The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-20-90 - THE CALLISON PARTNERSHIP - SECURITY PACIFIC OPERATIONS CENTER (RIVERTON)SECURITY PACIFIC RIVERTON OPERATIONS CENTER EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH & S. 124T" ST. EPIC -20 -90 WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Construct a 14,976 square foot addition to an existing computer room, and a 906.5 sf addition to an existing mechanical room. 39 existing parking stalls will be replaced by landscaping, with 20 new stalls created by the recontiguration of existing stalls. Proponent The Wilson Partnersiip kapplicantl: and Security Pacific Bank (owner) Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 12400 East Marginal Way South (at existing Security Pacific Riverton, Operations Center); in the S.W. 114 of Sec. 10, Twn. 23, Rqe. 4, Tukwila, Washington. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -20 -90 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. There is no comment period for this DNS Q 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 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Date August 14, 1990 Signature You may appeal this determination to the y 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 � B SCHEME SUBMITTAL r 0) JULY 11, 160; yoe ham 'A' 114,676.5 Si • 666.s Of -15.143 s To7AU ■ The Callisoh Partnership RIVERTON OPERATIONS CENTER LOCATION MAP CR SMINRA BO oir VICINITY MAP I* •K. 081811110 MA. If=0.11,8•M 1 • - NW • CODE INFORMATION Bug, MN: EoislSy BWtYip 256,054.0 05 Now E.p•so. 14,076.5 N Office 906.5 .1 M J. Total Ms. 214637.7 N 7./540 NK*.rt 11600 • (> 2.5(7000) 210,037 *1 /1*M6 /•00.. 676 Min; Rn4LG 662 ate. Lpl •••■ 61260000.1 Lot C0••■•• 2.00,.5. 50• SCALE 0•• 85 60 MO MN r- 3o'-o. �BBANNK SECURITY ■ 2.1.•2 Mori vs••• AtO If222. maws= Samna Or,. ,A22.21.• N9 , 4.? MAN ENTFIMCEL.- TURN 410404. Eir.1wr1ao:.4r,141 1.24 ). 112- EXISTING R.O.C. brPot CA,If 1).21 •..,•••••,•• " ‘2.2•, ft•T 2.• PLANT UST 212,1_14122._. 1.51k TAXI__ rt 1 '''. . 11). 1 •T • • 1 L. •.. • so mr. .4 202 • TAL. . • 12.44. • Moe 12• 2„ • am. .4.4'e.1.•nto.)44.- ••••Lsi c•lve •, 40 , 'Lop ,..,,,,..'•••••■...rom.0 4.• 11L. .0 • .. ...4 •No• • V: r•tat XL, 040 1 1 ..... M.., MLA ha •2 MD i If .2471, 4.0 1' f- ',414.404 1 1•• emls •t• M 7 •,..rt•Oar. 1 - 004:74 . elot 50 1 • nese; .104.4,144 111.2 L.... Wm, Il• • ,,..1 21,2404 :LT..- Am... e03/0 CL, *04.1 22424 .204110.1.1. D 04.707004. ,14,4471,e. •••• tom, mot 40*) 10 04 )) • 7,, 1.1 0.4444 • I 7,4. 049 • o • 8.4 N01' , 8.bet. f'1■41.1, Tom 2 2' .2).4. ISSIsS) sass IJ ,s4.• .4* Cra,t., 44141•1 l■ Mem, -2.1..• Lem rosn So. FITTT ..ra.T.,; 44,•41/94,.. T.T..44) totT, T LT. 4.01; T'• • gT.5.. ,4T)TITT ',ITT, Ur, 4;14 •444, MLA. 22.,2,22.2244.. totool. • ,TT tst„ 440,4; 444 74 4444 Osek<7,1. 'ft4o, .174 VOTT. 222. SLo •-• V-22. • rom .7Lp .11,0 7L7r, s▪ 'IN BOLLARD LIONT verAy LEGEND 22.1 • L EXISTING WING 221222).2 2,, • LA ., 414, • • '• ‚TA 1.. T.! T•-•.. lo). 74.)).2 ol EXISTING COMPUTER ROOM ,,,.•222.1 T..21 122 0. •Lo .Re -a • 2, Ma 2. DULLING PENT SUBIATTAL 17,1990 oi.owd *um tocco a WALK TO ANOLTIAV PARKING !W. The Callison Partnership Mr..111. '40. MO Tr. 117,T,..Ztgl...1.Z. WI° 5,..Toir 41/11V 222 To 4TT,TT-';',I. "U... TULL “40c. . . seE L.4 EASt - TV,T TFTIG 4444 47( 5.1 TT. TTT• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLAN RIVERTON OPERATIONS CENTER so' se..1.1ast. 4.L.Komaftae■ jilt? arAmaIRITV PACIFIC WASHINGTON • Ea. 03. ER EQ _JAC 8243AS ..0C EL NM REVEALS TO MATCH EN311110 =■•••■•■••11 Mt Awl= ,,••.•■••■•• ......• _ tlal•• ••••■ amal••■•■ ., •■•••••••••■ 0 •••••••••■ •■••••■•••■ ' •••■••••••••■ - NS M• T ......... ■ • ■ awn ••• . ..!9 Hirzimpo imium -_iimmin imujell....z......ta. I ••••••••• ALM EL 2610 METAL TREWS PLANTER WEST ELEVATION PLANTER METAL TRELLIS NORTH ELEVATION / TOG EL 41113 DISIORTED WEST ELEVATION YY PRECAST CONCRETE PMEL TvP. ' REVEALS TO MATCH MS-TING • 31151150 1 PEW TILC. IL 4143 331031.3 10 MATCH EXISTING RECAST COPCIETE PAM- - 1L,_.. 7 2600 %IS EAST ELEVATION ". --- 1 i I 1 i 1 LCSNER RELOCATED ROLLING OVERHEAD DOOR EN.FLA. EL 33 MABEL ESS0 :IN 31119 31119 113111 141 II 1333 1;11 API 1111 p• .11 SOUTH ELEVATION RODE SLOPE VC I FT. TIP. SUSPENND 0.8 3.0.3. CHAO RAISED ACCESS BOOR BUILDING SECTION A-A B.A.R. SUBMITTAL AV/ 1T, NM (REVISED AUGUST 3, 1390) BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS • The Cason Partnership RIVERTON OPERATIONS CENTER LENT, CONC. 31.9. 1N00 BOARD INSULATING SYSTEM 111-110 BULDING SECTION 9-8 SCALE W1.1-1...i"'''L:r Mr= E-cr aSECURITY 7ACtFIC umNIC WASHINGTON ■ NEW MANHOLE B.A.R. SUBMITTAL JULY 17. 1990 PRELIMINARY UTILITY RELOCATION PLAN The Callison Partnership RIVERTON- SCALE OPERATIONS ■ CENTER BANK WASHINGTON • W1-0 JUL 17 199 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. ,JITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONIVION TAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT t'.•w',c a "�'3�".wY L ''..`sky'z.=��>s, o s... 8 #..t,•k :£:, OuiIding' a{ D (Tannin PROJECT G)gr.,{J1Z,I(Y PAC(PIO EPIC: 20 -'7O "Ire Polic,.� .., JUL 2 4 1990 • DATE TRANSMITTED -7448/40 RESPONSE REQUESTED B [ J wj17 j • STAFF COORDINATOR DATE RESP.ONS'i4liCeigPIC WORKS ADDRESS rs gart'trltut,I """"'l f S . 