0021 and
2523049006, which total 9.15 acres;
(Attachment A):
1. Change Comprehensive Plan Designation
from Open Space and Public Facility to
Light Industrial
LOCATION:
2. Rezone from RA to M -1
For 4 parcels, tax lots 242304 -9034 and
000580 -0013 (and possibly 0004) and 000580-
0021 and 252304 -9006, which total 23.45 acres
and the Puget Power right of way north of.
Strander Boulevard if extended and south of S.
158th Street if extended:
3. On a 23 acre site, develop a 230,000
square foot exhibition facility and
attendant accessory improvements, for
uses as described in transportation
analysis.
Generally bounded on the north by I -405, on
the east by Burlington Northern Railroad (BN)
tracks, on the west by Union Pacific Railroad
(UP) tracks and on the south by a lot 600
feet south of an extension of Strander
Boulevard. A portion of the Puget Power
Right -of -Way between West Valley Highway, and
UPRR 158th Street and Strander Boulevard is
proposed for parking.
APPLICANT: Stuart McLeod and Don Miles
FILE REFERENCE: EPIC -26 -90
THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD
10 September 1990 Environmental Checklist including:
Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Report 14 August 1990
David Markley, TSI Memo 14 September 1990
Utility Plans C -1 - C -8 May 1990
Floor Plan and Elevations S -1 S -3 (no date)
Union Pacific Railroad Bridge Replacement Concept May 1990
27 February 1991 Pedestrian Routes August 1990
Revised Exhibition Facility Elevations (no date)
1 March 1991 Exhibition Facility Floor Plan Schematics
4 March 1991 Photographic and Perspective Analysis of Site
10 April 1991 Exhibition Center Traffic Analysis by TSI
3 May 1991 Wetlands Evaluation and Delineation Report/ Wetlands
Avoidance and Mitigation Plan
11 July 1991 Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist record
28 May 1991 Ron Cameron TSI Report memo
27 June 1991 TSI response memo
26 July 1991 Ron Cameron, City Engineer Memo
1 August 1991 Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist Memo
23 August 1991 GeoEngineers Report
30 September 1991 Letter from Don Miles with TSI memo attached.
9 October 1991 TSI Fax of Volumes
11 August 1986 Interlocal Agreement between Renton and Tukwila
APPROVALS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
* Planning Commission Recommendation and City Council Ordinance
that redesignates and rezones southernmost parcel (Tax Lot
252304 -9006) from Open Space and RA to Industrial and M -1
respectively.
* Planning Commission approval for parking lot improvements.
_
* Cooperative Parking Agreement approval by Planning Commission
or Zoning Code parking requirement variance.
* Utility permits including land altering, flood zone control,
hauling, sewer, water, storm drain.
* Building permit.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is composed of 4 separate parcels, with two
separate owners. Off site parking is proposed on the Puget Power
right -of -way located west of the development site.
FINDINGS
CHECKLIST ITEMS:
1. Earth
Applicant submitted a geotechnical report which states that site
contamination is relatively low due to its undeveloped character
and that the structure should be supported with piles.
Liquefaction potential is moderate to high and that recommended
design and construction procedures will mitigate some of the
liquefaction potential.
The site is generally flat with a slight slope from south to north
except for the extreme southernmost portion of the site. The area
is considered a seismic hazard area with newberg silt loam, puget
silty clay loam and woodenville silt loam as well as areas of fill
that are unclassified.
Applicant proposes filling for pavement and building locations
which is 90 percent of the site.
2. Air
Emissions from construction vehicles and dust are expected. After
construction, emissions from vehicles traveling to site will
increase.
3. Water
The applicant has retained Watershed Dynamics to delineate the
wetlands on site and assess the impact of the development on these
areas. There are 4 type 3 wetlands north of S. 158th Street
(Attachment B) and 2 wetlands south of S. 158th Street one of which
is a type 2 (Attachment C) and the other a type 1 (Attachment D).
The largest wetland, along the site's southern boundary, is part of
a larger type 1 wetland; 1.68 acres of which is located on the
subject site.
The type 2 wetland is located adjacent to the building site and is
not shown as retained. However, the Zoning Code's sensitive area
overlay zone will require retention and a 50 foot buffer.
Per the regulations of the sensitive area overlay zone, the
applicant proposes filling the type 3 wetlands. The applicant
would then be responsible for creating 150 percent (1.5:1) or 1.03
acres of additional wetlands (they only proposed 1.3:1). The
compensatory mitigation is proposed adjacent to the existing type
1 area.
A 100 foot buffer is the standard but the applicant requests a
reduction of 50% as allowed, with an enhancement plan for the
buffer area. A fifty foot buffer with the proposed enhancement and
an approved mitigation plan would be acceptable.
The storm drainage capacity for the Nelson /Longacres Drainage Basin
was designed based on a 60 percent impervious coverage and highest
and best use. The applicant is proposing a rezone of
agriculturally zoned land and 90 percent impervious surface.
Therefore detention will be required on site. The applicant shows
a wet pond for detention at the north end of the site but must
provide calculations to demonstrate capacity and quality standards
are met.
Per item 4 of the interlocal with Renton (A&C file # 86 -0555/ 8-11 -
86), drainage from the site has a right to connect to and use the
P -1 channel.
4. Plants
Portions of the site has been used for pasture and parking and most
recently as a fill site. There are therefore a variety of pasture
grasses interspersed with wetland plants and mature deciduous
trees. A tree inventory has been done and the majority of
significant vegetation will be removed to accommodate the building
site and parking area.
5. Animals
Because of the site's undeveloped character and the wetlands
located on and around the site, hawk use and rodent habitat will be
lost in areas to be developed with parking and building.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
.
There is a petroleum pipeline that traverses the southern section
of the site. Otherwise electricity and natural gas are available
to the site.
7. Land Use
The site is bordered on three sides by transportation corridors.
In addition, Puget Sound Power and Light Company has a right -of -way
which parallels the site just west of the Union Pacific railroad
track. Otherwise there is a combination of commercial and
industrial uses west of the site towards West Valley Highway. East
of the Burlington Northern tracks, in the City of Renton, is a
thoroughbred race track that has recently been purchased by the
Boeing Company for a suburban office development.
The site is primarily pasture that has been ditched along the east
and west sides to encourage drainage. The area to the north and
south of an extension of S. 158th Street has been used as gravel
parking area for Longacres Traffic.
The area encompassing and south of the City of Seattle water line
has been on the City's 1982 Comprehensive Land Use Plan as Open
space with the exception of a strip of Public Facilities
corresponding with an extension of Strander Boulevard to the Renton
city limits. North of that water line the area is designated Light
Industrial. The zoning corresponds to the designations, RA and M -1
respectively.
8. Aesthetics
According to the most recent documentation from the applicant,
dated March 4, 1991, the structure will be 45 feet in height at the
ridge line of the pitched roof per the site and area section dated
March 1991. The concept also shows a straight sided 810 foot long
by 230 foot wide structure with pedestrian openings at the north
and south ends with no wall relief and minimal fenestration.
Exhibition loading is shown all sides.
On March 6, 1991, the applicant provided a visual analysis of views
of the site from surrounding vantage points. The analysis
consisted primarily of photographs, which demonstrated that parts
of the structure would be visible from off -site.
Per TMC 18.56.040, any on- premise parking area which contains
stalls located more than one thousand feet from the principal use
requires Board of Architectural Review approval for the entire lot.
There are 2100 surface parking stalls proposed on site, some of
which are located more than 1,000 feet from the exhibition
facility.
9. Recreation
The Interurban Trail extension is proposed for the Puget Power
right -of -way in 1992. The preferred trail route will continue
along the power line right of way to I -405 head east to the I -405
bridge over the railroad tracks, cross under I -405 and on to Fort
Dent Park. The trail will be a minimum of 12 feet wide with 2 foot
shoulders on each side.
The applicant proposes leasing right of way from Puget Power to,
provide off -site parking for the facility; therefore the
applicant's parking lot will need to be adjusted to incorporate the
trail.
The project could also impact the trail as it attempts to cross
over and under the I -405 bridge at the north edge of the proposed
parking area and proposed wet pond.
10. Transportation
As was mentioned previously, the site is bounded on three sides by
elevated transportation corridors, I -405, and the UP and BN
railroad tracks. Current access to the site is from the west via
West Valley Highway on S. 158th Street and an extension of Strander
Boulevard.
The applicant proposes extending Strander Boulevard as a private
road from West Valley Highway to the site with any at grade czo_s_sing
at the Strander intersection. Strander Boulevard has been in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan as
a future east west connector. Item 2 of the interlocal agreement
with Renton (A&C file 86 -055/ 8- 11 -86) specified that development
review shall insure that appropriate connection is allowed.
The other access point is under the UP railroad track at the end of
S. 158th Street. Widening of the bridge at S. 158th Street to
allow 4 versus 2 lanes is proposed. S. 158th Street public right -
of -way stops at the west margin of the Puget Power right -of -way.
Therefore approval from the property owner of Tax Parcel 2423040031
is necessary for access and road improvements to the exhibition
site.
Both the Cities of Tukwila and Renton have added the Tukwila
Parkway (156th Street) / 16th Avenue connections to their
Transportation Improvement Plans, which would cross a proposed
parking area in the north end of the subject site.
Transportation Solutions, Inc. was retained by the applicant to
identify and assess the impacts to the existing transportation
system and to make recommendations for road and intersection
improvements and parking and pedestrian needs.
The Zoning Code (TMC 18.56.050) requires exhibition halls to be
provided with 1 parking stall for every 4 persons based on the
occupancy load of the building. The 250,000 square foot floor area
creates a Uniform Building Code occupancy of 16,666 and a parking
requirement of 4,166. A code on -site parking deficit of 2100
exists.
The transportation consultant has indicated the character of the
facility is not defined by its size but by the mix of tenants it
will serve. The zoning code allows the Planning Commission to
approve cooperative parking agreements for facilities with a mix of
uses.
The TSI traffic report calculates demand exceeding the 2100 parking
capacity on 26 days. All but 3 of those days occur on Saturday or
Sunday and the remaining 3 experiencing peak in the evening.
The report recommends multiple transportation demand management
techniques to minimize traffic impacts and parking demands.
11. Utilities
There are multiple utility lines which traverse the property: oil,
natural gas, water, sewer, cable television, and telephone.
Parking is shown on top of these lines. The soft soils and are a
concern as special construction techniques may be necessary to
protect lines from loads.
CONCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS
Issuance of a mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is
recommended for the project because adverse environmental impacts
can be reduced below a level of probable significance.
Due to the multiple requests within the proposal, the mitigating
measures are separated and listed for the nonproject action of the
Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezone request and then for the
development of the Exhibition Facility and attendant improvements.
'^Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezone Mitigating Measures
1. Pay for the update of the Nelson /Longacres Storm Drainage Plan
to include the area of the Comprehensive Plan change at
highest and best use.
2. Sign and record no protest L.I.D. agreements for storm,
sanitary and water improvements for area.
3. Record 60 foot wide access easements from eastern terminus of
Strander Boulevard to site, providing continuation of Strander
Boulevard and access to subject properties.
4. Consolidate separate tax parcels and or provide 60 foot
dedicated right of way to all parcels within rezone site.
5. A signed and recorded agreement not to protest L.I.D.
formation for Strander right -of -way extension improvements and
to dedicate the necessary right -of -way.
)
Exhibition Facility Mitigating Measures
6. Board of Architectural Review application, review and
approval. The site plan must show the following minimums:
a. surface water interim and final systems
constructed per the King County Surface Water
(1990) as supplemented by Tukwila, to include
biofiltration and approved by the Tukwila
Department;
designed and
Design Manual
detention and
Public Works
b. parking aisles that are oriented perpendicular to the
building's north and south entrances;
c. expansion of the Type 1 wetland to accommodate 1.5:1
compensatory mitigation for filling Type 3 wetlands and
preservation of Type 2 wetland and buffer;
d. landscaping that provides definition of pedestrian walks,
shade, and visual relief for facility visitors of massive
parking areas and that complements building; landscape
islands 7.5 feet wide between every ten parking stalls.
e. incorporation of 12 foot asphalt trail and 2 foot shoulders
on Puget Power right -of -way;
f. incorporation of Interurban Trail along north property
line;
g. incorporation of significant stands of trees
h. logical pedestrian aisles that are treated with
landscaping and lead to facility entrances.
i. 158th and Strander will be treated as entrances to
the site and will be landscaped to highlight their roles.
j. break -up building facades with color , lines and massing
to create interest and a balanced architectural design.
Materials shall be compared with quality of adjacent new
commercial developments.
k. areas for trash, building services, mechanical equipment
and event loading will be identified and screened using
landscaping where possible or decorative hard materials where
not.
1. create a luminare plan that creates a night -time design
for structure. Light standards shall complement design of
structure, and have several scales to proved for pedestrian,
building and site lighting.
7. Cooperative Parking Application with inclusion of proposal for
specific transportation demand management and off -site parking
agreements per the recommendation of TSI, Inc.
Transportation improvements or commitments to be provided with
the BAR submittal (or building permit, if applicable) and
include the following:
a. The following funds to be used for either capacity or
intersection improvements $ 185,000 dollars for
Interurban /Grady /405 ramp intersection; $43,000 for W.
Valley /S. 156th Street intersection; $47,000 for the W.
Valley /S. 158th Street intersection; $30,000 for the W.
Valley/ Strander intersection; and $38,853 for the W. Valley/
S. 180th Street improvement cost.
b. One half of a fair share contribution paid to the
City of Renton prior to issuance of building permit and
the other half prior to issuance of the facility's
certificate of occupancy for the cost of off -site road
improvements in the City of Renton corridors used by
traffic generated by the proposed project.
Fair share shall be based on the average peak hour trip
generation and distribution documented in the TSI traffic
analysis. The proportional share shall be determined by:
1) a formula involving project traffic volumes divided by
the capacity increase generated by the new improvements
multiplied by the cost of the improvements as recommended
by the Renton Valley Transportation Plan Update or 2) on
the same off -site trip end fee or other basis applied to
other new development or redevelopment for off -site
assessment of road improvements recommended by the Valley
Transportation Plan update.
The total amount will not exceed $200,000 and the total
amount plus interest shall be refunded within six years
of issuance of building permit if not spent to correct
identified impacts. If adoption of the Renton Valley
Transportation Plan update occurs after issuance of
building permit or certificate of occupancy, any surplus
of funds (over calculated mitigation) on deposit with the
City of Renton shall be refunded to the applicant.
c. S. 158th Street improved to public standards from the
Embassy Suites section to the Exhibition Facility site. The
drainage in pipes underneath the railroad bridge will need to
be replaced with a box culvert section. Sidewalk widths on S.
158th shall include additional evaluation and documentation of
peak pedestrian flows or pedestrian peak hour factors
including an evaluation of maximum width sidewalk that can be
provided. A sidewalk wider than 8 feet will be provided if
possible;
d. Strander Boulevard between W. Valley Highway and the
Exhibition Facility will need to provide for safe pedestrian
and vehicle traffic movement. Approval of the proposed
improvements with sidewalks, four lanes, drainage,, lighting
and traffic control is required.
e. If a multi -modal or commuter transit facility is developed
on the north side of I -405 or on a site adjacent to the
Exhibition facility, then property owners will provide access
between the Exhibition Facility and Metro facility for
pedestrians, for vehicles and for joint parking use, if agreed
to by Tukwila.
9. Easement agreements shall be for life of project and be from:
a. Puget Power for use of their property for parking
improvements.
b. Property owners of all parcels that are necessary to allow
access, construction of road and perpetual parking.
c. Property owners on all parcels, for life of the exhibition
building, for parking and through access and utilities to
service the subject facility.
d. Union Pacific railroad to allow bridge construction at S.
158th street extension and at -grade crossing at Strander
extension.
e. Property owners of all parcels with ditches, swales and
detention that convey "public" surface water for City of
Tukwila, access, so the City can maintain the system conveying
"public" surface water or agreement from the owners to
maintain the system to City standards and a hold harmless
agreement regarding surface waters which flow through
properties.
10. Letters of acknowledgement from Olympic pipeline, Seattle
Water, and Metro sewer regarding proposed construction
location on site plan with respect to their facilities with
BAR submittal.
11. A gate valve the looped system where it connects on S. 158th
Street to mitigate the different pressures in the system.
VAC 197 -11 -970
MODIFIED MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal 1) Change Comprehensive Plan Designation from Open Space_and
Public Facility to Llght Industrial. 2) Rezone from RA to M -1. 3) Develop a;230,000
square foot exhibition facility for uses described in Transportation Analysis on a 23
Proponent re site with attendant accesory improvements. \'v
•
- -- Stuart McLeod & Don Miles
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any* Generally bounded on the north
by I -405, on the east by Burlington Northern Railroad (BN) tracks, on the west by Union
Pacific R.R. (UP) tracks & on the south by a lot line 600' S. of an extension of Strander
Blvd. A portion of th Puget Power R -0 -W beI P 2
nWG_9VValley Hwy., & UPRR 158th St. & Strander.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Fie No.
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C:030(2)(c). This decision was made after
'review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is aV'ailable to the public on request.
Ei There is no comment period,for this DNS issued under WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f).
(l This DNS is issued under /197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days /from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title ,% Planning Director
' Phone 433 -1846
Address % 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila., 98188
Date 9f7P7 Signature
e'
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard /Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for-an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
P l aryyii ng Department.
FM.DNS * (1) & (2) are proposed for two tax parcels located in the southern section of
the site described above.
CITY OF T UKWILA
. 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA', WASHINGTON 98188
PHONE if (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusrn, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATED DETERMINATION
OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE
MODIFIED
(Modifications are shown in bold)
PROJECT: McLeod Exhibition Facility
DATE: October 1991
PROPOSAL: For two parcels, tax lots 000580 -0021 and
2523049006, which total 9.15 acres;
(Attachment A):
1. Change Comprehensive Plan Designation
from Open Space and Public Facility to
Light Industrial
LOCATION:
2. Rezone from RA to M -1
For 4 parcels, tax lots 242304 -9034 and
000580 -0013 (and possibly 0004) and 000580-
0021 and 252304 -9006, which total 23.45 acres
and the Puget Power right of way north of.
Strander Boulevard if extended and south of S.
158th Street if extended:
3. On a 23 acre site, develop a 230,000
square foot exhibition facility and
attendant accessory improvements, for
uses as described in transportation
analysis.
Generally bounded on the north by I -405, on
the east by Burlington Northern Railroad (BN)
tracks, on the west by Union Pacific Railroad
(UP) tracks and on the south by a lot line 600
feet south of an extension of Strander
Boulevard. A portion of the Puget Power
Right -of -Way between West Valley Highway, and
UPRR 158th Street and Strander Boulevard is
proposed for parking.
APPLICANT: Stuart McLeod and Don Miles
FILE REFERENCE: EPIC -26 -90
THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD
10 September 1990 Environmental Checklist including:
Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Report 14 August 1990
David Markley, TSI Memo 14 September 1990
Utility Plans C -1 - C -8 May 1990
Floor Plan and Elevations S -1 S -3 (no date)
Union Pacific Railroad Bridge Replacement Concept May 1990
27 February 1991 Pedestrian Routes August 1990
Revised Exhibition Facility Elevations (no date)
1 March 1991 Exhibition Facility Floor Plan Schematics
4 March 1991 Photographic and Perspective Analysis of Site
10 April 1991 Exhibition Center Traffic Analysis by TSI
3 May 1991 Wetlands Evaluation and Delineation Report/ Wetlands
Avoidance and Mitigation Plan
11 July 1991 Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist record
28 May 1991 Ron Cameron TSI Report memo
27 June 1991 TSI response memo
26 July 1991 Ron Cameron, City Engineer Memo
1 August 1991 Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist Memo
23 August 1991 GeoEngineers Report
30 September 1991 Letter from Don Miles with TSI memo attached.
9 October 1991 TSI Fax of Volumes
11 August 1986 Interlocal Agreement between Renton and Tukwila
APPROVALS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
* Planning Commission Recommendation and City Council Ordinance
that redesignates and rezones southernmost parcel (Tax Lot
252304 -9006) from Open Space and RA to Industrial and M -1
respectively.
* Planning Commission approval for parking lot improvements.
* Cooperative Parking Agreement approval by Planning Commission
or Zoning Code parking requirement variance.
* Utility permits including land altering, flood zone control,
hauling, sewer, water, storm drain.
* Building permit.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is composed of 4 separate parcels, with two
separate owners. Off site parking is proposed on the Puget Power
right -of -way located west of the development site.
FINDINGS
CHECKLIST ITEMS:
1. Earth
Applicant submitted a geotechnical report which states that site
contamination is relatively low due to its undeveloped character
and that the structure should be supported with piles.
Liquefaction potential is moderate to high and that recommended
design and construction procedures will mitigate some of the
liquefaction potential.
The site is generally flat with a slight slope from south to north
except for the extreme southernmost portion of the site. The area
is considered a seismic hazard area with newberg silt loam, puget
silty clay loam and woodenville silt loam as well as areas of fill
that are unclassified.
Applicant proposes filling for pavement and building locations
which is 90 percent of the site.
2. Air
Emissions from construction vehicles and dust are expected. After
construction, emissions from vehicles traveling to site will
increase.