1244 - ITEM - COMMENT Page 16 - Item 14d - (Transportation) - The Transpo Group (June 28, 1990_ letter of L. Ruff Report) and Callison Architecture July 17, 1990 letter state "no need determined for signal control of South 124th Street (vehicles or pedestrians) now or with increase due ....to expansion ". Also, on site parking is sufficient for their needs. Date: a/ 1 v fri o Comments prepared by: CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EfVVIRONANTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM EPIC: 20- j0 Building Plahn�n PROJECT LgGUtz_rrY FAG(pc ADDRESS s-I' " "� "l, f ' • I2446- DATE TRANSMITTED 7/ fro STAFF COORDINATOR,tilp. ITEM Parks /Rec ,. . RESPONSE REQUESTED BY DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED -7bce Ptzc e.attached environmental " was received regarding this.project Please review pmment`belowto advise .the responsibte official regarding: the::threshotd determination.:1 environmental review tile:is available in the Planning Department through the above sta oordinator,.::Comrnents regarding.the project you wish..carried:to the Planning Con mrsst Board of.Adjustment and City Council *should be submitted in thie comment section belai COMMENT m2 /i.(47.- ik) • /4-eite 1,z-1. 3 ohAe- aAe- (7/4776407.94,4,24--e_Xael-Ai-une-Z7 7i-iviezeoed - se-wig Date: 7/ 90 Comments prepared by: , k C 09/14/89 ENVIRONI*NTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EPIC: 2e)- go �ullding � PROJECT '5 1)g.rtY pAC(PIC ADDRESS WA/ fd ' • I Z4 DATE TRANSMITTED 74g/io STAFF COORDINATOR J�lilM �• JUL REPciVED 9 4 1990 RESPONSE REQUESTED B Y dr.vu►' pRC DATE RESPONSE RECEI IOt1C WORKS The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please •reviewa omment below•#o advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. Th• environmental; review fife is available in the Planning Department through ;the above stab coordinator, Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission Board of Adjustment and City should be submitted irl.the comment section below. ITEM 1 ?re VI & 110 n/� l► COMMENT ,S41.1.4 per DRC -- ?on r!. me_rmo 7 • i GSS • P ' ■•• L_'/ J ar / Date: Comments prepared by: , p9/14 /0% CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT uildino ....:0 Planninn PROJECT . ge,ut2.rr (p Ci1i& Pubs ENViRON NTAL REVIEW Rov-iivG FORM EPIC: ZQ- fo arkslRec;.': ADDRESS s i' 14tritiutA Wzul fi, CJ • 124414- DATE TRANSMITTED -7 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED -7/169 Przc attach :. • 'en ran al. checklist was received regarding this project. Please revlevit.> mnt'be • o.advise:the responsible official. regarding: the threshold determination • • . envir•• nmental review fileIs.'available • in; the Planning .Department through the above s . • ordinator.:Comrnents regarding the project you: wish carried to the Planning Co.Frim�ss card of Adjustment and City; Council should be submitted in the carrmant secttor> betc>r�. • ITEM COMMENT Date: 7 Comments prepared by: r ENVIRON NTAL REVIEW ROUT' p G FORM CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EPIC: 2Q- go PROJECT 1 iujY pAt 9 IC ADDRESS 5.1-* VA q(,yLQ1 Wz9 S • t Z446- DATE TRANSMITTED 74g/4 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED -7/1(e PRc The attached environmental checklist was received regarding'' this project. Please review an comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination environmental review file is available in the Planning Department through the above staff coordinator, Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section. below. ITEM COMMENT Date: Comments prepared by: , 09114/89 ENTAL CHECKLIST Con, No. Epic File No. 2— 9Q Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 1/1PIP p577 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Riverton Operations Center/6WAITYPCIFIC 2. Name of applicant: The Callison Partnership /Agent for Security Pacific Bank Washington 3. 'Address and phone number f applicant a d c t t son •(206) 623 -4646 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400, Seattle, WA 961U-2343 LotLaeL: &nard Ruff 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Estimated Building Permit submittal: end of July, Estimated start or construction: mid - September 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or No further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 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. No. • • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed f nr lyotur _roonsal . Sensitive Area Ordinance Waiver, Boar o Architectural view, i i ye Building Permit 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. A 14,976.5..sf addition to existing computer room., 906.5 f addition to exis -tang mec ca room. • Reconfiguration o existing parking -I along E. Marginal Way S. and new landscap ng. 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. Project Address: 12400 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98124 Reter to Attachment "A" for legal descry cr vicinity map. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes. Steep slope on south side of property (greater than 157) falls under the definitior of sensitive area per proposed nsittve7Ar tna'nee. ,TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIIIIf Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Mostly flat with steep slope on south side. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 4070 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 not any rime farmland. Dense silty . sands and gravels . d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Evacuation for structural foun tions only. No site regrading or fill required. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, generally describe. No. Proposed construction will tae pace in relatively flat area of site. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project pnstruction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 6 °40 • 1 Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Existing catch basins within the area of conSLLUCLiou activity will be protected to prevent introduction of sediments into the storm drainage system.. 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. Moderate increase in vehicle emissions during construction. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None. 