3. Water
The applicant has retained Watershed Dynamics to delineate the
wetlands on site and assess the impact of the development on these
areas. There are 4 type 3 wetlands north of S. 158th Street
(Attachment B) and 2 wetlands south of S. 158th Street one of which
is a type 2 (Attachment C) and the other a type 1 (Attachment D).
The largest wetland, along the site's southern boundary, is part of
a larger type 1 wetland; 1.68 acres of which is located on the
subject site.
The type 2 wetland is located adjacent to the building site and is
not shown as retained. However, the Zoning Code's sensitive area
overlay zone will require retention and a 50 foot buffer.
Per the regulations of the sensitive area overlay zone, the
applicant proposes filling the type 3 wetlands. The applicant
would then be responsible for creating 150 percent (1.5:1) or 1.03
acres of additional wetlands (they only proposed 1.3:1). The
compensatory mitigation is proposed adjacent to the existing type
1 area.
A 100 foot buffer is the standard but the applicant requests a
reduction of 50% as allowed, with an enhancement plan for the
buffer area. A fifty foot buffer with the proposed enhancement and
an approved mitigation plan would be acceptable.
The storm drainage capacity for the Nelson /Longacres Drainage Basin
was designed based on a 60 percent impervious coverage and highest
and best use. The applicant is proposing a rezone of
agriculturally zoned land and 90 percent impervious surface.
Therefore detention will be required on site. The applicant shows
a wet pond for detention at the north end of the site but must
provide calculations to demonstrate capacity and quality standards
are met.
Per item 4 of the interlocal with Renton (A&C file # 86 -0555/ 8 -11-
86), drainage from the site has a right to connect to and use the
P -1 channel.
4. Plants
Portions of the site has been used for pasture and parking and most
recently as a fill site. There are therefore a variety of pasture
grasses interspersed with wetland plants and mature deciduous
trees. A tree inventory has been done and the majority of
significant vegetation will be removed to accommodate the building
site and parking area.
5. Animals
Because of the site's undeveloped character and the wetlands
located on and around the site, hawk use and rodent habitat will be
lost in areas to be developed with parking and building.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
There is a petroleum pipeline that traverses the southern section
of the site. Otherwise electricity and natural gas are available
to the site.
7. Land Use
The site is bordered on three sides by transportation corridors.
In addition, Puget Sound Power and Light Company has a right -of -way
which parallels the site just west of the Union Pacific railroad
track. Otherwise there is a combination of commercial and
industrial uses west of the site towards West Valley Highway. East
of the Burlington Northern tracks, in the City of Renton, is a
thoroughbred race track that has recently been purchased by the
Boeing Company for a suburban office development.
The site is primarily pasture that has been ditched along the east
and west sides to encourage drainage. The area to the north and
south of an extension of S. 158th Street has been used as gravel
parking area for Longacres Traffic.
The area encompassing and south of the City of Seattle water line
has been on the City's 1982 Comprehensive Land Use Plan as Open
space with the exception of a strip of Public Facilities
corresponding with an extension of Strander Boulevard to the Renton
city limits. North of that water line the area is designated Light
Industrial. The zoning corresponds to the designations, RA and M -1
respectively.
8. Aesthetics
According to the most recent documentation from the applicant,
dated March 4, 1991, the structure will be 45 feet in height at the
ridge line of the pitched roof per the site and area section dated
March 1991. The concept also shows a straight sided 810 foot long
by 230 foot wide structure with pedestrian openings at the north
and south ends with no wall relief and minimal fenestration.
Exhibition loading is shown all sides.
On March 6, 1991, the applicant provided a visual analysis of views
of the site from surrounding vantage points. The analysis
consisted primarily of photographs, which demonstrated that parts
of the structure would be visible from off -site.
Per TMC 18.56.040, any on- premise parking area which contains
stalls located more than one thousand feet from the principal use
requires Board of Architectural Review approval for the entire lot.
There are 2100 surface parking stalls proposed on site, some of
which are located more than 1,000 feet from the exhibition
facility.
9. Recreation
The Interurban Trail extension is proposed for the Puget Power
right -of -way in 1992. The preferred trail route will continue
along the power line right of way to I -405 head east to the I -405
bridge over the railroad tracks, cross under I -405 and on to Fort
Dent Park. The trail will be a minimum of 12 feet wide with 2 foot
facility is not defined by its size but by the mix of tenants it
will serve. The zoning code allows the Planning Commission to
approve cooperative parking agreements for facilities with a mix of
uses.
The TSI traffic report calculates demand exceeding the 2100 parking
capacity on 26 days. All but 3 of those days occur on Saturday or
Sunday and the remaining 3 experiencing peak in the evening.
The report recommends multiple transportation demand management
techniques to minimize traffic impacts and parking demands.
11. Utilities
There are multiple utility lines which traverse the property: oil,
natural gas, water, sewer, cable television, and telephone.
Parking is shown on top of these lines. The soft soils and are a
concern as special construction techniques may be necessary to
protect lines from loads.
CONCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS
Issuance of a mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is
recommended for the project because adverse environmental impacts
can be reduced below a level of probable significance.
Due to the multiple requests within the proposal, the mitigating
measures are separated and listed for the nonproject action of the
Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezone request and then for the
development of the Exhibition Facility and attendant improvements.
,,,Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezone Mitigating Measures
1. Pay for the update of the Nelson /Longacres Storm Drainage Plan
to include the area of the Comprehensive Plan change at
highest and best use.
2. Sign and record no protest L.I.D. agreements for storm,
sanitary and water improvements for area.
3. Record 60 foot wide access easements from eastern terminus of
Strander Boulevard to site, providing continuation of Strander
Boulevard and access to subject properties.
4. Consolidate separate tax parcels and or provide 60 foot
dedicated right of way to all parcels within rezone site.
5. A signed and recorded agreement not to protest L.I.D.
formation for Strander right -of -way extension improvements and
to dedicate the necessary right -of -way.
shoulders on each side.
The applicant proposes leasing right of way from Puget Power to
provide off -site parking for the facility; therefore the
applicant's parking lot will need to be adjusted to incorporate the
trail.
The project could also impact the trail as it attempts to cross
over and under the 1 -405 bridge at the north edge of the proposed
parking area and proposed wet pond.
10. Transportation
As was mentioned previously, the site is bounded on three sides by
elevated transportation corridors, I -405, and the UP and BN
railroad tracks. Current access to the site is from the west via
West Valley Highway on S. 158th Street and an extension of Strander
Boulevard.
The applicant proposes extending Strander Boulevard as a private
road from West Valley Highway to the site with an at grade crossing
at the Strander intersection. Strander Boulevard has been in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan as
a future east west connector. Item 2 of the interlocal agreement
with Renton (A &C file 86 -055/ 8- 11 -86) specified that development
review shall insure that appropriate connection is allowed.
The other access point is under the UP railroad track at the end of
S. 158th Street. Widening of the bridge at S. 158th Street to
allow 4 versus 2 lanes is proposed. S. 158th Street public right -
of -way stops at the west margin of the Puget Power right -of -way.
Therefore approval from the property owner of Tax Parcel 2423040031
is necessary for access and road improvements to the exhibition
site.
Both the Cities of Tukwila and Renton have added the Tukwila
Parkway (156th Street) / 16th Avenue connections to their
Transportation Improvement Plans, which would cross a proposed
parking area in the north end of the subject site.
Transportation Solutions, Inc. was retained by the applicant to
identify and assess the impacts to the existing transportation
system and to make recommendations for road and intersection
improvements and parking and pedestrian needs.
The Zoning Code (TMC 18.56.050) requires exhibition halls to be
provided with 1 parking stall for every 4 persons based on the
occupancy load of the building. The 250,000 square foot floor area
creates a Uniform Building Code occupancy of 16,666 and a parking
requirement of 4,166. A code on -site parking deficit of 2100
exists.
The transportation consultant has indicated the character of the
Exhibition Facility Mitigating Measures
6. Board of Architectural Review application, review and
approval. The site plan must show the following minimums:
a. surface water interim and final systems
constructed per the King County Surface Water
(1990) as supplemented by Tukwila, to include
biofiltration and approved by the Tukwila
Department;
designed and
Design Manual
detention and
Public Works
b. parking aisles that are oriented perpendicular to the
building's north and south entrances;
c. expansion of the Type 1 wetland to accommodate 1.5:1
compensatory mitigation for filling Type 3 wetlands and
preservation of Type 2 wetland and buffer;
d. landscaping that provides definition of pedestrian walks,
shade, and visual relief for facility visitors of massive
parking areas and that complements building; landscape
islands 7.5 feet wide between every ten parking stalls.
e. incorporation of 12 foot asphalt trail and 2 foot shoulders
on Puget Power right -of -way;
f. incorporation of Interurban Trail along north property
line;
g. incorporation of significant stands of trees
h. logical pedestrian aisles that are treated with
landscaping and lead to facility entrances.
i. 158th and Strander will be treated as entrances to
the site and will be landscaped to highlight their roles.
j. break -up building facades with color , lines and massing
to create interest and a balanced architectural design.
Materials shall be compared with quality of adjacent new
commercial developments.
k. areas for trash, building services, mechanical equipment
and event loading will be identified and screened using
landscaping where possible or decorative hard materials where
not.
1. create a luminare plan that creates a night -time design
for structure. Light standards shall complement design of
structure, and have several scales to proved for pedestrian,
building and site lighting.
7. Cooperative Parking Application with inclusion of proposal for
specific transportation demand management and off -site parking
agreements per the recommendation of TSI, Inc.
Transportation improvements or commitments to be provided with
the BAR submittal (or building permit, if applicable) and
include the following:
a. The following funds to be used for either capacity or
intersection improvements $ 185,000 dollars for
Interurban /Grady /405 ramp intersection; $43,000 for W.
Valley /S. 156th Street intersection; $47,000 for the W.
Valley /S. 158th Street intersection; $30,000 for the W.
Valley/ Strander intersection; and $38,853 for the W. Valley/
S. 180th Street improvement cost.
b. One half of a fair share contribution paid to the
City of Renton prior to issuance of building permit and
the other half prior to issuance of the facility's
certificate of occupancy for the cost of off -site road
improvements in the City of Renton corridors used by
traffic generated by the proposed project.
Fair share shall be based on the average peak hour trip
generation and distribution documented in the TSI traffic
analysis. The proportional share shall be determined by:
1) a formula involving project traffic volumes divided by
the capacity increase generated by the new improvements
multiplied by the cost of the improvements as recommended
by the Renton Valley Transportation Plan Update or 2) on
the same off -site trip end fee or other basis applied to
other new development or redevelopment for off -site
assessment of road improvements recommended by the Valley
Transportation Plan update.