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. ° • • 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. No 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 affected. Indicate the source of fill material. one. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type 19 f. waste and anticipated volume of discharge. 0 • 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. No. 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 animal or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. one. 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. No change in surface water runoff volumes. Exist storm water systems to be relocated to aceouiiiclaLe proposed addition. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: None. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Refer to Attachment "C". c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.None • d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Refer to Attachment "C'. 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, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: None. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. Evaluation for Agency Use Only. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Heating: Natural gas; Cooling: Electricity; Lighting.and Equipment: Electricity; Emergency Power Generation: Diesel Fueliinn underground tanks (existing). b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Building to be insulated in accordance with the Washington state Energy Code. 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. No. 1) Describe spec tal. emergency services that might be required. one. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: None. • • 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)? None. . 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. Construction activity for a period of six 'Lundrs'. flours of construction: Approximately 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current site use: Office and warehouse. Property to south: NO use established. Property to north: Metro Transit facility. Property to west: Ancillary parking tot. Propety to east: Freeway (interurban Ave.). b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any. structures on to ite, One two -story building of approximately 255,054 s of painted coucLete panel construction. • d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? ■-1, Light Industry f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Light Industry g. If applicable, what is the current shoreling master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive area? jf SC), ecify. Yes. The slope on the south side of the site ta.s been classified as a Class III Area of Potential Geologic Instability. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? employees j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans if any: The p oposed development will not take place on t will also be outside any sensitive area buffer. .a VA' . - . Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • 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? Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 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? 17' above finish grade. Exterior building materials will be primarily painted concrete tiltup panel b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed s, measures ny: New addition or be finished .aesthetic impacts, if any: match the existing structure. • • 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 mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N °• c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal ?None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? None known. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. • 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. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 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. Site currently served by E. Marginal Way S. Addition of one driveway to E. Marginal Way S. tor tire department access only. No other change to existing driveways. Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. Metro transit stop located directly :: in front of the project site. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 687. 39 spaces eliminated, 22 spaces added. 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 (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known indicate ,+tl�n peak volumes would occur. Refer to Attachment D . g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: None. 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 so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas,- water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. 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 imryediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity 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 make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: -417/1v PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. TO•BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA r Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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? Installation of one new 880 emergency diesel generator will slightly inc:Leese eiIL55ions o e air. - e -. • basis and would otherwise operate ILy Llrcurnstances . Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None. 2. How would the proposal be likely o affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? No affects lientpiriea. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: None. • • 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Moderate increase in the consumption of electricity. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to protect or conserve nergy and • natural resourses are: Proposed addition shall be insulated . in accordance with current Washington State Energy (lode. 