The total amount will not exceed $200,000 and the total
amount plus interest shall be refunded within six years
of issuance of building permit if not spent to correct
identified impacts. If adoption of the Renton Valley
Transportation Plan update occurs after issuance of
building permit or certificate of occupancy, any surplus
of funds (over calculated mitigation) on deposit with the
City of Renton shall be refunded to the applicant.
c. S. 158th Street improved to public standards from the
Embassy Suites section to the Exhibition Facility site. The
drainage in pipes underneath the railroad bridge will need to
be replaced with a box culvert section. Sidewalk widths on S.
158th shall include additional evaluation and documentation of
peak pedestrian flows or pedestrian peak hour factors
including an evaluation of maximum width sidewalk that can be
provided. A sidewalk wider than 8 feet will be provided if
possible;
.
d. Strander Boulevard between W. Valley Highway and the
Exhibition Facility will need to provide for safe pedestrian
and vehicle traffic movement. Approval of the proposed
improvements with sidewalks, four lanes, drainage,, lighting
and traffic control is required.
e. If a multi -modal or commuter transit facility is developed
on the north side of I -405 or on a site adjacent to the
Exhibition facility, then property owners will provide access
between the Exhibition Facility and Metro facility for
pedestrians, for vehicles and for joint parking use, if agreed
to by Tukwila.
9. Easement agreements shall be for life of project and be from:
a. Puget Power for use of their property for parking
improvements.
b. Property owners of all parcels that are necessary to allow
access, construction of road and perpetual parking.
c. Property owners on all parcels, for life of the exhibition
building, for parking and through access and utilities to
service the subject facility.
d. Union Pacific railroad to allow bridge construction at S.
158th street extension and at -grade crossing at Strander
extension.
e. Property owners of all parcels with ditches, swales and
detention that convey "public" surface water for City of
Tukwila, access, so the City can maintain the system conveying
"public" surface water or agreement from the owners to
maintain the system to City standards and a hold harmless
agreement regarding surface waters which flow through
properties.
10. Letters of acknowledgement from Olympic pipeline, Seattle
Water, and Metro sewer regarding proposed construction
location on site plan with respect to their facilities with
BAR submittal.
11. A gate valve the looped system where it connects on S. 158th
Street to mitigate the different pressures in the system.
A. BACKGROUND
JUN 2 4 i992 i Epic File No.
- - " N1ITR6NMENTAL CHECKL IST
Contr, No.
1-q2 -00
l 3
Fee-5.196TOO Receipt No.
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: \'' A
2. Name of applicant: I\ L-- \i-c"�� ��i�k=�•���S�r, -, (�.�.>; C��.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: - �:Ufvt
c-c_\c_� F-v r.��J L�S(A , c":\ i) 2:
4. Date checklist prepared: ��1 u�� 1(2tat ?_
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
-, c �cFc�.. -Y, + CD cry t
u L (`c' cr\_.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
14
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal.'- '■�-■& - (31 prepared.,
. c6
(c7 L7. \lc•:�(�` � (d \L L�tL`K t`(, \q-)
(i\ (Y\ + C-. �4 t�() `dpi �1.a. ( - C-cs L
cam ) C:T Vc■c■ \ • VW- s•) La `k,40 _
L. t fi c. 1 ti �(Y\ t Tt 64,-T (L:*.: p z
9. Do you know, whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals : "directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain 00, --D,
--Vk / -k\ }. r), cc ■ u-... -c--1-1,-(.:. L_■ K I, 'DaL -Tr(24 )1% ti OFt (c.".-c. U it= Kko 1.151(-7-- k-ik \ C1 L(i.
l k?aA214 1 V EL36.S::) \ �.) \u2.. us-SC, u3-� s.-t _c e-SZ 1LZC .+ i tZ:•iO!d.cl.
',4,11 + v+- (3J ('.7-\i , L.1 Z. ik —C=42-c -Y1 (t., uJT {3,\1 a � \1 t L.D , KY.-, c ‘42c n l'%
"tune`. ~+kaC: GV -- d (� c d� ``'L \5 4-4 ?p'2,24Pri i T1 1'.1 Z� l�0 b 6't fEu i
,&-,'�(,'uz--t- R, 61,1 (L t. La`-C t ,_,s(r�elf2a.? cep., . e''J �. ii7...
10. List any government approvals
2yu2 c,
SPA ( ?)
4 S}iq2z2J F
or permits that will be needed for
your proposal.
L 11'1
YY\v c, c.DC\,N41L \\/t om
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here.
i,kt, cv.,■. ‘,,,. (4,- L �,zv Ld-DN4ei .. c4. P L -- t-Ca --C"1 O , 1 S ,M uQ. C \ 11-0_
'wk-? tk t -f---C k 63 c. \ . C�g., Ni1� S� �J z-�1 �1 C`�z,43m f�:,
`?c>,_%..S ;4c.( L Z 2-e� e `2 --Nc"'- L) s-1r, c: 1- c� as \-k c,:_, e:Z - 4
( cam c�:w 4z�ti a 2 t S F. g.. Z .. 'ei.,2c_A,I,L. c- s . 5 IA-c_ -ac
N (-'(z5 z‘ c=")2 `*0 4. `GU S 1/4-cs�- S.`D CL () ' ii- CZ.oj .--k ``t1-6-,
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist. ` c��
— 'C'(2C -, (�Cc. (rc'i � � 7 .`': t, ` c) L.is; +\ \(J \ V . l , Zxktk C`?c' ' Z- eAS, j
(A....1.11... (.5 (.5 , -- "c1.1%,--d-,_ Ly. a 1a n� (DA- Q- 4..l`1.-(... 4--,fr ` -L_ it &)t Q «'-' [D - U�
LJ4s�'� ‹.. .'. 4,. .. L •-c_A-1/411,O•
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
TO' BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN`i
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? (AOccR. fa4\14“,.— -2 \ ()`�����t6e-O �k'o(t•
\C -2 � � �- �s[_e�.)tQ k6� `-t.P Z
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for'example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
C..\\I.e.17— .4;5\ '--07N-,-.\-7) (
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
s ils in he immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
%its (7 G..2r i -;a �J c,•:.
Pte. ? —
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill. 0.9r' z42-tlu-,, 'c,
1114°.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
.pCv'etCir.49().
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
kr...(rz_ _aa._ t_ & t_c�� .
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
'-'`)14,S \a-A t ( C ,-t.1 0-43 c
Kx1' zL WYl a J W VkOL.t�l
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. '7V.nzc-.W rn.
N� (`t- x ?Fc-4-5( i�L
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
l- L. W v.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into. 00/-0
d 2„
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans. {�1./
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
site that would be aff cted. Indicate the
source of fill material. NAc4
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
p 1 an . 6a- �.N.4'- (44t.-c `-' �`�-� c�-►.� 7�
3
, 12,L t
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge...;,
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. tJ o
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.-&. ,;s
.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe.
T a-0
c�lC� a‘ CACvq•- -- •
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any.:
T . _?� n-ti� -, �. ! ►, ,T,�2
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of
site:
— deciduous tree:
evergreen tree:
shrubs
.40t grass
— pasture
_ crop or grain
wet soil plants: catta
skunk cabbage, other
_ water plants: water li
other types of vegetati
vegetation found on the
aspen, h�
ir, cedar, pine, other
il, buttercup, bullrush,
ly, eelgrass, milfoil, other
on
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered ?cTAt -& (V\-' cq c,7-
.5
J L�2 -1:L ` (� \ so c L_
M 11 ti C G'2 Zi3 l C'ti�i •� l li (2.
Gam:
L tt1
c. List threatened or ndangered species known to be on
or near the site. ,c��;�
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
00:1)s, p jrc,:&. Sri6v.¢n.W !. f
n'11' «f �. /Pivot sJk;iJ"
/ ; i c t llJ 1 6e1`ttdi cLL .e
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any: `, x. rLktiAT
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle,
, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, almo:n trout herrin hellfis ,
other: (t.:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be__on or near the site. .(nw
c. Is the site part X a migration route? If so,
c
explain. 2.t d (1).'(5c Lo-N.) c■ L.c-57.
d. Proposed treasures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any: (2\7_e.32 .
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy lectric natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will e used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
t,.�c�
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to recJ.uce or control energy
impacts, if any: CY7AA -M-
O LC \ ,fl Aft . \L\,J �XL.rJ
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. \-\ ■sepc::;(&)c'
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control ?environ-
mental health hazards, if any: (cxJcet,, Moe —oi0,0 ,
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?__
L. $
Lr■ %,c CzvcQ0 --c_ Co w
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short -
term or a ,long -term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
"Fthc ("D‘it- C7dZcD
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
An.�:,A
cilDkt 'cs•S' — 3-cC" 1,2(2v-v\ -r,
b. Has the site been use for Agriculture? If so,
describe. /Q-..c�,v�L.v �S
•mot. N C—. 0"01'x. 2—
c. Describe any structures on the site.
L L riNc.l 2.,`4 vY\ 1
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
i t °b
tic^ L «L (- Z_ )
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site ?_
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site?
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site?
y A t —CNA 'LAG C� C.o�. u i2 �3 f�iJ
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
",environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
v' �``,2_ �l�ci� \C. 1 S-►�1 s
1/4-c1/4
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project?
j.
Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? `00 ALL G6"N=H-.Kko-A_k
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: � �G��,Pi`�tJ•
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any : ` ?a -.c , �o'a NA/
-d'�.
1.4 --kiac c, `.: ■C.1J.1
r7tG4ZvYl .
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
eirtCuivE- a2kIE
i -lret9 q.1 -r eii AllE) •4
l /�dj'(5 C , idW i
ij1
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing ?,�;-ti.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. kQ,W1?
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any:
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
_ Gam_
P\Z.r) f t4. �,c� acs ���j �.�
7l-1 -0 1, NCN ���_ ,1��P r\ (=
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? � \ ,.1 f \vTi_
c. Proposed measures to red ce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any. �L, \'Ots PoP436 , �z
'"?;\42.-kc_k L-Q-C ■7■42,11,__LVA# 70-__.).c ovvi, 6W4,03 p,(0 kt52-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mai ly occur?
Ri\R fit ti c L'..c5 : LA c..-.. 1,�: t �1 C„,
G L c\JZ - &. oe.- \L `'R. 1 c' : •-r,
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
a-V L• L C=
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
1= 2 ,2- t ■k- 's Iv' i S
-14-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
�so, generally describe. ,c,,.),(._ �,��,�
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
"0 --
('L3 4.. % 1 ` "�l�a�U 4 _& 'c .
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: ��
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposed accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.
L v o2.0 g2_.Cv-%fi\3
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? - c
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many woul4 the project eliminate?