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 farmlands? No affects identified. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or horelip uses incompatible with existing plans? No of ects identified. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: None. How does the proposal, conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? Not applicable. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public ervipes and utilities.? Slight increase in only electric consumption. Ny transportation impacts since no new sLafE Lo be added tor expansion. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws ,pr eau iremeits fared. the protection of the environment. 411 • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC• • 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? To increase data processing capacity of the existing facility. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Construct new, larger facility at different location. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Security Pacific Bank has not acquired an alternate site for construction of a new . facility and has no plans . to do so. expansion of the existing facility provides the most economical means to meet the data processing requirements of the bank. The expansion would ai1o,_be_ the ..least intrusive on normal operations and have the least environmental impact compared to the construction of any new facility. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None. -23- • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTA M l la THAT PORTION OF TRACTS 21, 22, 31 and 32, RIVERSIDE INTERURBAN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 10, OF PLATS, PAGE 74, IN KING COUNTY, WASH- INGTON, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1, FOSTER INTERCHANGE TO SOUTH 118TH STREET, AS CONDEMNED UNDER SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 646846, THAT BEARS SOUTH 04 °33'59" EAST 165.03 FEET DISTANT FROM THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF THE WEST MARGIN, HIGHWAY ENGINEERS STATION 76 +05.30 SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN OPTION AGREEMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITORS FILE NO. 7506090402; THENCE SOUTH 04 °33'59" EAST ALONG SAID MARGIN 615.17 FEET TO A POINT LYING 110 FEET WESTERLY OF AND OPPOSITE ENGINEERS STATION 68 +25; THENCE SOUTH 58 °19'00" WEST ALONG SAID HIGHWAY MARGIN 230.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 18°09'20" EAST ALONG SAID HIGHWAY MARGIN 36.80 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACT 32 OF THE RIVERSIDE INTERURBAN TRACTS; THENCE NORTH 89 °1724" WEST 476.97 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACTS 31 AND 32 TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF EAST MARGINAL WAY AS ESTABLISHED BY WARRANTY DEED FOUND IN KING COUNTY RECORDS, KING COUNTY RECORDERS NUMBER 7412090465; THENCE NORTH 18 °38'24" WEST 12.65 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN; THENCE NORTH 12 °54'24" WEST 443.48 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN; THENCE NORTH 10°0724" WEST 333.78 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OPTION AGREEMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 7506090402; THENCE SOUTH 89 °1724" EAST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACTS 31 AND 32 RIVERSIDE INTERURBAN TRACTS, A DISTANCE OF 774.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN- NING. "A" • 0 ATTACI]T "B" LOCATION MAP KII) VICINITY MAP • ATTACHMENT ''B" WAREHOUSE VAN BAY MICROGRAPHI PARKING COMPUTER RO EXPANSION PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 R.O.C. XPANSION ANCILLARY PARKING (SEPARATE PHASE) fw /w • • • PLANT UST Vin 101 ?j-NYi- Mau aL. (PR■ tin) iv? q rtNAB " A 5 PC6g. iei18'W0MM / FI ATA-0 - %alb 6 4 ?gVII$ .)UettIQttuAiNI OM,1 duhs- .IVMuM' UOS Gi41 #4,1 p A fgetn, Gfi446I c lTI VNp g. 44op I • lJOC WD Fi�M It (0 TO "NOWk fl.k Th ' CeNz F 1Q F&Pil U 'fl • D tAS f114 14 Pkgbutv<, u »E0 - 4)TitAiftgq , io Niciboot40.64 - f fibD4 I 4. rite* N)Afboi0k Vot. ' f e fit' - nw emit i.,t`fi Iotv OrAfcvt+ utodolui- Net N wi J x141' MAfirAI' V 110 46 vgAiifepPltilviivt.4goup 1- VOW p ftuM Af=t N - RItOte,Df010 - g Witivi T ) F1 ti Jotoolaglwit eF TiloroWt1 AIPtiacolp cAl,o i o(uM - 111 )otkOS NOTES Tito- 1.94,4 /2' C � 'Ott 18 "mot lt°.t (o�Mf 74 1, AU, rL T1uei BED'S fio g.l I`�VG (, 'I'l ftN'Ci�► - u. 2 C1N�i f'�rf frsWL k• 15tIU/ pips lu P ► �MfU1' aWt TO gWPiti 2" fluE r Wyk, i f' iur. 4N flAktill '1, r4 i- I'ifkNt All Molt ii tear 4N.4 A5 DLfhILP O t t' f i1pKot„ 3. MA, Wit WiluoT V605 bE Ilk Atn oirtt rota► tw i P-WMM1O wu%t olt/t,bi 1129- A-rim SYSrtn tb IL-IIM NIa J f; AfPIra4- 4. Eplito MRT aAd- tb f5au.ro, gf.Mai>tip VjearLf4), IMI►JtAkOo # RtflAt00, S. At ruor MATP.fe.IAL 54jpu- P lruh.l►JTID +TEAL 4 bL VV t' AMIiIIMUM' of el* `IMIL ff4A6 1U13 /Wilk CAA Pl41101.1 V■)%t, Porno MA-14.0 Mkt O hitew whtiabitc I ATTACHMENT 'C' Transportation and Traffic Engineering • PLANNING • DESIGN \-11 -\ JUL - 3 1990 THE CALL SON PARTNERSHIP ATTACHMENT "D" The Transpo Group June 28, 1990 TG: 90334.00 Mr. Leonard Ruff The Callison Partnership, Ltd 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: SECURITY PACIFIC BANK RIVERTON OPERATIONS CENTER EXPANSION - TRIP GENERATION Dear Mr. Ruff: Thank you for asking The TRANSPO Group to assist you with an analysis of trip generation for the proposed expansion of Security Pacific Bank's Riverton Operations Center (ROC). This letter presents a sn immary of our analysis. At the request of City of Tukwila staff, trip generation for the following two scenarios were analyzed: • Scenario 1: Continued occupancy of the facility by Security Pacific Bank's Riverton Operations Center. • Scenario 2: Occupancy of the facility by other tenants with general office space requirements. Project Description The proposed expansion of the Riverton Operations Center (ROC) will increase the existing two -story facility by 15,883 gross square feet (gsf), from 255,054 gsf to 270,937 gsf. The expansion will consist of a 14,977 gsf addition to the existing computer wing and a 906 gsf addition to the equipment storage area. The increased floor area will allow for more effi- cient operations by existing staff. No increase in the number of employees is expected as a result of the proposed expansion. Scenario 1- Occupied by ROC Under this scenario (continued occupancy of the facility by the ROC), no increase in site - generated trips is expected as a result of the proposed expansion. This is due to the fact that no increase in the number of employees is expected. Scenario 2 - New Tenant This scenario was analyzed by comparing trip generation for the existing facility with a general- office -use tenant with trip generation for the expanded facility with a general -office- use tenant. Trip generation was developed using regression equations published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation (4th Edition, 1987). The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 14715 Bel -Red Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98007 FAX:2061747 -3688 2061641 -3881 Mr. Leonard Ruff June 28, 1990 Page 2 The Transpo Group The equations used are. derived from case studies compiled by ITE of office developments around the country. The resulting trip generation for the existing and expanded facilities are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Trip Generation With General Office Tenantsl Floor Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Area Trips Trips Trips Expanded Facility 270,937 gsf 2,897 472 450 Existing Facility 255.054 asf 2.769 448 428 Increase Due To Expansion 15,883 gsf 128 24 22 1 Source: ITE Trip Generation, 4th Edition, 1987, Land Use Category #710. Summary Under the scenario of continued occupancy of the facility by Security Pacific Bank's ROC, no increase in site - generated trips is expected as a result of the proposed expansion. Under the scenario of occupancy of the facility by other general office tenants, the proposed expansion will result in an increase of 128 daily trips, including 24 AM peak hour trips and 22 PM peak hour trips. I trust this information will be useful in evaluating the proposed expansion. Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, The TRANSPO Group, Inc. Milton G. Lim Transportation Engineer MGL /mlm • Re: Security Pacific Bank Washington Riverton Operations Center Traffic Study Project Number 89163.03 • Dear Mr. Cameron. • • This letter will serve to address your concerns expo in the meeting minutes from the project pre - application conference held June 7,1990. 1. Identify number of parking stalls lost on site. Response 39 parking stalls will be deleted in the proposaL 2. Where axe lost parking stalls to be located? Response 17 existing parking stalls will be re-configured parking in the southerly from angle p��'g to head-in side of the proposed addition. This totals a t\rreduscion of 7 ppaar�& along north ` • 3. • Are Additional parking stalks required? less 2 /oil e 7,rr_eGcs = 3 �L�/ nay j Response No. The totalfross floor area of 270,937 sf four stalls/I,000 sf.� 6$7 _p ly std win be provid requires 678 stalls at a ratio of 4. Will any parl°ng be supplied on the east side of E. Marginal Way? Response Yes. There are ccarendy 270 stalls provided in the ancillary parking lot on the east side of E Marginal Way. 5. What is the existing parking usage? a - • Parking stalls used? . • . • • • - •c • -b ....�a: • y • • 1420 Rfth Menu* Situ 2400 4i101R Washington (206) 623646 FAX: (206) 6235 • ••• • 82 • 2 Cos I- _(_ Ggo /4 C3/.1-.0 ,; • rir. Ron Cameron, City Engineer Qty of Tukwila Public Works Department Project Number 89163.05 Jay 1.7,1990 Page 2 Response: During normal operation. the on -site parking lot is typically 80 - 90% full and . the ancillary lot is 25 - 30% full. At peak times (shift changes) the on-site lot is again 80 - 90% full and the ancillary lot is approximately 75% full. Parking availability is approximately 229 stalls during normal operation and approximately 107 stalls during peak volumes. 6. Is there any increased pedestrian traffic across E. Marginal Way? Response: No. Earlier this year, the bank relocated approximately 250 employees to a different facility. Pedestrian traffic across E. Marginal Way has decreased accordingly. 7. What are the existing pedestrian 'volumes associated with the development? Response: Approximately 1,000 employees work at the facility during a 24-hour period; divided into three shifts of approximately 450, 325 and 325 employees. The maximum pedestrian volume would occur at the change of first and second shifts wherein 450 staff wotild be leaving and 325 would be arriving. At present the ancillary parking lot provides approximately 35% of the total parking used for the facility which would represent approximately 158 staff crossing E. Marginal Way to leave work and approximately 114 staff crossing E. Marginal Way to arrive at work. However, it should be noted that all 773 employees involved in the shift change would not be leaving or arriving all at once as the second shift arrives before the first shift leaves. 8. Are the any company employee crossing concerns? Response: No concerns identified. 9. Are there any increases in the number of employees? Response The proposed addition will not require additional staff. Three employees currently working elsewhere in the facility will be relocated to the addition. Furiher, the bank estimates that over the next three years, the staff increase will only be approximately 2 %. (Refer to Attachment "A ".) 