S czC_N J ■
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(in_glicate whether public or private). _
w ■ LL `3-& a \-� �� s�`t�` (2 Q CF-1-
g � �1�- T�- r - 5 . cj, �-� 4 .
k iJ C= \, 2L 0 CL,
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, ,or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. Vc�
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
S71— 5. i i cz:�LZ�� L S� U 0 1/4t�
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
sol, generally describe.
U(gL`t Lit, r1i lc-C7 Cot-
�z= th LA c 545-' c_u4 -S . •
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
l ll / 4, t�t,C,,y' ? ,< ti 'L c . Cc r . ( - JL
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
a. C
e
i c —le tilities ,currently v.ailable
ectrici >y iatural sas Qaate E
e1e.' o e, se
cilgunsvo
the site:
e serv_iM,
to other.
fu s
tic sys
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
(t- Po .44,,;1
CSczr c `v im C'`\--c; ‘C-1W`� -A•
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to ma - its de i
Ae/
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
TO BE 'COMPLETED BY APPLICAft
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR,NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of
the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise? L i QJ v u- c-4 (406\4.
C 12'l!-ilt-i 1
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
1 't-, %Z ∎ `Z.
4-. f l_ c3.J L z-kfeb
4:2,:ov1-1 L% Iv 0.1z-, � 1�
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life? :Lo
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or mar ne life are:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farml ands? —7/3.-k.
-a\ dZ l �i ;4_0,
�`1 12J.� L i ► J
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are: C,- .�4���LV c.� t �• \��
�yo ./ E CA-. ■LN..j �
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans? kc �5 ? l'�����1J cCLIcui4cV
<2-0 �C� 641 'Z. Wit_. (e'-0 7,
��Z-- Lam( -, -> C7-0A-11/4.-
'R Q L. C w 1/4.- '�.ii. �-r+ \-L --K ra ,
"'L, lv \- --ri
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area:y—TRIL_
eu2- a"' t cry •
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila
Master P1 an? —WcIfi. i'c`L tee,.
is _s:c„► \ �� (7iVz L_4 I1,Y"\o
Shoreline
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public servic s and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are: , �1.`<. /10- ? —k :F-. c_,4 , Y
(1v, \�- ���v4_� o c:cr v (Z._ ► rJ
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment. 1fA,,, ✓s,�� � , c,-c-
cZ-_tc'�(�_C�;11`��, �L�iY7. �cT. Lt2L-
(`J 7tj(2- C -'L-�; �J 'OA
L�\l ♦- `� {ems Lit.1 <iv�t
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: "Iik\IL. _ v%-kA-4.. eVt..(Lvv . 1'r
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN-r Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
--ti \(2t C7 (l"JS -Ch l I) lri cD —
(�- ►J � v i 3� �- 1\ -'mot'2 r�■■rr1 P '-•e=
7-73 R--A- �l-'1--r4- r-A,1- %t�S 1. (! r tf'-%%
CO. 0-4 9 tP --77 et-T.4 -C'J 'cCJn-
CV` ■Vklie‘.., L \ \ " \`c.. C-""
• -- Li..l�- \ 43 t_ &) \ l cs\VL- ,
1.1 4\ycv2 c� Z• l.L. t � C�vc�k O01, ll• 1 �C •
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives?
\1J\'1t 1.1
,L)f'
(U
�. t.rf_ 1J m(��,�.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
'�''- Ctv1- 'tb``\ 1-7 ► J t
v •_1r�''C1`L ?4,.\24< 11/43C- \2,'•a- -e 12—A1CL,t71 �2' i4
1 i4 es-;<YC '_0
C� -C'� dt llk �J\1 1 hl �c�v2(� L . tf __ _ (F0 o't i ■C=
t?
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the -r Plan?
(111— '1�,Y \(i1..0 ern, C' -1 \ (DC-r— ( L) I
f'c 06.-x∎ � 1 c9 � � � ( � � � \� L+.3 \ �. L, (c) v ( /Lv
t `i1r4c- RtiX--eL-- C i cvis `v :_..,Ni0 L c;
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: L0 co.
'" Jrd ►- 1 G 15�v
-23-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1(10(04 (eutA1420_,
Al) qApedku
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The southerly 136 feet and the easterly 530 feet more or less
as measured from the intersection of the northern boundary of
Grady Way and the western boundary of the Union Pacific
Railroad right -of -way of the parcel of land deescribed by:.
the following;
WILLIAM B. O'NEILL, HELEN M. BURRELL AND MARGARET L. CAMPBELL, AS TO THAT PORTION
LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 153RD STREET (ALSO KNOWN AS
ROAD NO. 673, .TAMES NELSON ROAD, RENTON TO RENTON JUNCTION ROAD, BOND ISSUE NO.
10 AND ROAD NO. 1139) WHICH IS 347 FEET EASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF SAID
SOUTH MARGIN WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF THE 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY GRANTED
AND CONVEYED TO THE SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY (ALSO KNOWN AS THE
PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY);
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN 80 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO, 100 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTH MARGIN 80 FEET;'
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR P.S.H. NO. 1 BY DEED
RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 5536582;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF SAID SOUTH 153RD STREET AS VACATED BY PROCEEDINGS
FILED IN VOLUME 41 OF THE RING COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, PAGE 195, AND BY
INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8702100641, WHICH MAY HAVE ATTACHED BY
OPERATION OF LAW; AND IN
MARGARET NIELSEN, RICHARD NIELSEN AND RAYMOND NIELSEN, EACH AS THEIR SEPARATE
ESTATES, AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR, AS TO THE REMAINDER.
6t T S
40TN 97
4
s
<1
14714
•
i 5 1 11 ST
i 150TH ST
5 15240 ST
5
149TH
• S RENTON VILLAGE PL
Wl.lur-.
I
51156TH 5T
an
156TH vIST
°Lo 9
T4SN
s
ST
IS 16TH 5'
1! N
IT M 1
S 1814
ST
Z
0
0
20
Pt
5, I T p 111 r
FG s is i'si'
r 528 H
by ,,N4
11
PLl p F SH
o• r ¢H ,y pTH
J 7j w jOTH
''sT N T 71ST
5 122ND ST
5 171TH ST
1
5
1 168TH
I
5 168TH IN 1 1
S 170TH 1ST
167TH S
ug <
11LLLLLL�111111������000//////���ddUd SW 29TH T
&70TH. S7
JR- - •
HS
73
S 172ND
a - -ST —
17544 ST
CORP. RATE
MINSLER
COMMUNITY ,,P,o
Wigan
EMERGENCY
CENTER
tO.1,381RQ
A Vl�728TH SST
.7
1
5 174TH 57
17
fSi
T
•
BE 179;4
SE �w1
SE
1131ST
SI
.55 90THT
64
SE 186TH
SE 107111 ST
ST
8
19(
UV
7841451
sL
e=I= I SE 194111
I 58 1941
SC 1
THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST,
WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN RING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, (BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 8 AND 10;
PORTION OF VACATED BLOCKS 12 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, AND THE STREETS ADJOINING,
GUNDARER'S INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,
RECORDED IN VOLUME 14 OF PLATS, PAGE 46, IN RING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WHICH WAS
VACATED BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA IN VOLUME 21 OF THE RING COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S
RECORDS, PAGE 203, AND RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1310397;
THAT PORTION OF NELSON PLACE AND BOND ISSUE ROAD NO. 8 (ALSO KNOWN AS CHARLES
MONSTER ROAD NO. 2 AND STEELE HILL ROAD) AS VACATED BY VOLUME 21 OF THE KING
COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, PAGE 148, AND INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING
NUMBER 8702100641;
THAT PORTION OF SOUTH 153RD STREET (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RENTON - RENTON JUNCTION ROAD
NO. 673, BOND ISSUE NO. 10, RING COUNTY ROAD NO. 1139 AND JAMES A. NELSON ROAD)
AS VACATED BY VOLUME 41 OF THE RING COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, PAGE 195, AND
INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8702100641; AND
PORTION OF THE FORMER BED OF THE WHITE -GREEN RIVER);
ALL LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEAST MARGIN OF THE PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 6284739;
AND
LYING NORTHERLY OF THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHERLY MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY
NO. 1, GREEN RIVER INTERCHANGE;
ALL AS CONVEYED TO OR CONDEMNED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEEDS RECORDED
UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 5490612, 5507291, 5510773, 5503778, 5536582 AND
PROCEEDINGS UNDER RING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 596089; AND
LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWEST MARGIN OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY 1 -L
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BLACK RIVER JUNCTION - RENTON ROAD NO. 1193) AS CONVEYED TO
KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 2919485; ALSO
LYING SOUTHERLY OF THAT "BOUNDARY LINE" DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY AGREEMENT DATED MAY
22, 1973 AND FILED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 725392; AND ALSO
LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF THE 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY CONVEYED TO
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING
NUMBERS 453942 AND 995370 AND SAID WEST MARGIN EXTENDED NORTHWESTERLY PARALLEL TO
THE CENTERLINE OF SAID RAILROAD TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 31 OF INTERURBAN
ADDITION TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF
PLATS, PAGE 55, IN RING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
TOGETHER WITH;
THAT PORTION OF LOT 31 OF THE INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 55, IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE "BOUNDARY LINE" AS ESTABLISHED BY KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 725392 AND THE EXTENSION OF SAID LINE NORTH 48 °09'33"
EAST TO A POINT ON THE WEST MARGIN OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY
COMPANY'S 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY; AND
LYING WESTERLY OF SAID WEST MARGIN.
Earl Clymer, Mayor
August 14, 1992
Mr. Rick Beeler
Director
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila ,
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
OIT OF RENTON
Planning /Building /Public Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
RECE[VED
SUBJECT: McLeod Exhibition Center Revisions
AUG 1 7 1992
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mr. Beeler:
We have reviewed the latest drawings for the McLeod Exhibition Facility which we received from - Lu
your staff in July. We note that this latest proposal reflects an almost 85,000 square foot
B
expansion (316,000 sq. ft.) and would thus consider this to be a revised project, which undeTs— 11.7111# Gin¢u
SEPA would require subsequent environmental review. Although the applicant has completed a (111124-14(4A i44
revised environmental checklist dated June 24, 1992 it does not, in our opinion provide adequate litti d Wl
information on the increased impacts of this project in such areas as transportation, noise, and
surface water drainage. This latter is particularly troubling because of the increased amounts of
runoff from the additional off -site parking lots that will have to be provided to accommodate this
enlarged development.
Aesthetically, we believe the latest revision (June 25, 1992) shows a substantial improvement in
the overall appearance of the proposed facility, particularly the east elevation that will be partially
visible from the Boeing Longacres Park site east of the Burlington Northern tracks. The scored and
textured concrete panels now create greater visual interest and should do a lot in breaking up the
apparent scale of the building. It still has a strong industrial metaphor that should transition well
with the surrounding quasi - industrial /office park development in the area. Overall, we believe the
architects have responded well in this latest scheme to a challenging site and difficult design
problem. The use of strong design elements such as the pylons and the exterior stair elements
also help break up the facades and add visual interest. With additional clarification and your
continued assurances that our concerns will be addressed, we believe that our earlier decision to
withdraw our appeal of Tukwila's previous environmental determination for this project should
continue to apply.