10. Reference agreement for funding pedestrian signals should that need develop and be ultimately approved by the Oty. Response The pedestrian crosswalk linking the fadlity to the ancillary parking lot is currently served with a lighted crosswalk sign and flashing yellow signal. No agreements for further modifications of the pedestrian crosswalk signal are anticipated at this time. • • • ukwila Publi Number 89163 0, 1990 e3 orks Department • I have also included for your reference a copy of the Trip Generation Study based on ITT standards prepared by The Transpo Group for this proposal. (Refer to Attachment -13".) Please do not hesitate to call if I can provide any additional Inforn-latIon, or answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, .THE CALL/SON PARTNERSHIP, LTD. _Ja Leonard A. Ruff L4%Rg co Security Pacific Bank Dave McDonald Callisort Gerry Gerron, S. Ram Prasad, Jim Rothwell, File No. 9 arion and Traffic Engineering • N NING • DESIGN • FN.Er .ti / I • I ti JUL - 3 1990 THE CALL'SON PARTNERSHIP 1-11. 11-11. r1 dV1 The Transpo Group June 28, 1990 TO: 90334,00 Mr. Leonard Ruff The Callison Partnership, Ltd 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: SECURITY PACIFIC BANK RIVERTON OPERATIONS CENTER EXPANSION - TRIP GENERATION Dear Mr. Ruff: Thank you for asking The TRANSPO Group to assist you with an analysis of trip generation for the proposed expansion of Security Pacific Bank's Riverton Operations Center (ROC). This letter presents a summary of our analysis. At the request of City of Tukwila staff, trip generation for the following two scenarios were analyzed: • Scenario 1: Continued occupancy of the facility by Security Pacific Bank's Riverton Operations Center. • Scenario 2: Occupancy of the facility by other tenants with general office space requirements. Project Description The proposed expansion of the Riverton Operations Center (ROC) will increase the existing two -story facility by 15,883 gross square feet (gsf), from 255,054 gsf to 270,937 gsf. The expansion will consist of a 14,977 gsf addition to the existing computer wing and a 906 gsf addition to the equipment storage area. The increased floor area will allow for more effi- cient operations by existing staff. No increase in the number of employees is expected as a result of the proposed expansion. Scenario 1- Occupied by ROC Under this scenario (continued occupancy of the facility by the ROC), no increase in site - generated trips is expected as a result of the proposed expansion. This is due to the fact that no increase in the number of employees is expected. Scenario 2 - New Tenant This scenario was analyzed by comparing trip generation for the existing facility with a general-office-use tenant with trip generation for the expanded facility with a general-office- use tenant. Trip generation was developed using regression equations published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE) publication, Trip Generation (4th Edition, 1987). The TRANSPO Grow. lnc. 147;5 Bel -Red Road. Suite 100 Bellevue. Washington 98007 FAX:2061747 -3688 2061641 -3881 Mr. Leonard Ruff June 28, 1990 Page 2 • Transpo Group The equations used are. derived from case studies compiled by 1TE of office developments around the country. The resulting trip generation for the existing and expanded facilities are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Trip Generation With General Office Tenants' Floor Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Area Trips Trips Trips Expanded Facility 270,937 gsf 2,897 472 • 450 Existing Facility 255,054 asf 2.769 448 428 Increase Due To Expansion 15,883 gsf 128 24 22 1 Source: RE Trip Generation, 4th Edition, 1987, Land Use Category #710. • Summary Under the scenario of continued occupancy of the facility by Security Pacific Bank's ROC, no increase in site - generated trips is expected as a result of the proposed expansion. Under the scenario of occupancy of the facility by other general office tenants. the proposed expansion will result in an increase of 128 daily trips, including 24 AM peak hour trips and 22 PM peak hour trips. I trust this information will be useful in evaluating the proposed expansion. Please call me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely. The TRANSPO Group, Inc. l 4-- V Milton G. G. Lim Transportation Engineer MGL /mlm City of Tukwila PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMEIJT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -0179 Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director M E M O R A N D U M TO: Phil Fraser FROM: Ron Cameron DATE: June 7, 1990 SUBJECT.: Riverton. Operations Center - Request for Traffic Study The Developer shall address the following questions and provide the appropriate information via their traffic engineers in order that Public Works may determine the appropriate pedestrian /vehicular impacts and mitigations. 1. Identify number of parking stalls lost on site. 2. Where are lost parking stalls to be located? 3. Are additional parking stalls required? 4. Will any parking be supplied on the east side of East Marginal Way? 5. What is the existing parking usage? A. Parking stalls used? B. Available parking stalls? 6. Is there any increased pedestrian traffic across East Marginal Way? 7. What are the existing pedestrian volumes associated with the development? 8. Are there any company employee crossing concerns? 