I have attached a list of issues that we believe still need to be addressed before this project goes
to the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. We would be happy to meet with your staff to go
over these in the near future. If we can be of further assistance please feel free to contact me at
277 -5582.
Donald K. Erickson, Manager
Development'Planning Section
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
McLeod Exhibit Facility
Development Issues
ordo mQ � frot r it ck
-t‹) c(so 614.-'5C1141 aet.dkt,,cf ttAy, M/1 n ue, (avlf2c6
Based upon the earlier TS' traffic analysis that addressed impacts to intersections within the City of
Rento •reviously d_es '•ed by the City of Tukwila that the applicant would provide a "worst case"
frc mitigation fee to the City of Benton and based upon current transportation studies being conducted
in the Val eyyya -a, a retrate-w. • • be given if impacts are apportioned differently or found to be less than
the original estimate. Given the approximately 85,000 sq. ft. increase in the size of the exhibition facility,
we are concerned as to whether the original traffic levels on which the $200,000 was estimated are still
adequate. How many trips will be generated with this increase in size of the complex and with parking
now located to the north of 1 -405 will impacts to intersections within Renton change?
Aesthetics
The visual impacts of the subject proposal are a major concern to us as previously noted because this 56
foot tall structure will be visible from most of the Boeing Longacres Park site as well as much of the
Valley. We do believe that the overall appearance of the facility has been greatly improved with the
more refined and architecturally integrated exterior concrete panels and large unifying pylons, which are
now a major design element. Whereas the project still has a strong industrial metaphor, it is much more
refined than before and the east elevation at least now shares comparable architectural consideration to
that given the west elevation. Color and graphics will be an important consideration and should be
address to the extent possible before this project goes through the Tukwila Board of Architectural
Review.
t+ `?u? H
b oit• � a
elick
bum, � Le i s
In terms of overall orientation and pedestrian orientation the City of Renton till has some major
concerns. As you know, the City has recently designated its downtown area and an rban center under
the new GMA. As a consequence we assume light rail of some form will eventually connect the
downtown, via the Burlington Northern right of way, to ether the Burlington Northern rail line that runs
immediately to the east of the proposed new exhibition hall facility or the Union Pacific rail line to the
west of the proposed new facility. With the Boeing Longacres Park development likely employing 10,000
or more people, it would highly desirable to locate a station in the vicinity of that proposed office park
and the new exhibition hall. Whereas we would prefer to see a station between the two developments,
along the Burlington Northern right -of -way, whether it goes here or to the west on the Union Pacific line,
some provision should be made now in anticipation of it. This would include, to the extent possible,
unencumbered pedestrian access from the Boeing Lo ngacre Eark site to the east. The current proposal
does not appear to have either anticipated should a siting of a light rail station in the future or explored
ways that it might serve the proposed facility as well as the Boeing Longacres Park office development.
Such a station might also help mitigate traffic impacts from the exhibition facility.
Circulation
Provision for east -west pedestrian circulation through easements across the site in this direction would
be very desirable. Also, we believe that a facility of this magnitude should have elevated pedestrian
walkways like normal sidewalks to distinguish pedestrian areas from vehicular areas. Pedestrian stripy g
at the rear of parking stalls is not a reasonable solution given the numbers of p ople in the area. — t'-r'2b d
1, d'�' ,ttocr}xk MAO O Q1 et -moo ,�tNL ��"'
�' �U �'� vC6 'Q 4 -1.,1v .
MCLEODLT
Noise
efA ► ,A;,, atrfb - SE/1.. Ab e4051 ofen
rfiZU/11
The applicant has not provided a noise study that we know of. If car and other types of auctions are held
here noise is likely to be an issue particularly if it is allowed to spill out of the building or any activities of
this nature occur outside of the building. We would prefer to see some form of restrictive covenant
placed on the property that would prohibit its use for such outside events.
Light and Glare
The applicant has not provided a Tight and glare analysis on the project either. The schematic drawings
do show wall mounted light fixtures at a height of 24 feet along the east facade of the 818 ft long building
that, unless shielded, would likely be visible from the proposed office park on the Longacres site. Details
on all parking lot lighting fixtures as well as building mounted lighting fixtures will need to be provided for
staff review.
Air Quality ocSaago on,
se/1.(1
To date we have not received anything from the City of Tukwila addressing this issue. It is reasonable to
assume that an additional 1,500 to 2,000 cars would create increased levels of air emissions in the area,
which, during certain times of the year when there are air inversions, might have an adverse impact on
air quality in the immediate area.
Surface Water
7M-L- 64,0Y- of
The schematic plans to indicate that the applicant has recognized the presence of wetlands on the site
and is now proposing mitigation for these. The schematic plans do not give enough information to
determine how well these wetlands are being protected and /or mitigated.
The plans are also unclear as to how storm water is being handled. Staff informed Tukwila earlier this
year that the 100 year flood plain did flood portions of the site and they had indicated that they were
going to have the applicant address this. What we do know is that the subject proposal is intended to tie
into the storm water drainage line that Boeing is putting in under SW 16th Street which drains into
Springbrook Creek. Drainage will comply with the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Drainage Agreement
completed several years ago. Also, Tukwila has apparently also adopted the King County Surface Water
Drainage Manual.
Landscaping
Poplars around the edge of the parking lot should be deep rooted to prevent damage to parking lots.
Devices are available that force roots to grown down. Trees selected for the parking areas should have
high resistance to disease and insects to avoid "weeping" on parked autos.
POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Because of the increased size (100,400 sf), staff consider this a revised project requiring additional
mitigation measures. After reviewing the latest schematic plans, staff recommend that the ERC
authorize the Secretary to prepare a response on your behalf to Rick Beeler, Director of Community
Development in Tukwila suggesting that the following measures be made conditions for subsequent
project reviews and approvals by that city.
1. In order to mitigate traffic impacts to Renton, the applicant shall be required, pursuant to WAC 197 -
11-060(4)(b), to contribute a fair share dollar amount to mitigate traffic impacts this project is likely to
MCLEODLT
r
have on intersections within the City of Renton. This amount is currently estimated to not exceed
$200,000.00 and shall be paid at the time of Renton's adoption of the Valley Transportation Plan
Update or prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, whichever comes first.
2. In order to address potential light and glare impacts, the applicant shall be required to conduct a light
and glare analysis to identify the extent, if any, of visible glare off site particularly as it might impact
properties to the east of the site and possibly wetlands on or near the site.
3. In order to address potential impacts on air quality, the applicant shall be required to identify the
likely impacts of providing parking for an additional 1,500 to 2,000 cars in this location.
4. In order to address aesthetic impacts, the applicant shall consider providing a landscape screen
along the rear (east) facade of the proposed 860 ft long structure from properties to the east w ith
significant landscaping, including the planting of mature evergreen trees. ,yr
0/./4 to atev tt
In order to address storm water management issues and ensure adequate water quality, the
-applicant shall be required to comply with all relevant provisions of the King County Surface Water
Drainage Manual.
6. In order to reduce user reliance on single occupancy autos, the applicant shall be required to design
the proposed exhibit hall in a way that it could take advantage of a possible light rail transit stop
along the Burlington Northern right -of -way to the east of the proposed facility. Currently the
proposed exhibition facility is oriented towards the west, tuming its back on the Burlington Northern
railroad lines and the proposed 156 acre, 10,000 employee office park to the east. (If a light rail
transit stop were located in the area, we assume it would try to capture some of these close -by
employees.)
7. In order to facilitate pedestrian circulation in an east -west direction across the site between Tukwila
and Renton, the applicant shall provide pedestrian easements that facilitate workers on either'side of
the site getting to a light rail station, assuming one is developed in the vicinity in the foreseeable
future.
• 8. In order to lessen future noise impacts from outdoor auctions or similar activities including sports or
entertainment events, the applicant shall agree to the placing of restrictive covenants on the site
prohibiting such outdoor activities as part of this development proposal.
cc: Lee Wheeler
John Webley
Jim Hanson
MCLEODLT
• i
Mr. Pat Brodin
June 17, 1992
Page 2
a: 61692bro.din
Provide a one -way flow connection to the new 12 inch looped main with a
• check valve in the vicinity of the Seattle :meter /PRV to. the Independent
Water System., This would prevent pressures from dropping below 90 psi
at this point and provide for additional fire flows through this connection
limiting flow in the 10 inch main to eliminate this problem.
In any event, we would suggest a connection be made between the new looped line and existing
12 inch Independent Water main near the intersection of Nelson Place and Longacres Way. This
connection should be isolated by a gate valve which would remain closed until pressures are
increased in the Independent Water System to match the remainder of the City's pressure
gradient.
We trust this brief study answers your concerns regarding the subject needed water system
improvements. If you have further questions, please let us know.
Sincerely,
•
PENHALLEGON ASSOCIATES CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, INC.
Martin L.
President
MLP /had
enclosure
/✓�1h
nhallegon, P.E.
CE4 afiA6 (162- &-)1214)ritit 6,prieve
b. mo- -caw D •
......•...,... �, „�.....,.o-.•.,..<.nr.,..cr.c,.. ,�..^.+3.a.M :.c:�N.�:r. +:�a�c:�ra;v�.n!�a :,- :n -:,...
1
TO:
MEMORANDUM
Li' .l t i' i 7.'
J U L 0 8 1992
LH
Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner - DCD
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, DCD
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist - DCD
DATE: July 6, 1992
RE: McLeod Exhibition Facility - Wetland /Drainage Permitting
Per my review letter addressed to Stuart McLeod (April 22, 1992),
I have approved the conceptual wetland mitigation proposal
(Watershed Dynamics 3/17/92) and requested selected details be
included on the final mitigation plan. The design and intent of
the plan to expand Wetland #12 is feasible and will increase the
overall functional values of that area. The wetland buffer will be
an enhanced area ranging from 50 to 75 feet.
The following comments are offered from my review of the June 24,
1992 set of site plans - Design Review Submittal.
1) Water source for irrigation of the South Parking Lot landscape
may be temporarily needed for the enhanced wetland buffer
plantings adjacent to the parking lot.
2) Storm drainage features ie. swales, wetpond will follow King
County Stormwater Manual criteria and use recommended
vegetation seed mixtures. "Grass Lined Swale” or "Storm
Drainage Swale" labeling should be changed to "Biofiltration
Swale ". See Sheets L.4, S.7, S.8.