9. Are there any increases in the number of employees? • 10. Reference agreement for funding pedestrians signals should that need develop and be ultimately approved by the City. The contact for delivery of this traffic /pedestrian study shall be Ron Cameron, City Engineer, Tukwila Public Works Department, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Wa. 98188. xc: Development File: Riverton Operations Center (Pre -App dated 6/7/90) pf /AMC:5: ROC f Minutes - Regular Meeting July 16, 1990 Page 2 Consent'Agenda (con't) BID AWARDS Award Park Trails Project to ARM Construction PUBLIC HEARINGS Request for Waiver to Ord. #1550 (Moratorium) - Sharley Development Co. Hearing Closed - 7:45 p.m. Request for Waiver to Ord. #1150 - (Moratorium) A & H Corporation Request for Waiver to Ord. #1550 - (Moratorium) Security Pacific Automation Company • • Councilman Rants requested that item 6c be withdrawn and discussed under item 9c. *MOTION CARRIED. ITEMS 6a, 6b, and 6d, ARE APPROVED AS SUBMI"T"TED. At Council's request, Don Williams clarified the alternative actions available in awarding the bid. Councilmember Ekberg asked for further detailed information on the project including the location of the trails, the financial impacts, and the benefit to the City. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO FORWARD THIS ISSUE TO THE SPECIAL MEETING ON JULY 23. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor VanDusen opened the hearing at 7:33 p.m. Rick Beeler, Director of DCD, explained that Sharley Development is requesting the waiver to be able to proceed with and complete the Shoreline Review, SEPA, Design Review and Building Permit process to develop an 111 unit motel on 'Property located at the southwest corner of 1-405 and the West Valley Highway, 15635 West Valley Highway. The property is adjacent to Wetland #17 and would require a 50 foot buffer; otherwise, the property is essentially flat. Larry Sharley, Sharley Development Co., expressed hardship because he is paying $8,000 per month on undeveloped land. He is willing to file an agreement to conform to the adopted Sensitive Areas Ordinance and to process the application at his own risk and expense. Councilman Duffle commented that he is not in favor of granting the waiver because the final SAO may change the requirements in the area. MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE WAIVER BE GRANTED TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE WITH ALL PERMIT PROCESSES UP TO THE POINT OF CONSTRUCTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. The hearing was declared open at 7:55 p.m. Rick Beeler explained that the applicant's property is located at 15200 S. 151st Street. He needs a waiver in order to proceed with and complete the EIS and design review for two 8 unit apartment buildings. There are steep slopes on the western portion of the property. Staff is recommending the request be denied based upon the speculative nature of the proposal. No definite development plan is proposed. Amir Husseini, A & H Corporation, informed the Council that the purchase price of the property included the design of the 8 unit buildings which were drawn up in 1985. It was determined that site plans were available but had not been given to the Planning Department for review. At Councilman Robertson's suggestion, the applicant agreed to return to the Planning Department and amend his waiver to include the site plans. Mr Beeler noted he could review the plans prior to next week's meeting. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, TO POSTPONE A DECISION ON THIS MATTER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE SPECIAL MEETING ON JULY 23. MOTION CARRIED. The hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. According to Rick Beeler, the applicant is seeking a waiver in order to expand the existing data center with computer room and mechanical room expansions. Security Pacific Automation Company has a facility in operation at this time at 12400 East Marginal Way So. July 16, 1990 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OFFICIALS SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Swearing in of New Police Officers CITIZEN COMMENTS CONSENT AGENDA TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Regular Meeting MINUTES Mayor VanDusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. JOE H. DUFFIE; DENNIS ROBERTSON; JOAN HERNANDEZ, Council President; CLARENCE MORIWAKI; ALLAN EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, JOHN RANTS. LAURA ANDERSON, Office of the City Attorney; RICK BEELER, Director, Office of Community Development; ALAN DOERSCHEL, Finance Director; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; TOM KEEFE, Interim City Administrator; RON WALDNER, Chief of Police; DON WTI J JAMS, Parks and Recreation Director; Mayor VanDusen administered the Oath of Office to Michael Werden, William Bales, and Ross Fukuda and welcomed the new police officers to the City. Mr.William Holstein , new Tukwila resident, explained that his family had recently moved to the City from unincorporated King County. He planned to expand the garage along the property line not realizing that the City's setback requirements were more stringent than the County's. He feels that to implement the codes of the City would give him an odd looking building. The City denied his application and the Board of Adjustment denied his appeal. Mr. Holstein requested that Council review his case. Mayor VanDusen explained that the board's decision is appealable only through the court system. However, it may be possible to request another hearing by the Board of Adjustment. a. Approval of Vouchers General Fund $156,180.56 City Street 10,966.49 Arterial Street 81,083.17 Land Acq., Building, Dev. 20,001.50 Water Fund 8,927.88 Sewer Fund 67,567.33 Water/Sewer Construction 200,741.60 Foster Golf Course 8,764.34 Surface Water (412) 200.28 Equipment Rental 39,458.08 Firemen's Pension 306.30 TOTAL $594,197.53 b. Acceptance of Deed, Easements and Developers Agreement for Target Stores. c. Final Acceptance of Gilliam Creek & So. 150th Street Repairs as completed by Rodarte Construction, and authorize release of retamage in the amount of $1,500. d. A Resolution authorizing application for funding asssistance for an aquatic land enhancement account project to the Department of Natural Resources. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.* Minutes - Regular Meeting July 16, 1990 Page 3 I Public Hearings (con't) 1, Hearing Closed at 8:12 p.m. OLD BUSINESS Ord. #1576 - Amending Planning Fees Consideration of Cascade View/Mid -Year Budget • The existing building and the requested expansion occur in the flat portion of the property. The slope on the property will not be touched or impacted by the proposed expansion. Portions of the existing paved parking would be removed and replaced by structure. Leonard Ruff, Callison Partnership, explained that there is no room for growth in the data processing's present configuration. The proposed addition represents about five years worth of anticipated growth. The slope is the only sensitive area on the property; the proposed addition will have no impact on the slope. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY RANTS, TO APPROVE THE WAIVER REQUEST SUBJECT TO FILING AN AGREEMENT TO CONFORM TO THE ADOPTED SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE AND TO PROCEED AT THE PETITIONER'S RISK AND EXPENSE.* Rick Beeler clarified that the conditions imposed are that the waiver is subject to filing the standard agreement *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Anderson read an Ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, amending City of Tukwila Ordinance Nos. 1014, 1247, and 1425; amending Chapters 17.08.050, 17.12.030, 17.12.040, 17.16.030, 18.88.010, and 21.04.310 of the Tukwila Municipal Code; and amending application and processing fees for subdivisions, planning and shoreline reviews, and environmental reviews. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1576 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Larry Frazier, Seattle Master Builders Assn., commented against raising the fees without any input from the building industry. Mr. Frazier requested that in the future, he be notified of any pending increases. *MOTION CARRIED. It was reported that the Transportation Committee had recommended the large capacity dump truck and snow plow be removed from the mid -year budget change and be forwarded to the 1991 budget. Finance Director Alan Doerschel clarified that the monies for the street trucks will come out of the Ending Fund Balance in the Street Fund. Therefore, any trucks denied will not free up money for new positions. Councilman Rants commented that it appeared there was more budget work for 1991 to be done before approving additional mid -year hiring this year. It has been proposed that Council hold a mini retreat to take an in -depth look at the overall budgeting process. Mayor VanDusen commented on the importance of the policy making body to look closely at the spending plans. He reiterated his priority Likings for mid -year to be the five police officers and the assistant to the City Administrator. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS SHOWN WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: REMOVE THE LARGE CAPACITY DUMP TRUCK ($80,000 - STREET) AND THE HEAVY SNOW PLOW; THE NEW POSITION REQUESTS BE ONLY APPROVED DOWN THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE Minutes - Regular Meeting July 16, 1990 Page 4 Old Business (con't) Cascade View/Mid Year Budget Gilliam Creek - Final Acceptance of Repairs and Release of Retainage NEW BUSINESS Res. #1149 - Authorizing Application for I.A.C. Grant and Adoption of Green River Trail Plan Authorize Contract with Perteet Constr. for I -5/ I -405 and So. 150th St. Projects MAYOR'S OFFICE WHICH MEANS ONLY THE FIVE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT WOULD BE INCLUDED.* MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE .25 TIME YOUTH RECREATION LEADER, EXPANDING THIS POSITION TO FULLTIME. MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. Councilman Rants requested clarification on what the $5,000 change order was. Ross Earnst explained that the change order was the result of the fisheries permit that was required m order to do the repair work on the creek. MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO ACCEPT AS FINAL THE REPAIRS OF GILLIAM CREEK AND SO. 150TH STREET AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF RETAINAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Rants was excused from the meeting at 8:40 p.m. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Anderson read a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, authorizing applications for funding assistance for an outdoor recreation project to the Interagency Committee for outdoor recreation. MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY EKBERG, THAT RESOLUTION NO.1149 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, TO ACCEPT THE 1987 KING COUNTY GREEN RIVER MASTER TRAIL. SITE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MMAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH PERTEET ENGINEERING FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD I -5/1 -405 AND SO. 150TH STREET PROJECTS. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO APPLY FOR AN EMERGENCY PUBLIC WORKS TRUST FUND LOAN AND TWO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LOANS FOR SURFACE WATER UTILITY PROJECTS; AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN LOAN CERTIFICATIONS.* Councilman Duffle noted that this item had been discussed at the Utilities Committee meeting this evening and was brought forward with a recommendation for approval. Councilman Robertson commented that the surface water utility is an expensive utility to operate. Rates were raised, but there still is not enough money available. *MOTION CARRIED.