3) Storm drainage runoff on the River Parking Area is shown as
draining to the north without detention. Conversation with
Mr. Don Miles, Engineer identified this as a mistake.
Drainage flow should be shown to enter the stormwater pond
facility south of I -405.
EMORANDUM
(/2.9F--" TO: FILE NO. 0054 4
FROM: DENNI SHEFRIN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1992
SUBJECT: SHORELINE PERMIT STATUS
The proposed exhibition facility has been redesigned and reduced in
scale. The redesign excludes the use of the area north of I -405
and adjacent to the shoreline. Therefore, the Shoreline Permit is
no longer required for this project. As of this date, the file is
closed.
;2i at=4 iii:0,Jb5.ET6iiiiiit['}ysa ,7p, o:GE
.vi t•u'v�� +' > <Mxuaaym ems. rw
TO: Ron /Phil
FROM: Denni
DATE: July 2, 1992
SUBJECT: McLeod: Review Status.
This memo is a reminder that all comments from PW related'to this
project are to be presented at the July 9 DRC meeting. Comments
should address the following:
1. parking adequacy based upon the parking study provided to you
earlier /traffic control
2. Peer review schedule related to drainage
3. Site plan /proposed drainage swales, etc.
4. Access /public improvements
5. Additional permits required
6. Easements /dedications. You have proposed language to base
comments on.
7. Indicate whether a hydraulics permit is required i' Ce- J"^
8. Anything else you can think of!
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
M E M O R A N D U M
Ron Cameron and Phil Fraser
Denni Shefrin
June 11, 1992
McLeod Exhibition Facility Review Process
Following a review of the existing SEPA determination /mitigation
measures for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone and
Exhibition Facility, I have concluded that parking adequacy and
traffic control must be addressed as both part of the SEPA addendum
and Design Review process.
Parking Study /Parking Adequacy:
Public Works must determine whether the proposed parking would be
adequate for the facility. Also, PW should determine whether the
methodology used for the original proposal is consistent and
second, whether parking numbers should be based on gross floor
area. There is a difference of approximately 20,000 sq. feet in
net floor area between the original proposal and current.
The original facility concept proposed a total 210,000 sq. ft. net
floor area and 330,600 sq. ft. gross. It is unclear whether the
parking study was based on the net or gross amount.,
Floor areas for the current proposal are approximately 231,600 sq.
ft. net and 312,400 sq. ft. gross (these figures may change).
Traffic Control:
A traffic control plan shall be made part of the SEPA Addendum to
be submitted with the BAR application.
Drainage
Under the heading: Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezone Mitigating
Measures, measure #1 states the following:
Pay for the update of the Nelson /Longacres Storm Drainage Plan
to include the area of the Comprehensive Plan change at
highest and best use.
Information has been provided by the applicant in order to comply
with this measure, however review of the information has not been
completed by Public Works. While Public Works has determined that
a peer review would be the most timely and effective way to conduct
review of a comprehensive storm drainage plan, a peer review had
not been required as part of the mitigation.
While I agree with a peer review, it should not be tied .. to the
Design Review process. The design review process should not be
held up due to the review status given that the applicant has made
an effort to comply with the required mitigation. A final storm
drainage plan must be approved prior to the issuance of building
permits.
If. design changes result from a the final drainage plan, the
planning staff will determine whether the changes are significant
enough to warrant a return to BAR.
Developer's Agreement
Public Works shall coordinate with the applicant in the preparation
of a developer's agreement to incorporate required mitigation as
part of the original SEPA (see attached).
cc: Jack Pace
BAR File
•
,,,',
,„ •
„..„,
tranderABoulevarthto,, siteii.provIda_ng• conta.nuat•iom-:of: Strander$•
oul eyard-',:
- •••••,,''.'.-'-‘ ;• . '0'. !.'.1:'','f• '.'').,:'; ;, . ',• : 't' • '• ' , . ::, ;. ‘•:-•• 1• ';-:•, : '. '' . : a', ' n' : '.'!•.•. • d '.:,, •%' •::' • .
( . ..•:,t'.;.•a,",f ;;t • o '-,•..: - 'c 'e s •• . ' : s :' , ,• ;t•, : :'ot,‘ + • ! subject
ubject 1 •:, properties
roperties', =..:fi,,,:■,••.;:.;. ;.:'1., '.: -.,r';I''t;...i ..' :..;.,....V• :: .;.
. ••. :• .: :'%,i• .,,'!• .;: -z.;:. • ,.4-■, , .... ' , .;,. • ) ;.T!4c::.: : :.-•4",:.:" ..,:1e:,: :', ‘.-":: •: ,':..'1'li• '.-' .: J;' •
•.' .'
' .
, ` r
Consolidate ...),4 7
dedicated n: rigi-itbi •:we.i.toa11:-.P.a.-rCelth.:-..w...ith'in ie'Z'Cine's ite..i'..:;:',;:.:z
signed and :';.recorded:';::...: agreement-,;:::, not7::1:,tsdv..;;:protest.-:. L 1 D:
rination ior S trander: right -o f extension amprovement th. and
deaicate the necessary right-of-way ' '
Exhibition Facility Mitigating Measuresl.
o'ard'' of
Architectural Review application,.. an
approval. The site plan must, show the followings minimums
surface ...water, interim:.` and ..final systems
.constructed per. the.King::County.Surface Water
(1990 )'.: as supplemented' by. Tukwila, to include
b'iofiltration - and'approved .by the Tukwila
Department;
designed.': an
Design.. Manual
detention and
Public"..: Works
b. parking aisles that are oriented perpendicular
building's north and south entrances;
the
c. expansion of the Type 1 wetland to accommodate 1.5:1
compensatory mitigation for filling Type 3 wetlands and
preservation of Type 2 wetland and buffer;
d. landscaping that provides definition of pedestrian walks, .
shade, and visual relief for'. facility' visitors of massive
parking areas and that complements building; landscape
islands-7.5 feet wide between every ten parking stalls.
e. incorporation of 12 foot asphalt trail and 2 foot shoulders
on Puget Power right -of -way;
f..'incorporation of Interurban Trail along north property
line;
g. incorporation of significant stands of trees
h. logical pedestrian aisles that are treated • with
landscaping and lead to facility entrances.
i ; ;. ,, : 158th and Strander• will be treated as entrances, to
the site and will be landscaped to highlight their roles:.
D. break -up building facades with color. , :: lines and massing, .
tor! create interest and a balanced architectural `:: design.
:
Materials shall be compared with quality of adjacent new
commercial:. developments.
areas for trash, building services, mechanical.equipment
and event loading will be identified and screened using;,
landscaping where possible or decorative hard materials where
not
1. create a lum;nare plan that creates a night-time .design
'.•
for structure. Light standards shall complement design of
structure, and have several scales to proved for pedestrian,,
building and site'lighting.
nterurban %Grady /.4.05: ramp intersection;'. $43
Valleey/S` :156th':; Street' intersection; $47'; 000. '
for - -tYie`. :W•.
"Valley /S : ' ?158th:: Street intersection; $30;
alley/.:' Strander : intersection; ,: and ;:$ 38 , 8 5 3 : for'.,:the: W
180th Street" improvement
b. One half of a fair share contribution .paid to the
City. of Renton prior to `issuance . of building permit • and
the . .'other half prior to issuance of . the facility's'
certificate of occupancy for the cost of off -site road
` improvements :in' "'the City of Renton corridors used by
traffic generated by the proposed project.
'. ; Fair' share shall'.; be based .on the average peak :•hour 'trip ::;
:.';: `';generation and distribution documented in the TS I „traffic . :...
analysis . The proportional share shall be determined ,by: <''
:1) : a formula involving project ,traffic volumes divided, by:::
.the.; capacity ' increase.. by the new improvements;:;;;
multiplied •by the cost' of the improvements as recommended'.'.;;
by the Renton Valley Transportation Plan Update' or 2) on':.
. the same off -site trip': end :fee or other basis applied to
other ::' new .`. development;`::: or.-. redevelopment: :•.;for:: off- site;:
assessment- of road improvements. recommended by: :the Valley: ::':
Transportation Plan update.
The total.' amount., will not exceed $200,000: and .the total;':
amount; plus. .. :interest .shall -be=- refunded .within`' <six;years`;ts:
of issuance .''of ..building:; permit: if :: not spent!', to : corrects
identified impacts . If: adoption', of the;:Renton';Va11eya:
:`Transportation :Plan ; .`update• occurs after =`issuance':: of,
:buildin ermit' or 'certificate. of :: occupancy/a:: any `'s rplus•Y? „::
,'.of .funds °'(over.' calculated mitigation) :':on deposit'with'the'::'�,
ity; of ` .Rento
ri• 's , be:. refunded .to the'. applicant' u °;
M1Yr ..;., :nr •,rvr.: vi :•��„ .i.. _... .- er'... w... .. i ^'w....., ......,.'i_'i �..... .c:r..;:•r ., an.• .�..... i7, iii .5:fi5).�a.i r. {iuS•'i:,iiir,i:.�.a
S :,;' 15 8th ' Street'.-improved
wr, -; {Embassy:: Suites section'�to`' the Exhibition., Fac'ility:':si'te':.:, The •:.''
_
158th shall include additional evaluation and documentation of
tt;`.peak:• `,pedestrian flows_. . or pedestrian..,,, hour factors
• includin an:' evaluation' of maximum 'width - 'sidewalk that': can be,'.`
provided . A:. sidewalk:: wider: ; than: 8.: feet will be . provided '.: i f .
ossible .t.:;= ;t,',_
d. Strander Boulevard .. between W :;; :Valley.:;' Highway and;:, the
Exhibition Facility; will need. to provide' for safe pedestrian::'
and : vehicle • traffic . movement. Approval of the proposed';;
improvements., with:. sidewalks, ' four .lanes; drainage,:';':1ighting
,.:.and..traffic control.. is ,required:
If a multi - -modal or commuter transit facility is 'develope
on ,. the - north : side of ;'.I -405 . or. on . a site adjacent to the
Exhibition facility,,.then'property owners will provider access:
.between. the Exhibition Facility and Metro ' facility for .
pedestrians, for vehicles and for joint parking use, if agreed
to by Tukwila.
Easement 'agreements shall• be for life o.f pro.ject and be, .from.:,
a. Puget Power for use of their property for parking .
- improvements.
*b. Property owners of all parcels that are • necessary to'allow
access, construction of road and,_perpetual parking.
c. Property owners on all parcels, for . life of the exhibition
'building, for parking and. through. access and utilities to
service the subject facility.
. Union Pacific railroad to allow bridge construction at S.
-158th street.. extension and at -grade crossing'. at Strander.
extension.
e. Property owners of all parcels with ditches, swales:'and
detention that ,convey "public" surface water for City of
.Tukwila, access, so the City can maintain the system conveying
"public surface water or agreement from the owners• to
maintain the system to City standards and a hold harmless
agreement. regarding surface waters .which flow through
;properties
etters of acknowledgement from Olympic pipeline, Seattle
at'en , ;:'. and Metro • sewer regarding proposed - construction
ocation on site plan with respect to their facilities with-..;
submittal
•
'.A'gate•;valve the looped. system where it connects on S. 158th
:Street to mitigate the different pressures in the system.
ytt! . r ;, • •:1.., : n•, f, ..i . � .t 1,41.:. !- � .. iris: ..:i�,!.��.i,�:�,'t: •
•
SEC 24, TWP 15 N., R.4 E., W M.
144 70
pi 2
GREEN
WN�TE.
(5�
/
NI, E�
' SE
`o '
I •y'9ti\ ¢ � �l.
� SL O 1 b
/ C t_-•• ,, �a (.. 1.'
� I\ , / 11 ntc nl4t.:1' I
\ rt
45:21:
41010, t, olleNO0Vt 5re
ti At 52 49'
AREA- /1.14 AcRE5
mom. or Moo
t0
AST
— J/oJNpTION
OLP
A— —1
1-IC
dp
4. 10•?+J 45.
"i4C
ezed moo
oorT
_yo.
Noose
(SSID113"1
1721 pt
0 7ti,y�f`y:0ddp
Pro gS
V\C'•
p5N
SURV!•(OtS caw lc ziar
TRlZ11�lSUtAKG[
801,15 ,NIeL CM AND TICOQ
e1
MILL
ivrAft T.141-
it woo 111Y E 14 110 331It25
L1 D51 ?it l CO. Ef•.,E('EI T NO. !137 15411
+ S,,•1. t NSF 110. I ram SKi.c 2.
fir( r.°c4WItt2liZEC-` 9aba.8 +
pIREVED
APR 1.71i9-2
•
SEC As, 7100 N., R.4 E., WM.
•••
litgatieVid.
•
er-4'4st4' -
tr",6
AtO
\
tr^
C NTICA.1 NV; it.
• .34
.10 '
IIAAftsitiV69117'91.6
911.4.0. 52 49'
ARA • 1124 AcRE5
mom, Or MoO
0 6
f
r
°
•
,
• •
LEGAL DESCRIPTION .
9.9
• .
FARCEL A;
THAT PORTION or THE MT HAIR or secrion 24. TONNSNIF 53 NORTH, RANCE 9
EAST. v.M., IN 01110 COUNTY, WASHINGTON. (1111110 DORI FULLY DESCITSED AS:.
• • '
C.
/dt 99.
00v
91.1ELVEYORLS CEIZT1F %CATE'
WilkilltriKliti &WM ,4401:-SR:4 AIM
, %Flora
■ ,
MIME& tinMt.
.4;
El
. • "
95 "
TIC012.
MILL
9'5 (•••■ V; m in,or lC tt.l1l
Id %.FIr lirt
) WA1Ct. 11141. FASCIA:911 110 13162!)
2.) V.41. CO TAttrAC111 MC). EV/V:10411
4. 0i) EAST tn0. rt 910 S'Ile.0002.
igImarAWIIKV3sokiFgle't.SAW;
PORTION OP GOVERNMENT LOTS I AND 10;
PORTIoN OF VACATED BLOCK 12 THROUGH 15 AND THE STREETS ADJOINING 011
GUNDAKER'S IKTERIDUIAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE. ACCOMINO TO THE PLAT RECORDED ,
114 VOLUME 14 OF PLATS, PAGE 46, IN UDC COUNTY, VASNINGTON, 1611011 VAS.
VACATED SY THE CITY OF TURVILA ST COMMISSIONER'S JOURNAL 21.10) MD I.,'
RECO11D10 UNDER 01110 COUNTY RECORDING NO. 1310397; •
THAT PORTION OF PIELSON PLACE AND BOND ISSUE ROAD 110, 6 (ALIO MOON Al 4 ,
CHARLES MONSTER ROAD NO. 2 AND STEELE HILL ROAD) M VACATED SY VOLUME EI
OF THE RING COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, PAGE 141 AND 11111609401? •
RECORDED UNDER KINO coon" RECORDING PO. 1707100441;
116T PORTION OF loom 153RD STREIT (IIMUIERLY KNOW AS PENT011.1101TON
JIWICTION ROAD NO. 673, BOND ISSUE 910. EING counry ROAD 91131 AND JAMES A.
NILSON ROAD) AS VACATED BY VOLUME 41 OF THE KING COUNTY COMMIMIONEE'll
RECORDS, PACE 195 AND ntsraunort RECORDED UNDER 11140 COUNTY RECCOMPO NO,
1702100641; •
poioNTED
u BELLEVUE
AP II 171192
gl@lb
AV
AND FoRTION OF THE MINER RED OF THE WHITE:CREEN RIVER;
ALL LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF 161 NORTHEAST IU,R011: Or TRE MET SOUND 10211
AND 3.10190 COMPANY FROFITY AS DESCRIBED IN DIED RECORDED UNDER NINO cowry `',..;:. •,',.
RECOPOING HO. 6286719, AND
,
LYING NORTHERLY OF In NORTHEAST AND NORTHERLY MARCIA OF FRUIARY STATR, •') • •
HICHVAY PO. 1, GREEN RIVER INTERCHANGE, ALL AS CONVEYED TO OE MI:DINNED IlY .•
TR STATE or WASHINGTON Be DEEDS RECORDED Won XING �M): macamotmm m01. •
5490612, 5507291, 5510773, 5903779, 55365E2 rsOCCIDIMOS UNDER, KING
COUNTY SUPERIOR COUNT CAUSE MO, 5960E9; AND
LYING NORTHWESTERLY Or 111E INNITHWEST MARGIN Or SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY 14
(nation.' mon AA 1942 'LACE. RIVER JUNCTION.IIENT0N ROAD NO., 11239 As '
CONVEYED Tt: 111110 =ITT ST DEED RECORDED UNDER 111110 COUNTY accoltmtft no:
7119615; ALSO .4", ....I
LYING SOUTHERLY Or THAT •DOUNOARY LINE. mono ..: BOUNDARY ACIICEPUNB . ''t;...);,' .'
DATED MAY 22, :973 AND r1110 IN 111117 COINITY 9010110R COUNT eAuts MO: '..1t%•,',
725197: RHO 1430 .' . •;.:41I'..1..
LYING WESTELY OF 19:5 1101! KROO Or TE ICO rccm . atmr•or-mmT .... ... -.-.. 1 ''•77
cmicAmo, MILWAUKEE AND ST. FAUL RAILWAY COMER. SY REED escape ortsr.y,,
KING COUNTY RECORDING PO. 453942 AND 195370 Ain) RA/D Ups sAsom issrmile..q
fi •'1,,,,ig
PORTHVESTRILY rAkAvat ro tma CENTERLINE 0: SAID 0.111A430,-,TO .e1111 •i4
SOOMEASTERLY LIPS or tar 31 Or trumonsAs ammo ro,par2uwAc06dollor14:
TOME PLAT RECORDAD IM VOLUME 10 or PLATS, PACS 191. • ,
, ' . . :•.■
_ �..__-___..__._._.,.....,........«. �,,.... e.+,•, ru: raa* c�. x:: rz: �', Sti, d" x: inS': �' Y�i '.sr..:�'i�z'riztt;: }.�t�..rk ,.., Y'...ifca. :0:`F',•
•
S.W. Grady Way
1:II!IQ,
I: l ;[1
RiverParking Area
(770 Stalls)
Scale: 1" = 50' -0"
0 20 50
100
North Ly.
I -405
McLeod Development, Co.
213 Lake Street South
Kirkland, WA. 9R033 •
206.3224114 •
dear;
Loschky Marquardt & Neahnlm • MIka Conlultiee
501 Norton Ruitdia'
801 Seeond Avenue
Seattle, WA.98104
206.682.3460
Aral
•
AteHarps 43 & Associates
4113 211 • Blau. 2 2207 ►Irrt A 1107 Guatrr Club Dour
•120t1 Ave... R,►„ Basal.. VA. 93121 Ydi "a. WA. 9A901
11,11.13e. VA. 911005 206.441.1494 :109.427.027$
204.451.21 3
Rybur
•
l.uaeg3 Areblieet ►adIltr Committal
Exhibition Facility
Tukwila, Washington
r
S.W. Grady Way
I I L f
_.
•
J LJ C 1 U
'l"illi
'�I�I:IIltll;ii,
I'
•
ii
I.I
• I ! i
I
II
• HIIII 0..,
0
\0
0
0
RiverParking Area
(770 Stalls)
Scale: V = 50'4"
0.. 20 50
100
North 'L y.
0
I -405 / °
/ 0
/
0
Matchlin2 C
I°
I°
I°
Io
o
J
m
bition Facility
;wila, Washington
......_.._........_.._.,...........,.,.-_...,......_......,....,.. ... ...........„..........un.,a „ >., .�.e..usx A..; ex.! rv!R^f,',Cin, ±:.1:Y•i:'�>Y�.•i.
•
,\
t ,t
1 �\
H
c.�
'e;, c.nv.t.rv.¢
V%41.00.001,1.
N0°1- oS -ooW
WO. an
to 11- 54
30.3\
CAN
[x.21 -9h :
L. rotes
,•4'
.
per. t�b4 ^i
to
7
ti
qo
GRADING PLAN_
r QO Q6^.*o PtHt•t -tGO
4 ¢AV'1 WA•i
10 zo ■ to. CoV O,
o
0
tco'- 241 ca s .0,
toe
t+.41
•
INt11 46•1•{ .o1E.
4R'
I c.c.s•.\,r:a
14.41•oo•ooa 3'%0'
M1
ti `
- io
ao_ 4 -,
m1. n
_ 4P.1,11
7
N /
l
J�\ti4� ry
GRADING PLAN
40 coal, G= \1'i.5\-t - f.1LAOC�.•
f J 1
. ,, Ji
,o
24.
ti
Pu
c
M1
t• 1:".7 ir °v;' "
C4AYa 4 W &
1N%-1 =T 1L.S
I 0.
R • zo.\•,.ao
• \fi r.o.ow
41Q
i•
do.
04 C) Tot.,
-C 'jL\` et -41-AM% N 0.1•4/0
MAX 'sHoWN.
aret.3..T awALa
o..ret_s0.T \4. 1
0
0
c6 T iCi
-roe
1.w . D,bfo
\A2o\ h\G.V'O.
0
z4`4 dt.
po,•
C6T4CR 0.
tOp
%NV 15,44,
% 0
o
/ o
0
0
ToP
1if.2/.0
•
• •
T R A C K
ry ... C
^ Toni
- —
1(2
••••,. it. •
.nPt■- .r
).•!: .-.7•
•